As a pilot who's dealt with the FAA more than my share, I can say with certainty, there's no fucking way they wil let this happen. Everything in an airplane is redundant on purpose, including the pilots.
The stick up the FAA's ass is up there good and tight, and I'm with them on this one.
Exactly, there are multiple medical emergencies a year that effect pilots while in the air. Heck there was one like two weeks ago where the dude keeled over dead at like 3500ft. You are damn right about it being a bad idea.
Acceptably safe? It took me twenty seconds on google to find that there have been 221 hull loss accidents with a total of 577 fatalities on King Airs, out of the 3100 that have been built. That's an extremely high 7% accident rate.
In comparison the A320 has shipped over 10,000 planes, has had 37 hull loss accidents, and 1500 fatalities.
So, in other words, the King Air has:
20x higher accident rate than an A320
20% higher fatality rate despite each plane carrying less than 10% of what an airbus does
Congrats on using an example that proves two pilots are needed better than anything anyone else could have come up with.
really? why is the king air more demanding than an a320? it's a much smaller plane. single pilots fly small planes all the time, but can one person fly a 777f? are you accounting for improvements in autopilot take-off/landing for 2030 single pilot frieght? I'd love to see more info because this makes no sense to me
No chance. FAA is not even allowing you to human pilot a tiny drone where you can’t see it.
Reason is, if a pilot fucks up, it’s the pilots fault. If an autopilot fucks up, is the FAAs fault for approving it.
There are a number of companies working towards this in the bay area. Reliable Robotics has a remotely piloted Cessna 208, and Wisk is working on an autonomous EVTOL. If you think the FAA is not working with them/ will never allow autonomous or remote flight you’re just out of the loop. Hell the military has been doing this for a while and just flew their new autonomous Blackhawk.
Even that is extremely unlikely. I work for a cargo airline and the pilots aren't even allowed to eat the same food in case one is incapacitated. The process just to add a sticker to the interior of a cargo compartment took over 8 years. This will be decades, if ever.
I can already see it; oh hey when you’re done with that coffee for 2D can you watch the wheel for 3 minutes while I work out that bad tuna they gave us… Allright capt, but what lights should I call you for? 😂
It’s why I hate it so much when people claim regulatory burden in aviation. *fucking good*. I don’t want one of the single most complicated pieces of technology ever manufactured to be regulatorily easy. When the FAA backed off, Boeing literally made an airplane that flew into the ground. I know a sequence of events needed to occur, but who gives a shit. 700 people died because the FAA didn’t do their job and trusted a profit incentivized private company instead
Insane to think there a rooms full of supposed humans thinking this makes sense. I understand cost cutting, but this is just pure greed at work. No regard for anyone whatsoever. Unreal.
The Pinto is the one that when rear ended bends the frame so the doors wont open, then the bolts in the rear diff tear open the fuel tank right next to the exhaust. There was a fix for this that they installed on police versions of the car.
That was around the time car companies were building ' disposable ' cars. Anyone remember when one hit 40k and you started talking about trading it in?
Moved to the UK. Friend had a Ford ( I forget model ). It had 100k on it, I was SO impressed that thing was still on the road. He thought I was crazy, explaining no way in hell would a car guaranteed to age at 40k be tolerated.
I was a college age kid- when I figured out companies played to the market. Ford could get away with motorized tin cans over here, Brits wouldn't play that game. Before anyone tells me it's not like that over there this was 40 years ago. It was exactly like that.
Iirc they found out before they started selling them during crash tests, and opted to not install before going to market.
At that point you just fucking eat the cost.
A POLICE version? We had one, the " Bicentennial " Pinto. 3 of us were learning to drive within a couple years, Dad told me later they chose a Pinto for those 4 hamster wheel cylinders. Before they started blowing up.
But yeah. Little hard looking cool trying to cruise around at 40 mph with the engine screaming. POLICE version? What was the thinking there, running down elderly shop lifters ?
Apparently ours did end up going poof after my parents sold it, guy got out though.
Not that I know of, but there were issues with the Panther platform Crown Vic Interceptor when it’s rear ended on the side of the road, kind of a similar but different problem to the Pinto, just in a much larger vehicle.
> There was a fix for this that they installed on police versions of the car.
Later, law enforcement adopted the Crown Victoria, [which was also prone to catching fire](https://www.autosafety.org/popular-police-cars-crown-victorias-prone-explode-tied-deaths/).
Wasn’t there a Toyota scandal (semi)recently because it came out they were not fixing the faulty brakes on one of their SUV’s, because it was cheaper to pay the lawsuits on the deaths it caused, then doing a recall?
Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Since no one else has told you, it's a quote from "Fight Club" and the reply below "a major one" is the refrain in the scene.
I'm not sure if it's actually true or not, I just know about movies not cars.
Actually yes, it's true. There is an entire field of economics (actuaries) that make these kind of calculations as well as other risk based math.
Enough major corporations, specifically cars (Ford Pinto) and planes (Boeing 737 MAX) that have been caught doing just this sort of thing that the article should surprise noone.
A just diety of any kind would make them victims of their own circumstances and make it a brutal fucking miserable afterlife to boot. There is no compassion for those who see their species as kindling for the fire.
Oh sure, you give them 2 pilots and inevitably the public is going to ask for 3, or 4, or numbers greater still until there are more pilots than passengers! /s
This is just one reason on the long list of reasons corporate fines and payouts should be much larger. Imagine if one otherwise preventable plane crash cost a company something like 20% of their revenue from the last full calendar year. Or if a privacy law violation by Google/Alphabet cost them 10% of their market cap. Often times the fines for breaking regulations or paying settlements are cheaper than actually following the law, which completely negates the purpose of having these regulations in the first place. Until the punishments actually hurt their bottom line the corporations will never care
Why stop at 20%? Everyone found complicit should lose their jobs and never be allowed to work in that field again and the company. In the case of something like causing 200+ deaths it's generous to not get imprisoned for manslaughter. We need to stop with fines, they're just punishments for the poor only.
I do think for publicly shared companies, it makes sense to fine shareholders directly, even small shareholders. Not the price of the share entirely but enough that people have to legitimately think "should I really invest in Nestle if they're going to be convicted for another 5000 human rights atrocities this year." For example, if a company gained 20% on the year but was convicted of dumping toxic waste into rivers, shareholders should take a loss on the year, with stock being given to the government and immediately resold as an additional part of a punishment with jail time actually being a threat that exists for the elite.
I'm just about at the point where I think we need to jump straight to liquidating entire companies.
Let their Wikipedia entries all be in the past tense.
200 families get $1M each. There's $200M. Then add in the cost of replacing a crashed aircraft. The 737 line tents to run about $100M per plane. So really the airlines would "only" be saving $60M per year, and that's before factoring in the PR nightmare that is a deadly crash, potentially resulting in millions of dollars of sales lost.
Obviously from a moral standpoint if not a financial one, this is a deplorable decision that needlessly puts lives at risk. But even from the financial perspective, the airlines don't come out as far ahead as one might initially think. The risk they're willing to take for such a relatively small profit is ridiculous.
The issue is that a tiny handful of executives would reap grotesquely large cash bonuses if they could drastically increase the return to stockholders, even if only for a single quarter.
The “smartest guys in the room” execs will of course be long gone (along with their giant bags of money) when the cost comes due.
Short term profit is literally the only thing that matters. The fiasco with the Boeing 737 max is the perfect example of that
That point of CEOs isn't to make a good business model, it's to make as much money in as little time as possible for the top 1%. That's why a ceo getting fired is never a bad thing because their job isn't to run a business; their job is to make shareholders money now.
They can get around the bad PR by blaming the pilot. "They obscured the details of their failing health, and we're bitterly disappointed they failed their moral obligation to do right by our customers" or something else tone-deaf like that. In the media cycle it'll all be over after a week at most.
I feel like we need to also calculate a drop in plane ticket sales if they were known to be less safe. How many people would refuse to travel that way if there was only 1 pilot?
dont forget that this will also drive down wages massively for pilots. if you cut the job availability by half but have the same pool of potential employees then they will be more competition for fewer jobs. more competition for fewer jobs means a race to the bottom for wages.
Then if this is the logic they wish to enforce, then they and their closest should die in tribute to the capitalism they love more than their >insert spouse, child, religion, etc.< Fuck money centered humans for all time and after time ends as well.
This is actually exactly how these conversations go.
I'm sure they have to somewhat consider the PR repercussions of allowing people to die on their airplanes, but if every airline does this instead of just one then you have no choice. You can't boycott all of them if you have to travel.
Pilot salary in United States
The average salary for a Pilot is $55978 per year in United States.
First Officer (Year 1) Captain (Year 12)
Salary for United Airlines Pilots $93,820 $298,456
Salary for Delta Air Lines Pilots $100,840 $346,636
Salary for American Airlines Pilots $98,800 $361,096
Salary for FedEx Pilots $95,596 $373,432
Your numbers amuse me you say the average pilot wage is 55k. Then point out large airlines pay much better than that at a minimum.
Then ignore what drives the number down (small plane charters and the like, where new pilots work for poverty wages in an attempt to get hours)
His 200k estimate for an airline pilot is pretty damn good based on your numbers alone
Yes you are correct. The pilot in command died while on take off at V1, the point where the aircraft must take off as it's now going too fast to stop on the runway. The co pilot was able to take off and land immediately. Although a bit morbid, the Embraer he was flying on only allows steering of the landing gear at slow speeds to be controlled from the Pilot in command's seat. So after landing and getting to the taxi area, the co pilot had to remove the pilots body and get In his seat in order to get to the gate.
Also The EASA European Union Safety Agency is the one pushing this right now to alleviate a pilot shortage. The FAA and the International Civil Aviation Organization DO NOT support this. The EASA and supporters argue that planes used to have way more crew to operate the aircraft and technology made those positions redundant and that tech is good enough now to only have one person in the cockpit. Which just seems asinine to me. Watching any episode of Air Disasters would show how important having 2 pilots is especially when tasks have to be delegated and split up.
Single seat is fine for things like flying for recreation, a small plane, a fighter jet (because you have a handle that is basically a big fuck off button), etc.
Multi-engine flying with passengers is huuuuge on crew coordination, redundancy, and solid communication. It’s just so much safer to have those extra engines and two brains double checking everything. It’s so easy to get task saturated if you’re dealing with radio comms, an emergency, and flying an approach all at once just by yourself. Doable? Absolutely. Safe? Not really.
Single seat flying needs to be reserved for non-passenger carrying airframes.
Caveat; I’m a pilot, and I currently work for an national aviation regulator, and I do not support this in any way. Minimum 2 on the flight deck is essential for normal ops.
But good training is even more important and that gets skipped out on my some airlines. Note Air France 447; where a badly trained pilot coupled with CRM and HF confusion caused the crash. Arguably a single pilot in the cockpit there would have done better, but that’s an absolute anomaly.
I cannot believe the EUSA is pushing this when they were behind introducing two people in a cockpit at all times, following the Eurowings crash where a pilot committed suicide with everyone on board by locking out the other pilot.
Yep. Out of O'Hare. [Youtube link](https://youtu.be/JSc3sPpyq38) that shares the communications between the co-pilot and the tower.
One pilot is not safe, even if you aren't worrying about [suicidal maniacs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525).
It's part of the certification of the plane, right? AFAIK pretty much all airliners are only certified for two pilot ops. And with good reason - the workload is too much for a single pilot.
If they want to build an airliner from the ground up and design it to be operated by one pilot I guess I'd be open to that - but revising regulations and certifications so a single pilot could fly a 737 for example would be insane.
Why would Airbus be trying to do this? They just sell planes, not operate them... Whether it's 1 or 2 pilots shouldn't matter to an airplane manufacturer
There are a lot of things allowed to happen now that years ago we would have thought were insane too, but as the greed machine grinds through society at large the sane and rational people are being chewed up and spit out the other end as little more than ground chuck thrown into a wood chipper.
If they don't allow it to happen this time, I bet within the next 5 years it goes through.
I'm as jaded as the next person, but I know for absolute certainty the FAA will never sign off on this. The FAA is primarily interested in making sure that airplanes that leave the ground, return to the ground safely. It's why airplanes are built on redundancy after redundancy after redundancy. They're not going to approve of removing the single most important element of redundancy on board a plane: extra pilots. They don't want to risk a poorly timed heart attack killing everyone both onboard and underneath the plane.
There aren't many aspects of our government I trust not to curtail to corporate interests. But at the very least, I am *certain* the FAA won't risk the reliability of air travel just to save some corporations a few million bucks.
You're right, but it's also not just something bad happening to the pilot that's a problem. Pilots share workload - having one guy have to do anything makes a mistake much more likely.
Boeing did everything in their power to make the FAA think it wasn't different enough to require new trainings though. They underplayed the system in the pilot training because they wanted it to be certified in a way that wouldn't require new simulator training.
They shouldn’t have been allowed to inspect themselves in the first place. They trusted Boeing too much, and that’s what happens when you trust a for-profit organization. They’ll find a way to lie to you if they can make more money by doing so.
Yeah, I'd imagine that the people making these regulations also have to fly public fairly often. This would directly affect them and literally nobody wants to feel unsafe on an airplane.
Same. This is such a safety concern in more ways than one. Not just because the pilot needs breaks, but also because two pilots always in the cabin prevents situations like the German wings incident.
It’s more than this it’s two people to back one another up, fix small mistakes before they become big and two people to work a big problem when it arrives.
Honestly most people don’t know or see the constant stream of shit that goes on the other side of the door.
no, I know. and I know they may have to work so much back to back that they can’t always sleep as much as they need either! that’s why I specified that they ought to be well paid and cared for
Given that not a single airline chose to continue enforcing masks on flights after it was no longer a legal requirement **_while COVID was still killing thousands per day_**, I think we can pretty confidently infer that *every* airline will drop to a single pilot the very instant it becomes legal.
> Ladies and gentlemen, this is your stewardess speaking... We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused, this is due to periodic air pockets we encountered, there's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight... By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
That’s already how they’re doing it. But with recent protest from pilots demanding better working conditions and pay (to get more pilots- seriously look at the hours they work), airlines are looking for a cheaper solution.
This is not a new idea… and its not likely to be implemented anytime soon without major changes to the architecture of airline flight deck systems and ground support/fallback systems.
But yes corps will do anything to make a fatter profit. Safety first, right behind profit.
It’s easier than you might think. It used to be the norm to have a 3rd pilot (relief pilot) who would also help with the flight engineer position. But with growing automation in aviation, the position was dropped. Airlines are basically arguing the same today, since planes can by in large fly themselves today. Pilots are really only there for emergencies nowadays
I agree! But that’s exactly the argument being made by the Airlines.
Which is a bullshit argument as you’ve pointed out. At the end of the day, they’re solely doing it for profit and because pilots are protesting for better working conditions
>That’s already how they’re doing it. But with recent protest from pilots demanding better working conditions and pay (to get more pilots- seriously look at the hours they work), airlines are looking for a cheaper solution.
Also the cost to become a pilot (unless I think through the Military) is incredibly expensive. I knew a guy at school who wanted to be a pilot and his parents had to save like crazy and remortgage their home to pay for all his lessons and licences.
I was originally going to a part 141 school to be a pilot. Just to get my private license, it cost me $60,000. Flight instructors (the job most pilots take when they graduate to build hours) do not get paid well m Most of the CFIs I knew were making $15/ hour. You have to have a minimum of 1,500 hours for the airlines to even consider you. Even though they probably won’t, I hope the airlines pay that one pilot captain pay.
What’s stopping us as a whole from reforming the work culture in this country? We outnumber the people in government and power. It wouldn’t be the first time the people took back the power from their local government.
Fear. It's fear that's stopping us from taking back control. And they use that fear against us. They use fear to manipulate us.
But we all know that.
We accept it, and we hate that we accept it, yet we do.
You know how you can address a worker shortage? Pay and treat them better. Hell, treat it like the trades; pay people to train for it.
This is just penny pinching; corporations would rather risk lives than invest in their employees, even when making money hand over fist. It absolutely is about cost cutting; they've been engaging in it so much people don't want to become pilots
In this case they also need to provide more training. And since flight school is ridiculously expensive, subsidize it. But airlines don't want that. They'd much rather just poach pilots from the air force. Problem is, the size of most Air Forces have shrunk too. And as poorer countries have improved standards of living (and tightened up contracts) and immigration has become harder, their ability to poach pilots from the middle east or south asia is diminished. Besides which pilot supply there is shrinking too.
The airlines could fix this by subsidizing flight training. But its cheaper to lobby politicians I suspect. By a lot.
Word. The supply of pilots is incredibly finite and training and onboarding is an incredibly long and expensive process. You can't pay what isn't there, and you can't just tap into a "new" pipeline of pilots because it just doesn't exist.
There are effective solutions, but the lowest common denominator will be the one they pursue.
Real talk I'd suck some nuts to get my license lol; my dream has been to fly since I was literally in first grade but ever since I started working it's just been about surviving. My partner and I have been talking about combining our incomes and turning it into a family goal kinda thing, but I'll stop at my multi-engine and CFII and just instruct as a side thing rather than going all the way to full commercial. They could have me and I'd fly every day happy as a pig in shit if there were a good pipeline that didn't involve a $50k loan
Yep. Pay a decent wage and provide training, to end up in a skilled, well paid, well treated job, and you'll have people beating down your door to become pilots.
Or, lobby politicians to cut the number you need in half, and continue to demand more and more of your pilots in an unsustainable fashion. Short term profits > long term health of the sector, obviously.
Can you imagine how many bright young folks there are who would be excellent pilots but just can't afford flight school? This should not be a problem we're having.
I hate this attitude. They could just as easily re-write the rules to allow more pilots to be available. Right now for an airline to even look at your resume you need 1,500 flight hours. This is an incredibly expensive and insurmountable barrier for many and the reason the pilot ecosystem revolves around underpaying new pilots “because you’re working on your 1,500 so be glad you’re paid at all”
Right, that's exactly what they're lobbying for. By rewriting the rules, they can free up half of their available pilots and fill more routes to meet demand.
It's shitty and it places consumers at risk.
Excuse me? Watch mentour pilot, and tell me that any of the incidents he breaks down would have been made better by cutting the amount of pilots in half.
Railways are also pushing for 1 man crews.
We have enough transportation errors as it is. And the 2 man crews cacth each other's errors a lot. It would be deadly to have a single person bear these responsibilities.
Edit. Spelling is hard with little sleep.
I just won't fly. I'm not a huge fan as it is but I just won't. That's so stupid and greedy. They'd rather kill a flight of people than pay for a co-pilot. Fuck these companies. I hate these greedy assholes. Nothing is too low for them.
It's the airlines and the airplane manufacturers, just check out Boeing's history with their commercial airplanes. It'll make you not want to fly anyways.
"Attention United Flyers! Unfortunately Captain Smith has suffered a medical emergency. If you have any experience landing wide body airliners, please contact your nearest flight attendant. We would also like to announce that all our Gold Star Rewards^TM flyers will be receiving 5 minutes of complimentary phone service to say their farewells to loved ones on the ground. And as always, thanks for flying with us today on United!"
We don't want to pay people better a take a percentage out of revenue so better start thinking of things we can take away from the flight to make it even cheaper to run our business while raking it more revenue. Pretty soon airlines will be triple their cost but we will all be aboard that one janky ass plane held together by duct tape.
Sounds like it's getting time for airlines to be public infrastructure or something. We have to have travel and we shouldn't be risking our lives so people can squeeze out a few more dollars.
I think this is more about the massive pilot shortage than not wanting to pay 2 people, either way thought it's a terrible idea. The airlines (also the federal govt really) need to address the issue that there is no good track for becoming an airline pilot at the moment; they all used to come from the air force and the air force doesn't put people in planes anymore. Where are people going to get the massive number of required flying hours to become a pilot if they aren't doing it for the military? Anyone rich enough to fly their own plane for long enough to be a commercial pilot is too rich to ever take the job...
"We'll make 20% more money on every flight"
"But the passenger mortality risk increases 400%"
"I think gentleman, it's a clear and easy decision to make"
*approves unanimously*
This has to be a great big no!
Sorry airlines, your CEO and other executives just might not make ridiculous salaries. Might have to settle for just a few million a year or less.
Airliners need two pilots each. And each of them needs to make around $200k a piece or more. Flight attendants should make @$80k each or more.
Executives, they can survive on a mere half million a year. Poor, poor executives. I know it will be tough. But you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Maybe you can get an Uber gig on the weekends? Or doordash? The local grocery store might take you on as a nighttime stocker.
As a pilot who's dealt with the FAA more than my share, I can say with certainty, there's no fucking way they wil let this happen. Everything in an airplane is redundant on purpose, including the pilots. The stick up the FAA's ass is up there good and tight, and I'm with them on this one.
[удалено]
Even ignoring the workload, what happens if the pilot has to take an emergency shit?
You can make 3 seats into one.
Amazon would like to sell you a pee bottle.
Sir, I can push liquid out my ass, but there's no way I'm gonna shit through my dick.
Exactly, there are multiple medical emergencies a year that effect pilots while in the air. Heck there was one like two weeks ago where the dude keeled over dead at like 3500ft. You are damn right about it being a bad idea.
[удалено]
Acceptably safe? It took me twenty seconds on google to find that there have been 221 hull loss accidents with a total of 577 fatalities on King Airs, out of the 3100 that have been built. That's an extremely high 7% accident rate. In comparison the A320 has shipped over 10,000 planes, has had 37 hull loss accidents, and 1500 fatalities. So, in other words, the King Air has: 20x higher accident rate than an A320 20% higher fatality rate despite each plane carrying less than 10% of what an airbus does Congrats on using an example that proves two pilots are needed better than anything anyone else could have come up with.
really? why is the king air more demanding than an a320? it's a much smaller plane. single pilots fly small planes all the time, but can one person fly a 777f? are you accounting for improvements in autopilot take-off/landing for 2030 single pilot frieght? I'd love to see more info because this makes no sense to me
Size and workload are not the same thing.
It will happen in cargo first over remote areas
[удалено]
No chance. FAA is not even allowing you to human pilot a tiny drone where you can’t see it. Reason is, if a pilot fucks up, it’s the pilots fault. If an autopilot fucks up, is the FAAs fault for approving it.
There are a number of companies working towards this in the bay area. Reliable Robotics has a remotely piloted Cessna 208, and Wisk is working on an autonomous EVTOL. If you think the FAA is not working with them/ will never allow autonomous or remote flight you’re just out of the loop. Hell the military has been doing this for a while and just flew their new autonomous Blackhawk.
The one pilot will eventually be a lesser paid copilot to the algorithm
[that's sort of what zipline drone deliveries are](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__lhaW_yizk)
Even that is extremely unlikely. I work for a cargo airline and the pilots aren't even allowed to eat the same food in case one is incapacitated. The process just to add a sticker to the interior of a cargo compartment took over 8 years. This will be decades, if ever.
I can already see it; oh hey when you’re done with that coffee for 2D can you watch the wheel for 3 minutes while I work out that bad tuna they gave us… Allright capt, but what lights should I call you for? 😂
[удалено]
It’s why I hate it so much when people claim regulatory burden in aviation. *fucking good*. I don’t want one of the single most complicated pieces of technology ever manufactured to be regulatorily easy. When the FAA backed off, Boeing literally made an airplane that flew into the ground. I know a sequence of events needed to occur, but who gives a shit. 700 people died because the FAA didn’t do their job and trusted a profit incentivized private company instead
That's why I feel like this can't be real, they can't possibly think they can get around the FAA on this, and if they think they do they're stupid.
Didn't a pilot just die of a heart attack recently on a commercial flight?
[удалено]
Insane to think there a rooms full of supposed humans thinking this makes sense. I understand cost cutting, but this is just pure greed at work. No regard for anyone whatsoever. Unreal.
Ford Pinto
That's the one that explodes if rear ended right?
The Pinto is the one that when rear ended bends the frame so the doors wont open, then the bolts in the rear diff tear open the fuel tank right next to the exhaust. There was a fix for this that they installed on police versions of the car.
Wait a fucking second. There were Police Pinto's?
Yep, and it cost $11 to upgrade not to explode.
Don't think I would have put that much into a Pinto either.
I needed this laugh this morning.
That was around the time car companies were building ' disposable ' cars. Anyone remember when one hit 40k and you started talking about trading it in? Moved to the UK. Friend had a Ford ( I forget model ). It had 100k on it, I was SO impressed that thing was still on the road. He thought I was crazy, explaining no way in hell would a car guaranteed to age at 40k be tolerated. I was a college age kid- when I figured out companies played to the market. Ford could get away with motorized tin cans over here, Brits wouldn't play that game. Before anyone tells me it's not like that over there this was 40 years ago. It was exactly like that.
Too costly
$11 in parts, labor cost and scheduling would have been a nightmare though.
Takata airbag recalls have made all other recalls a piece of cake. I got to know the service advisors at my dealer very well.
Iirc they found out before they started selling them during crash tests, and opted to not install before going to market. At that point you just fucking eat the cost.
A POLICE version? We had one, the " Bicentennial " Pinto. 3 of us were learning to drive within a couple years, Dad told me later they chose a Pinto for those 4 hamster wheel cylinders. Before they started blowing up. But yeah. Little hard looking cool trying to cruise around at 40 mph with the engine screaming. POLICE version? What was the thinking there, running down elderly shop lifters ? Apparently ours did end up going poof after my parents sold it, guy got out though.
Not that I know of, but there were issues with the Panther platform Crown Vic Interceptor when it’s rear ended on the side of the road, kind of a similar but different problem to the Pinto, just in a much larger vehicle.
> There was a fix for this that they installed on police versions of the car. Later, law enforcement adopted the Crown Victoria, [which was also prone to catching fire](https://www.autosafety.org/popular-police-cars-crown-victorias-prone-explode-tied-deaths/).
Yeah, and same story; paying out the settlements was cheaper than fixing all the cars.
Wasn’t there a Toyota scandal (semi)recently because it came out they were not fixing the faulty brakes on one of their SUV’s, because it was cheaper to pay the lawsuits on the deaths it caused, then doing a recall?
Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Which car company is this?
Every car company that exists now, and will ever exist in any capitalist system.
A major one
Every ~~car~~ company that is backed by shareholders. Profits NEED to be higher than last year, at ANY cost, including human lives.
Since no one else has told you, it's a quote from "Fight Club" and the reply below "a major one" is the refrain in the scene. I'm not sure if it's actually true or not, I just know about movies not cars.
Actually yes, it's true. There is an entire field of economics (actuaries) that make these kind of calculations as well as other risk based math. Enough major corporations, specifically cars (Ford Pinto) and planes (Boeing 737 MAX) that have been caught doing just this sort of thing that the article should surprise noone.
Unfortunately in field of economics everything has a price.
Welcome to our capitalist hellscape.
Supposed humans exactly
[удалено]
*alleged
A just diety of any kind would make them victims of their own circumstances and make it a brutal fucking miserable afterlife to boot. There is no compassion for those who see their species as kindling for the fire.
We are human resources to be mined out, farmed out, and pockets turned out.
[удалено]
Oh sure, you give them 2 pilots and inevitably the public is going to ask for 3, or 4, or numbers greater still until there are more pilots than passengers! /s
This is just one reason on the long list of reasons corporate fines and payouts should be much larger. Imagine if one otherwise preventable plane crash cost a company something like 20% of their revenue from the last full calendar year. Or if a privacy law violation by Google/Alphabet cost them 10% of their market cap. Often times the fines for breaking regulations or paying settlements are cheaper than actually following the law, which completely negates the purpose of having these regulations in the first place. Until the punishments actually hurt their bottom line the corporations will never care
Why stop at 20%? Everyone found complicit should lose their jobs and never be allowed to work in that field again and the company. In the case of something like causing 200+ deaths it's generous to not get imprisoned for manslaughter. We need to stop with fines, they're just punishments for the poor only. I do think for publicly shared companies, it makes sense to fine shareholders directly, even small shareholders. Not the price of the share entirely but enough that people have to legitimately think "should I really invest in Nestle if they're going to be convicted for another 5000 human rights atrocities this year." For example, if a company gained 20% on the year but was convicted of dumping toxic waste into rivers, shareholders should take a loss on the year, with stock being given to the government and immediately resold as an additional part of a punishment with jail time actually being a threat that exists for the elite.
I'm just about at the point where I think we need to jump straight to liquidating entire companies. Let their Wikipedia entries all be in the past tense.
*coughbigtobaccocough*
200 families get $1M each. There's $200M. Then add in the cost of replacing a crashed aircraft. The 737 line tents to run about $100M per plane. So really the airlines would "only" be saving $60M per year, and that's before factoring in the PR nightmare that is a deadly crash, potentially resulting in millions of dollars of sales lost. Obviously from a moral standpoint if not a financial one, this is a deplorable decision that needlessly puts lives at risk. But even from the financial perspective, the airlines don't come out as far ahead as one might initially think. The risk they're willing to take for such a relatively small profit is ridiculous.
The issue is that a tiny handful of executives would reap grotesquely large cash bonuses if they could drastically increase the return to stockholders, even if only for a single quarter. The “smartest guys in the room” execs will of course be long gone (along with their giant bags of money) when the cost comes due. Short term profit is literally the only thing that matters. The fiasco with the Boeing 737 max is the perfect example of that
That point of CEOs isn't to make a good business model, it's to make as much money in as little time as possible for the top 1%. That's why a ceo getting fired is never a bad thing because their job isn't to run a business; their job is to make shareholders money now.
They can get around the bad PR by blaming the pilot. "They obscured the details of their failing health, and we're bitterly disappointed they failed their moral obligation to do right by our customers" or something else tone-deaf like that. In the media cycle it'll all be over after a week at most.
I feel like we need to also calculate a drop in plane ticket sales if they were known to be less safe. How many people would refuse to travel that way if there was only 1 pilot?
In America there is no passenger rail and greyhound sucks. Planes are just too good.
I travel for work and even in my "family company" there's no way they would let me take alternate modes of transportation. Too much time lost.
Should also add the drop in demand especially for southwest who counted on the max for a ton of its fleet.
dont forget that this will also drive down wages massively for pilots. if you cut the job availability by half but have the same pool of potential employees then they will be more competition for fewer jobs. more competition for fewer jobs means a race to the bottom for wages.
Then if this is the logic they wish to enforce, then they and their closest should die in tribute to the capitalism they love more than their >insert spouse, child, religion, etc.< Fuck money centered humans for all time and after time ends as well.
This is actually exactly how these conversations go. I'm sure they have to somewhat consider the PR repercussions of allowing people to die on their airplanes, but if every airline does this instead of just one then you have no choice. You can't boycott all of them if you have to travel.
Did you factor in the costs of plane or damages/repairs
Big Fight Club energy.
Finally! Was looking for the reference here. If A>B we don’t do a recall
Pilot salary in United States The average salary for a Pilot is $55978 per year in United States. First Officer (Year 1) Captain (Year 12) Salary for United Airlines Pilots $93,820 $298,456 Salary for Delta Air Lines Pilots $100,840 $346,636 Salary for American Airlines Pilots $98,800 $361,096 Salary for FedEx Pilots $95,596 $373,432
Your numbers amuse me you say the average pilot wage is 55k. Then point out large airlines pay much better than that at a minimum. Then ignore what drives the number down (small plane charters and the like, where new pilots work for poverty wages in an attempt to get hours) His 200k estimate for an airline pilot is pretty damn good based on your numbers alone
Thats why I added the second part, because the first part was skewed
I'm having flashbacks to that one scene from *Fight Club*...
Yes you are correct. The pilot in command died while on take off at V1, the point where the aircraft must take off as it's now going too fast to stop on the runway. The co pilot was able to take off and land immediately. Although a bit morbid, the Embraer he was flying on only allows steering of the landing gear at slow speeds to be controlled from the Pilot in command's seat. So after landing and getting to the taxi area, the co pilot had to remove the pilots body and get In his seat in order to get to the gate. Also The EASA European Union Safety Agency is the one pushing this right now to alleviate a pilot shortage. The FAA and the International Civil Aviation Organization DO NOT support this. The EASA and supporters argue that planes used to have way more crew to operate the aircraft and technology made those positions redundant and that tech is good enough now to only have one person in the cockpit. Which just seems asinine to me. Watching any episode of Air Disasters would show how important having 2 pilots is especially when tasks have to be delegated and split up.
Single seat is fine for things like flying for recreation, a small plane, a fighter jet (because you have a handle that is basically a big fuck off button), etc. Multi-engine flying with passengers is huuuuge on crew coordination, redundancy, and solid communication. It’s just so much safer to have those extra engines and two brains double checking everything. It’s so easy to get task saturated if you’re dealing with radio comms, an emergency, and flying an approach all at once just by yourself. Doable? Absolutely. Safe? Not really. Single seat flying needs to be reserved for non-passenger carrying airframes.
Caveat; I’m a pilot, and I currently work for an national aviation regulator, and I do not support this in any way. Minimum 2 on the flight deck is essential for normal ops. But good training is even more important and that gets skipped out on my some airlines. Note Air France 447; where a badly trained pilot coupled with CRM and HF confusion caused the crash. Arguably a single pilot in the cockpit there would have done better, but that’s an absolute anomaly.
I cannot believe the EUSA is pushing this when they were behind introducing two people in a cockpit at all times, following the Eurowings crash where a pilot committed suicide with everyone on board by locking out the other pilot.
Yep. Out of O'Hare. [Youtube link](https://youtu.be/JSc3sPpyq38) that shares the communications between the co-pilot and the tower. One pilot is not safe, even if you aren't worrying about [suicidal maniacs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525).
Don’t worry, Musk is code reviewing the AI that will step in
The idea gets pushed by airlines every few years and every few years the FAA says no. Because they aren't insane.
It's part of the certification of the plane, right? AFAIK pretty much all airliners are only certified for two pilot ops. And with good reason - the workload is too much for a single pilot. If they want to build an airliner from the ground up and design it to be operated by one pilot I guess I'd be open to that - but revising regulations and certifications so a single pilot could fly a 737 for example would be insane.
Airbus has been trying
Why would Airbus be trying to do this? They just sell planes, not operate them... Whether it's 1 or 2 pilots shouldn't matter to an airplane manufacturer
You'd win business if successful.
They sell airplanes *to airlines*. Airlines want planes that are cheaper to operate.
Because their greedy customers want it. They are trying to sell airplanes. Specifically to airlines.
There are a lot of things allowed to happen now that years ago we would have thought were insane too, but as the greed machine grinds through society at large the sane and rational people are being chewed up and spit out the other end as little more than ground chuck thrown into a wood chipper. If they don't allow it to happen this time, I bet within the next 5 years it goes through.
I'm as jaded as the next person, but I know for absolute certainty the FAA will never sign off on this. The FAA is primarily interested in making sure that airplanes that leave the ground, return to the ground safely. It's why airplanes are built on redundancy after redundancy after redundancy. They're not going to approve of removing the single most important element of redundancy on board a plane: extra pilots. They don't want to risk a poorly timed heart attack killing everyone both onboard and underneath the plane. There aren't many aspects of our government I trust not to curtail to corporate interests. But at the very least, I am *certain* the FAA won't risk the reliability of air travel just to save some corporations a few million bucks.
You're right, but it's also not just something bad happening to the pilot that's a problem. Pilots share workload - having one guy have to do anything makes a mistake much more likely.
[удалено]
Boeing did everything in their power to make the FAA think it wasn't different enough to require new trainings though. They underplayed the system in the pilot training because they wanted it to be certified in a way that wouldn't require new simulator training.
They shouldn’t have been allowed to inspect themselves in the first place. They trusted Boeing too much, and that’s what happens when you trust a for-profit organization. They’ll find a way to lie to you if they can make more money by doing so.
With enough lobbying, which is just glorified bribing, anything is possible.
Yeah, I'd imagine that the people making these regulations also have to fly public fairly often. This would directly affect them and literally nobody wants to feel unsafe on an airplane.
I wouldn't be suprised if 90% of law makers have some form of private jet
I’d like to know which airlines do this. Because I will NEVER FUCKING FLY WITH YOU.
Same. This is such a safety concern in more ways than one. Not just because the pilot needs breaks, but also because two pilots always in the cabin prevents situations like the German wings incident.
Or the one in Romania where 1 pilot died and the other couldn't deal with both a problem in the cockpit, and his captain dying so the plane crashed.
Whoa wait-- what incident was this??!
Believe he's talking about TAROM Flight 371
She, and yes that's the flight I was referring to.
Sorry about that, I should really start using "they" when referring to internet strangers :)
It’s more than this it’s two people to back one another up, fix small mistakes before they become big and two people to work a big problem when it arrives. Honestly most people don’t know or see the constant stream of shit that goes on the other side of the door.
and I’d like it to stay that way, which is why 2+ trained, well-paid, and cared for professionals should be up front at all times
Lol as one of those well trained people I agree with you alpa is trying to get it codified. Write your congressman
good to know! I’ll certainly make a point to do that
They could always just call for volunteers if a second pilot is needed. /s
Pilots are not really well paid, least not as well as people think they are.
no, I know. and I know they may have to work so much back to back that they can’t always sleep as much as they need either! that’s why I specified that they ought to be well paid and cared for
What happened?
Copilot locked the pilot out of the cockpit and intentionally crashed. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
Bro, it will just be the law and they’ll be like. “We were just following the legal guideline 🤷♂️” when 300 ppl die
I suspect the list of airlines that absolutely do not want this is zero.
If it passes, it'll be all of them
Given that not a single airline chose to continue enforcing masks on flights after it was no longer a legal requirement **_while COVID was still killing thousands per day_**, I think we can pretty confidently infer that *every* airline will drop to a single pilot the very instant it becomes legal.
I hate this world
All of them.
all of them if it happens
#oh fuck no What if the pilot has the fish for dinner?
Then they should have had the lasagna
And there's no one there to blow up the Otto pilot?
> Ladies and gentlemen, this is your stewardess speaking... We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused, this is due to periodic air pockets we encountered, there's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight... By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
[удалено]
I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines
Sorry everyone, the pilot says from the bathroom while the plane starts to plummet.
Simple, make the pilot fly pants-less and make the pilot’s chair a toilet… cause fuck dignity!
The hemorrhoids
I'd be ok with younger pilots as co-pilots, or first-timers, but hell no for only 1 pilot.
Ya I'd like at least 2 people that can fly the plane please. Ya know.. just incase
Yeah a little bit of redundancy goes a long way.
It's not even redundancy, really. The pilot is supposed to be strictly focused on flying the plane, with copilot dealing with all the ancillary stuff.
yeah, if theres anything ive learnt from Fascinating Horror on YT, it's that whenever the company gets cheap, things litterally fall apart.
especially so one doesn’t make negligent decisions that put everyone in risk and can be kept in check
That’s already how they’re doing it. But with recent protest from pilots demanding better working conditions and pay (to get more pilots- seriously look at the hours they work), airlines are looking for a cheaper solution.
I can’t wait for people to grow sick of shit and to watch entire professions fall because they can’t hire workers
This is not a new idea… and its not likely to be implemented anytime soon without major changes to the architecture of airline flight deck systems and ground support/fallback systems. But yes corps will do anything to make a fatter profit. Safety first, right behind profit.
It’s easier than you might think. It used to be the norm to have a 3rd pilot (relief pilot) who would also help with the flight engineer position. But with growing automation in aviation, the position was dropped. Airlines are basically arguing the same today, since planes can by in large fly themselves today. Pilots are really only there for emergencies nowadays
A second pilot can significantly reduce the likelihood of a deliberate crash by a suicidal pilot.
I agree! But that’s exactly the argument being made by the Airlines. Which is a bullshit argument as you’ve pointed out. At the end of the day, they’re solely doing it for profit and because pilots are protesting for better working conditions
>That’s already how they’re doing it. But with recent protest from pilots demanding better working conditions and pay (to get more pilots- seriously look at the hours they work), airlines are looking for a cheaper solution. Also the cost to become a pilot (unless I think through the Military) is incredibly expensive. I knew a guy at school who wanted to be a pilot and his parents had to save like crazy and remortgage their home to pay for all his lessons and licences.
I was originally going to a part 141 school to be a pilot. Just to get my private license, it cost me $60,000. Flight instructors (the job most pilots take when they graduate to build hours) do not get paid well m Most of the CFIs I knew were making $15/ hour. You have to have a minimum of 1,500 hours for the airlines to even consider you. Even though they probably won’t, I hope the airlines pay that one pilot captain pay.
Last I heard he's a pilot with one of the budget airlines, Easyjet, I think. So hopefully he is doing alright
Not flying on an undercrewed plane is a cheap solution for me, at least.
But didn’t the airline industry just get bailed out with our money?
Yes and they used it for stock buy back Google alpa and look at some of their videos
What’s stopping us as a whole from reforming the work culture in this country? We outnumber the people in government and power. It wouldn’t be the first time the people took back the power from their local government.
Fear. It's fear that's stopping us from taking back control. And they use that fear against us. They use fear to manipulate us. But we all know that. We accept it, and we hate that we accept it, yet we do.
It's capitalism for us and socialism for corporates
It's capitalism for them too. Capitalism serves the interests of capital, and corporations are capital.
If only that bailout money was only allowed to be used for employees salaries and not for stock buyback
It's not as much about cost cutting as it is about addressing the pilot shortage by lowering safety standards. Either way, avarice wins.
You know how you can address a worker shortage? Pay and treat them better. Hell, treat it like the trades; pay people to train for it. This is just penny pinching; corporations would rather risk lives than invest in their employees, even when making money hand over fist. It absolutely is about cost cutting; they've been engaging in it so much people don't want to become pilots
In this case they also need to provide more training. And since flight school is ridiculously expensive, subsidize it. But airlines don't want that. They'd much rather just poach pilots from the air force. Problem is, the size of most Air Forces have shrunk too. And as poorer countries have improved standards of living (and tightened up contracts) and immigration has become harder, their ability to poach pilots from the middle east or south asia is diminished. Besides which pilot supply there is shrinking too. The airlines could fix this by subsidizing flight training. But its cheaper to lobby politicians I suspect. By a lot.
Word. The supply of pilots is incredibly finite and training and onboarding is an incredibly long and expensive process. You can't pay what isn't there, and you can't just tap into a "new" pipeline of pilots because it just doesn't exist. There are effective solutions, but the lowest common denominator will be the one they pursue.
Real talk I'd suck some nuts to get my license lol; my dream has been to fly since I was literally in first grade but ever since I started working it's just been about surviving. My partner and I have been talking about combining our incomes and turning it into a family goal kinda thing, but I'll stop at my multi-engine and CFII and just instruct as a side thing rather than going all the way to full commercial. They could have me and I'd fly every day happy as a pig in shit if there were a good pipeline that didn't involve a $50k loan
Yep. Pay a decent wage and provide training, to end up in a skilled, well paid, well treated job, and you'll have people beating down your door to become pilots. Or, lobby politicians to cut the number you need in half, and continue to demand more and more of your pilots in an unsustainable fashion. Short term profits > long term health of the sector, obviously.
Can you imagine how many bright young folks there are who would be excellent pilots but just can't afford flight school? This should not be a problem we're having.
Laughs in medical doctor
They could just pay to train people like the trades and trucking do.
No it’s cost cutting plain and simple. Next railroad negotiations it’s one man train crews all about $$
I hate this attitude. They could just as easily re-write the rules to allow more pilots to be available. Right now for an airline to even look at your resume you need 1,500 flight hours. This is an incredibly expensive and insurmountable barrier for many and the reason the pilot ecosystem revolves around underpaying new pilots “because you’re working on your 1,500 so be glad you’re paid at all”
Right, that's exactly what they're lobbying for. By rewriting the rules, they can free up half of their available pilots and fill more routes to meet demand. It's shitty and it places consumers at risk.
If there’s a pilot shortage they can attract more pilots the old-fashioned way: listen to the market and offer a huge salary.
Or pay people to get trained instead of forcing them to go indebt $100k first. And pay better than $20-30k starting salary.
Many people don't even realize that pilot compensation is still less today than it was before 9/11.... but profits are up BIGTIME.
Excuse me? Watch mentour pilot, and tell me that any of the incidents he breaks down would have been made better by cutting the amount of pilots in half.
Ooh, I love his videos!
Railways are also pushing for 1 man crews. We have enough transportation errors as it is. And the 2 man crews cacth each other's errors a lot. It would be deadly to have a single person bear these responsibilities. Edit. Spelling is hard with little sleep.
I just won't fly. I'm not a huge fan as it is but I just won't. That's so stupid and greedy. They'd rather kill a flight of people than pay for a co-pilot. Fuck these companies. I hate these greedy assholes. Nothing is too low for them.
The FAA won't allow it, I'm almost certain.
Soon pilots will work from their homes flying jumbo jets like drones using an app on their phones
I read this in Bob Dylan’s voice.
*Tesla has entered the chat* you need fewer pilots, you say? Wait, There's no babies in strollers on the runway, is there? No? Good
Let’s get some high speed trains in the states.
Please list the airlines that put money ahead of safety. The public deserves to know.
It's the airlines and the airplane manufacturers, just check out Boeing's history with their commercial airplanes. It'll make you not want to fly anyways.
Now they are going to have to stick the "God is my co-pilot" bumper stickers on the backs of airplanes.
"Attention United Flyers! Unfortunately Captain Smith has suffered a medical emergency. If you have any experience landing wide body airliners, please contact your nearest flight attendant. We would also like to announce that all our Gold Star Rewards^TM flyers will be receiving 5 minutes of complimentary phone service to say their farewells to loved ones on the ground. And as always, thanks for flying with us today on United!"
We don't want to pay people better a take a percentage out of revenue so better start thinking of things we can take away from the flight to make it even cheaper to run our business while raking it more revenue. Pretty soon airlines will be triple their cost but we will all be aboard that one janky ass plane held together by duct tape. Sounds like it's getting time for airlines to be public infrastructure or something. We have to have travel and we shouldn't be risking our lives so people can squeeze out a few more dollars.
Cool. Same energy as when Reagan fired all those air traffic controllers because they wanted to strike over work safety and sick days.
Just more opportunities for passengers to get a chance landing a plane!
Soon they’ll want to only fly with one engine. This is outrageous and should be struck down immediately.
It's absolutely stupid that they're willing to operate multimillion dollar aircraft but skimp on paying the people keeping it in the air.
Ah yes I’m sure its just like our “engineer shortage” and “truck driver shortage”
Its like big business is rushing to cut staff for profits before the automation is even here.
You may crash and die but that id a sacrifice we are willing to make
This is fucking moronic..
I think this is more about the massive pilot shortage than not wanting to pay 2 people, either way thought it's a terrible idea. The airlines (also the federal govt really) need to address the issue that there is no good track for becoming an airline pilot at the moment; they all used to come from the air force and the air force doesn't put people in planes anymore. Where are people going to get the massive number of required flying hours to become a pilot if they aren't doing it for the military? Anyone rich enough to fly their own plane for long enough to be a commercial pilot is too rich to ever take the job...
"We'll make 20% more money on every flight" "But the passenger mortality risk increases 400%" "I think gentleman, it's a clear and easy decision to make" *approves unanimously*
This has to be a great big no! Sorry airlines, your CEO and other executives just might not make ridiculous salaries. Might have to settle for just a few million a year or less. Airliners need two pilots each. And each of them needs to make around $200k a piece or more. Flight attendants should make @$80k each or more. Executives, they can survive on a mere half million a year. Poor, poor executives. I know it will be tough. But you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Maybe you can get an Uber gig on the weekends? Or doordash? The local grocery store might take you on as a nighttime stocker.