Bear Flag Republic Radio Weblog

< 8:39:12 AM        >

The one aspect of commercial flight that has not yet been automated is take-off. It would be possible, says Mr Higgins, but it would require additional guidance equipment both on the plane and on the runway. And it would require a good reason to develop and install this technology, which would be expensive.

While most big airports have CAT III ILS landing systems in place, there isn't a similar system for take-offs.  I think this is a good thing to build regardless of whether we use it for pilotless planes or not.  Regardless, it is going to be expensive.  Why?  Take-offs are the segment of a flight with the highest chance that something could go wrong.  You don't have airspeed or altitude to play with and flight systems, engines, and crew interactions are for the first time being brought up to maximum.  A lot could go wrong and the conditions are very unforgiving. 

Let's see if it is worth it to cut pilots out of the equation.  What would be the savings on a standard cross country flight if pilots weren't on board?  According to The Economist, half of all airline costs are wages.  Pilots are the highest paid employees (Delta pays senior pilots well over $200k).  So, two pilots plus a fractional back-up pilot in the reserve pool would cost:

An average of $300k a year in pay and benefits per pilot (pay, health, and retirement costs).  An average of $100 k in training per year (simulators, IPs, check pilots, etc.).  150 nights in hotels plus meals = $30 k. 

So, at 2.2 pilots per coast to coast flight, the cost is $946 k a year.  Of course, a given crew can only fly 1/3 of a given route.  So other crews would be needed.  That would mean a total cost of $2,838,000 for a coast to coast route in pilot costs or $7.7 k a flight.  For a typical load of 130 people, that is ~$60 a customer. 

Personally, I would be willing to pay $60 to have a couple pilots on board.

Of course, the airlines might see it differently.  United flies ~1,650 flights a day.  If the average cost per flight is $4000 for pilots (shorter flights would bring down the average cost), that would be a savings of $6,600,000 a day (offset of course by having a technician on the ground running the RPV, upfront costs of converting the system, etc.) or $2.4 b a year.

From United, American, and Delta's perspective this system would level the ground in operational costs between their companies and the regional carriers (whose major cost advantage is less expensive employees).  It would also be a system that would likely have significant barriers to entry (large upfront costs and scale economies due to its potential for centralization).  Finally, without the pilots union (the most powerful union) it is likely the majors could crush the other unions. All of these outcomes would make the majors very happy. [John Robb's Radio Weblog]

comments < 7:06:20 AM        >