I'll re-check my math all week if you like. It's barely relevant in light of far larger issues.goldeneagle wrote:Recheck your math, because that single machine doesn't replace just one pilot, it replaces all of the crews on staff to keep one airframe airborne. In a high utilization operation, that's a dozen or more, and somewhat smaller numbers at a low utilization operation, but not likely to go below 6, ie 3 crews.dukepoint wrote: Over a pilots entire Major Airline career, they would earn less than 3 million dollars. Until they develop a component that can interface flawlessly with all aircraft systems, and deal with EVERY contingency imaginable while airborne...... as good as or better than a human pilot........and price that component LESS than 3 million dollars (including the connection interface), this is a rediculous concept at best.
Math isn't going to change the fact that single pilot airliners, nor pilotless ones for that matter, are even on a drafting table somewhere. They aren't because no one is dumb enough to spend development funding on a concept that will be an extremely hard sell to airlines. There is NO infrastructure even in the works yet. When driverless cars, and driverless trains are the norm, then I'll have another look. Remember that these operate in two-dimensions, over relatively small distances, and are less subject to weather phenomenon. Aircraft cover vast distances in three dimensions, and you cannot just stop it, get out and kick it if something goes amiss, like in the aforementioned.
Check the Boeing/Airbus customer database and name ONE Airline that would be willing to put in an order for a pilotless airliner. Economics dictates product development. There has to be a market first, which there isn't. It make this whole issue pointless to discuss. Come back in 15 years, and B&A will still be pumping out 787/A350 derivatives. With TWO pilot seats.
Bother someone else about pointless detail on a pointless debate. You will not likely fly on one in your lifetime, nor will I.
DP.
