Pilotless airplane

[TangoJuliet]

As drones become more popular and advanced in sure in the next decade or so we may see airlines try to move passengers without as many pilots.

Most planes being flown today are done so by auto pilot. So hypothetically an airline could setup stations where a single pilot could monitor a couple flights. I'm sure they would have to formulate plans in the events of emergencies, etc but reducing a pilot workforce of say 10-12,000 to 2,000 would significantly reduce operating expenditures.

So all that being said would you fly on a passenger airplane to save on airfare. Say a current ticket costs $300 round trip from NY to FL with a pilot. The pilotless ticket would be $100.

(wish I knew how to create a poll)

 

[Wyndru]

What happens when communications to the plane break up for some reason...

This guy inflates:

 

[EagleKeeper]

AS long as peoples lives are dependent on someone in control; the Federal Government will not allow full automation/external control of transportation.

This goes for vehicles, trains, planes and ships.

 

[zinfamous]

um yeah...no thanks.

 

[T9D]

AS long as peoples lives are dependent on someone in control; the Federal Government will not allow full automation/external control of transportation.

This goes for vehicles, trains, planes and ships.

The Government has already allowing Autonomous cars to drive around. And some laws are already created to incorporate them onto the roads.

 

[SheHateMe]

Right so, one pilot on the ground sitting behind a computer monitoring a bunch of computers flying around in the sky with 70+ people on board....

 

[Red Storm]

Sure, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[techs]

Say a current ticket costs $300 round trip from NY to FL with a pilot. The pilotless ticket would be $100.

(wish I knew how to create a poll)

If you think two thirds of the cost of a plane ticket is the pilots salary you have bigger issues than flying in a pilotless plane.

 

[Ruptga]

Yeah... the pilot's salary is nothing. Per some site I found on Google's first page, the fuel cost for a 737 is almost $5,100 PER HOUR.

 

[TangoJuliet]

The Government has already allowing Autonomous cars to drive around. And some laws are already created to incorporate them onto the roads.

thats correct. google has been asking CA to let them drive their mapping cars without operators.

Right so, one pilot on the ground sitting behind a computer monitoring a bunch of computers flying around in the sky with 70+ people on board....

Stop thinking about the logisitics in making it happen. Lets just say there are safeguards set up in the event of an emergency, etc. and everything was "safe". I'm probably talking 20-30 years in the future here.

If you think two thirds of the cost of a plane ticket is the pilots salary you have bigger issues than flying in a pilotless plane.

no shit. the flight crew typically make up about 7% of an airline's budget. there are many different factors that contribute to the operating cost of an airline such as fuel, advertising, leasing or purchasing aircraft, and maintenance amongst other things.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Yeah... the pilot's salary is nothing. Per some site I found on Google's first page, the fuel cost for a 737 is almost $5,100 PER HOUR.

It depends on the airplane. Look at the 787's numbers

 

[iRONic]

It depends on the airplane. Look at the 787's numbers

Right now their fuel cost is 0.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Right now their fuel cost is 0.

touché

 

[NikolaeVarius]

They'll never have a pilotless airplane. At minimum it will always be two people, a captain and a co-pilot. You always need someone on the stick just in case something goes wrong.

Computers are amazing and can manage 99.999% of flight conditions, however, if a computer fails when something like, lets say, every single pitot tube fails on an airplane, you're going to need a pilot to take over because a computer can't really do much without information.

 

[TangoJuliet]

They'll never have a pilotless airplane. At minimum it will always be two people, a captain and a co-pilot. You always need someone on the stick just in case something goes wrong.

Computers are amazing and can manage 99.999% of flight conditions, however, if a computer fails when something like, lets say, every single pitot tube fails on an airplane, you're going to need a pilot to take over because a computer can't really do much without information.

don't care....you are missing the point.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

don't care....you are missing the point.

Well its a stupid point.

There is no way its ever happening while humans fly on airplanes.

We're having enough trouble getting CARS to get permission to go driverless.

Over the history of flight, we're already reduced crews in cockpits, and it hasn't made anything cheaper. You are paying for fuel and maintenance. The crew is very little part of the overall cost.

 

[Red Storm]

don't care....you are missing the point.

Pilot salaries are not the major cost of a flight. So your OP doesn't really add up. We already sorta do this anyway, and it has not made flights cheaper.

 

[EagleKeeper]

AS long as peoples lives are dependent on someone in control; the Federal Government will not allow full automation/external control of transportation.

This goes for vehicles, trains, planes and ships.

The Government has already allowing Autonomous cars to drive around. And some laws are already created to incorporate them onto the roads.

With or without a person available to take control.

It is one thing to have auto-pilot capability; another for it to be used in a civilian setting without any human available to take control.

 

[darkxshade]

I wouldn't trust planes to be flown remotely when there's tens of thousands of planes in the sky at any given moment. I believe it could happen in the future but not in our lifetimes.

Drones don't carry passengers and there aren't that many being flown. And when there is, I think there's more than one person manning it.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Pilot salaries are not the major cost of a flight. So your OP doesn't really add up. We already sorta do this anyway, and it has not made flights cheaper.

Fine. I'll explain it a little differently then. Would you purchase a airline ticket from an airline that did not have physical pilots on board the plane to save *some* money on the flight.

Example

A Boeing 757 costs $56,000 to operate flying NY to LA round trip. The aircraft has 188 seats meaning the airline would need to charge $297/ticket to "break even" on the flights.

Taking a look at flights departing JFK-LAX on May 1, 2013 the price for economy class on Delta is $328 (B757-200). So based on this example if the airline did a single economy class and sold out the trip, they would make a profit of $31/ticket for a total of $5,800.

Lets say the pilot's (2) operating cost was 10% and were replaced by a remote pilot (3%)
the net gain would be 7% or almost $4000 saved. The total cost of the trip would now be $52,000 or roughly $275/ticket. Keeping the same $31/ticket profit and giving the passenger the cost savings of being pilotless that same ticket would be $306.

So would you pay $22/rt less to not have a pilot??

 

[TangoJuliet]

With or without a person available to take control.

It is one thing to have auto-pilot capability; another for it to be used in a civilian setting without any human available to take control.

You guys really need to get past that part. What if your flight attendant has been trained to fly the plane in an emergency? Its not a part of their duties but if pressed then he/she could sucessfully handle the issue(s).

I wouldn't trust planes to be flown remotely when there's tens of thousands of planes in the sky at any given moment. I believe it could happen in the future but not in our lifetimes.

Drones don't carry passengers and there aren't that many being flown. And when there is, I think there's more than one person manning it.

Since 2007 there have been 90 documented drone crashes. Its not a safe method of carrying passengers now but who is to say that one day it won't.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

You guys really need to get past that part. What if your flight attendant has been trained to fly the plane in an emergency? Its not a part of their duties but if pressed then he/she could sucessfully handle the issue(s).



Since 2007 there have been 90 documented drone crashes. Its not a safe method of carrying passengers now but who is to say that one day it won't.

No flight attendant is going to stay a flight attendant if he/she is trained well enough to actually be a viable pilot/computer replacement in an emergency situation. He/she is going to be a pilot instead.

There will never be a truly pilotless commercial airplane.

 

[techs]

Wasn't there a subway system that went driverless for awhile in the US?

 

[Pheran]

Computers are amazing and can manage 99.999% of flight conditions, however, if a computer fails when something like, lets say, every single pitot tube fails on an airplane, you're going to need a pilot to take over because a computer can't really do much without information.

Err, you realize what happened the last time every pitot tube failed on an airplane? The stupidity/error of the human pilot killed everyone on board.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No way. A drones crashes out in the middle of nowhere buttfuckistan and nobody is killed. One of these things crashes and you have hundreds of dead and more possible on the ground since most major airports are in metropolitan areas.

Can you imagine a pilotless aircraft flying into Manhattan?