Danny Noonin

Nice one Georgie

Copy. Disregard previous.

Just what exactly are you talking about Willis? Is there a Dear Boss reference in here somewhere that I missed or did you just need to get that off your chest?

No they won't. First of all, the dudes making $18 an hour aren't qualified to work at the majors because they don't have enough hours for an ATP. And make no mistake, there would be federal mins, even for RPAs. Especially at the beginning. Also--and much more importantly--they would have to give up their seniority number at their old job to take a temp job as a scab. Then they would never get their old job back after the strike ends so why would they do that? They're also all union themselves and would be pariahs forever if they were to get their job back or any union job for the rest of their lives. Example: if they commute to work no one would ever let them ride the jumpseat again. Dudes to this day keep scab lists in the cockpit and deny guys rides. Its not like they are going to pay for a flight to work and can't afford to live in NYC so they couldn't do it. Even if they didn't commute, dudes literally would not talk to them again. Their entire airline existence would be miserable from then on. As for the "it's an RPA gig or your job". See above about striking. Dude you clearly don't understand the mentality of an airline pilot or a union. Many of these dudes have been furloughed before, some several times. They stuck with it anyway.I know a dude who sold farm equipment 2 days a week to put food on the table until he got recalled. Being without a job temporarily is not foreign territory to those guys and they are willing to put up with some shit to fly. Faced with the loss of their dream job, they will strike and, in my opinion, it would work though I've clearly had no success convincing the peanut gallery here. I'm bored with all this talk of airlines, unions, and UAVs. They are my least favorite subjects. I'm out.

Where did the "starving pilots" come from? If they are "jumping ship" then presumably you mean from another paying pilot job, true? If so, see above about striking. And they wouldn't be starving. If your comeback is that there are dudes out there flying for $18k at the regionals living in their parents basement and those are the starving pilots you are speaking of, why do you think they do that? Why do they go into debt and commute across the country to work for shitty pay? Is it just because they needed a job and the best job they could find with a bachelors degree only paid $18k? Or is it because they love to fly airplanes and are willing to put up with some shit to do it? So is that also why the retention rate in preds is so high right now? Because pilots are purely motivated by feeding their families and not by flying airplanes in which they themselves are sitting? What if by taking the RPA job as you suggest the evolution would be, these ship jumpers also accelerate the conversion to the purely automated UAV? Do you think these pilots/UAV technicians would not understand the cliff they just drove off? I'm just asking.

Sorry, you've got the wrong person. If you're looking for someone to touch your nuts, try BQZip's mom. Or Brabus.

Yes it does, and that's what you're missing. Unless the conversion from 100% piloted airplanes to 100% unpiloted airplanes occurs industry wide overnight, then a strike would have potentially fatal impact on a company. It would mean the airlines will bleed money by not flying (m)any flights (and therefore not generating any revenue), yet they would still have enormous expenses (such as paying off their fancy new UAVs). This would not be quick strike over pay rates either. This would be a strike to the death (because the pilots would have no choice--if they fail they'll be out of a job anyway) with the only resolutions being 1) the company caving in and deciding to not go UAV or 2) the company having a large enough operational fleet of UAVs that they can generate enough revenue to stay afloat without piloted airplanes. How long would it take to produce and field an entire fleet of UAVs? Quite a while, don't you think? Years under the best circumstances. How long do you think the airlines can afford to stay in business without money coming in? Who is going to loan them any money to buy new UAVs to achieve resolution #2 if they have no money coming in? Even after 9/11, flights were still going and airlines had revenue coming in. It was the passenger demand that dropped--industry wide--and it destroyed the industry's finances for a decade. That's a rosy scenario for a company compared to what would happen here. What do you think would happen if hardly any flights were able to go at all for an extended period of time for the "pioneer" companies while the lagging airlines still flew normally? Folks would still fly while airline X was on strike. They would just take another airline. Meanwhile airline X is in real trouble with no good out. It would be business suicide to be the first airline to try this.

Not the same. You're not suggesting an evolution with UAVs. You are suggesting a complete revolution. What do you think the UAW would do if GM said they were converting all of their factories to manufacture their vehicles purely via robots and that every single UAW worker would be out of a job? Do you think organized labor has any ability and motivation to put pressure on a company, especially when the survival of the entire workforce is at stake?

You're right. These are some valid labor costs that I did not include in my caveman math. Not the whole story either, but it's not worth quibbling through them one by one. Of course my accounting was simplified. But by nowhere near a factor of ten. Not even close. But if you know the airline industry and unionized (or even non-unionized) pilot groups, then you know that the pilots will NEVER go for this since it literally means the demise of their own jobs. You also know that if you can't flip a switch and go from all piloted airplanes to all UAVs the next day, that the airlines will need contract concessions from the pilots to operate these UAVs even one time. Like I said. There is zero chance of that happening. Why would anyone intentionally vote themselves out of a job? It's a matter of pure survival for them and they will not cave in this lifetime. So, even if the technology becomes feasible...even if the broke federal government would front serious coin to completely revamp it's systems to support commercial UAV operations (far beyond anything in the pipeline like Next Gen) for the interest of reducing non-governmental labor costs in a sector that is profitable right now...even if aircraft manufacturers will fund R+D for entirely new classes of aircraft without the promise of buyers...even if airlines would mortgage themselves to their ears to buy UAVs that the public may or may not even board...even if insurers will actually insure a passenger UAV...and even if the Gen Y kids have such faith in technology that they feel safe enough with a UAV to save $1.83 or even $20 on a ticket versus a piloted airplane...all enormous "ifs"...I really don't ever see the day where the pilot groups would allow this. This is not a blue-collar unionized manufacturing group of employees that could (theoretically) get other jobs. What does a 50 year old airline captain do if flying jobs all go away? His resume is a bit thin at that age, don't you agree? Dudes can say all day long that technology advancements have overcome labor and job considerations a million times in history. But this situation would be different. The pilot groups hold some serious contractural cards here. This is not the same as forcing concessions via bankruptcy. If they're going to lose their jobs anyway with no comparable career to transition to, they have absolutely nothing to lose by striking a company into the dirt. You know they would, too. They would have no choice. And that's why this will not happen. By the way, I say this all as a guy who hated being an airline pilot and never wants to go back. So I don't consider myself to even have a dog in this fight.

I used me as an example, which I clearly stated. My payscale was $109/hour (but I'm on mil leave right now) The airplane I was on seats 210. 2% 401k. 12% b fund. I cost zero to the company for healthcare (tricare reserve select). Obviously costs vary by airframe, seat, and longevity, but those are my numbers. I didn't go to USAFA so I'm not real smart. Explain please how I'm off--using me as an example, not a 30 year 747 captain--"by a factor of at least ten." As for relative, I'm talking pilot expenses versus the list of expenses discussed to get the complete unmanned air system up and running and what passengers would pay to have some human eyes looking out the front window. But you can read so you knew that. All of that pilot cost stuff is totally irrelevant to the discussion about why this may or may not happen, however. The reason this will never happen is the unions. Not one pilot contract allows it. No threat of furlough or offer of massive pay increases will get pilots to vote for a contract that allows unmanned airplanes as that would spell the end of their jobs anyway. It's a non-starter. At the first attempt to force a UAV on property, the pilots will strike, grind the company and its revenue stream to a halt, and bring the company down with them instead of voluntarily concede the end of their profession. They have nothing else to lose at that point. No scabs will fly in their place because they know they'd be killing their own flying future too. Everything else is chaff. This won't happen.

So you were accusing only the author--a civilian--of gathering all of his mis-information from among other things in the "AF crimes" and..."WOMs in the bar"??? You weren't accusing anyone else? Really? Do you know a lot of authors that hang around fighter bars asking questions about airplanes that are still in test? Care to revise your bullshit story?

No. Reading comprehension. He said it wouldn't take a big redesign of current airplanes, just "a couple black boxes connected to the auto-pilot" He is wrong.

I have no idea why you said "rhetorical question" and I'm quite relaxed, thank you. I just have a problem with you accusing everyone else of scoffing the F-35 based on "the news, op ed pieces, the Air Force Crimes, WOMs heard at the bar, etc?", then implying that you have some great inside info to contradict that stuff, when it's quite clear that you do not have good info. If you are in fact publicly defending the complete list of F-35 capes listed in your example above (range, payload, acceleration, maneuverability & current sensor maturity/effectiveness) then you are in the street. Some of that stuff sucks. Big time. Someday, with enough money and cost overruns against this too-big-to-fail program, LM will solve most of the code problems and the sensors/avionics will work okay. But the airframe issues and limitations mean this will never be a particularly awesome jet.

What flips the switches in the cockpit? An inflatable dude like in Airplane? You do know that there are physical switches up front, right? Switches that control generators, cabin temp, bleed air, etc. Do the black boxes have hands? Who shuts things off in an emergency? Who pulls the fire bottle when a motor is burning? You get the idea. It WOULD require a full redesign. You have not thought this through.

Holy shit. How much do YOU know about the aircraft? You know any of the pilots? You know any of the guys working the program? Do you know anything beyond a Secret *proposed* capes brief, built by the blue kool aid brigade or Lockheed? If you knew anything real about this airplane, the program, the problems with it, etc, you would be shutting the fuck up right now.

I read your link and I did the math, thank you. 5% for United. 7% for Delta. 6% for American. 9% for Southwest. What's your point? That labor costs money? That labor is a significant expense? Again, it's all relative. You and pawn seem to suggest that by taking pilots out of the cockpit, it will result in enormous cost savings and would be worth it. What you apparently choose not to consider are the astronomical start up costs to develop the technology and infrastructure to support your plan. Those costs are unbelievable and are absolutely unaffordable from the government's end (air traffic control system revolution), the airline industry's end, and the manufacturers' end. Who is fronting the money for that? Boeing? Are they going to spend hoards of their own money to develop pilotless airplanes that someone may or may not even buy? And don't forget the lost revenue due to the mentality of the flying public who will stay at home or take Obama's high speed rail network instead of flying in the back of a UAV. You saw what happened after 9/11 when 4 airplanes crashed out of thousands flown that day. Folks didn't fly for years because they were scared. Never mind the fact that the pilot's were packing 40 cal and wouldn't open up the door to hijackers ever again. The public was scared and proved it with their wallets. You are underestimating the power of fear. How do you develop enough trust in your proposed technological revolution to get the public to accept that they are safe on board a pilotless airplane? Can the airlines afford to run half-full, money losing flights to prove the safety of those machines to build up the public trust? How long would that take? How much money would they lose in the process? What shareholders are going to let that happen? What happens after the very first glitch that happens with a pilotless airplane? It doesn't have to be a crash. It just has to be something that went wrong that makes the nightly news. Folks will never get on board one again.

Actually, they do sell planes when they can--generally the older, less fuel efficient ones. But when the economy is crappy, no one tends to be buying, so they park them in the desert then bring them out when/if they need them later on. As for slashing jobs, benefits, wages, etc, of course they do. It's a cost somewhat within their control. They don't control fuel prices, the cost of parts, etc, so labor contracts are something they can change in bankruptcy or under the threat of furlough. This goes not just for pilot costs, but flight attendents, customer service reps, maintainers, management, etc. What's your point here?

Make up shit? Ok, let's do the actual math using my actual pay as an example: I make $109 on widebodies and I'm not even close to new. The airplane I fly seats 210 people. It typically runs at an 85% load factor, meaning it averages 178 paying passengers. That means for my salary, each passenger pays 61 cents per hour of flight. So for the 3 hour flight from Philly to Orlando, each person paid me $1.83 out of their $350 ticket. Is that second grade math enough for you, chachi? What exactly were you trying to say with the financial numbers? That pilot salaries overall total up to be a lot? Ummm. Okay. Obviously depends on your persective I suppose. A lot compared to what? Compared to 61 cents per hour of safety observer up front? Compared to the lost revenue when people won't fly in the back of a UAV? What about a lot compared to developing entire new classes of aircraft, buying entirely new fleets of airplanes, developing entirely new technologies to support the bandwith required to control thousands of passenger UAVs airborne at any given time? To developing automated air traffic control systems to link with your UAV control systems to deconflict traffic? The FAA won't even upgrade the piece of shit we have now. A lot compared to installing some sort of automatic guidance system on the ground of every airport in the world to allow automated precision taxiing, ramp deconfliction (ever flown out of JFK?), and parking at the gate? A lot compared to the electronic protection systems we'd have to develop to prevent someone from jamming the link and crashing the planes as an easy 9/11, part deaux? A lot compared to the insurance premiums airlines would have to pay to operate UAVs on top of the high-cost insurance they currently carry? Think of the first lawsuit after the first passenger UAV crash. Billions. So how exactly are pilot salaries expensive in the big scheme of things again? So I ask you--in all seriousness--when folks go to book their flights on Travelocity to go see grandma for spring break, do you think they'll pick the $350 UAV ticket or the $351.83 ticket with Sully up front for when shit goes south? How is that not a UAV? It may not be how we operate preds, but how is an aircraft without a pilot in it not a UAV? Semantics maybe. What choo talkin' bout Willis? Where did I ever say anything about pilot working conditions, fatigue or breaches in regs? What's to investigate?

You're clueless. Crew rest? How much do you think the pilots are getting paid while in "crew rest?". I'll tell you. Zero. They don't get paid unless the airplane is in motion. Let's say for ease of math the dudes up front are averaging $150 per hour. In reality, the captain is probably making a few bucks more than that and the F.O. significantly less. And let's say there are 150 passengers in back (737-ish airplane, i.e. not even a big jet) That would mean each passenger is paying $1 per hour of flight for each pilot's pay. In reality it's less than that. By the way, airline benefits suuuuccccckkkkk. It would be generous to say that tacks on 20%. So now were up to a buck-twenty per passenger, per pilot, per hour. Training costs? You know that's done 100% in the sim, right? So I guess you're right. That's significant savings that would completely change the economics of the airline industry.

Just how much do you think the guys up front cost per ticket?

Noted. You're a student. I wasn't talking to you. I don't give a shit how well he can teach TP stalls. He needs some peer mentoring over his little newsletter.

Anyone an IP at Sheppard? One of your boys (with pilot wings on) appears to be the "exec" of this fine organization. Do the right thing.

Wasn't a big deal from what I'm told. Jet issue, not a physiological incident.

Not quite. What made the EB-52 such a badass was that it had 8 motors, therefore 8 generators and could generate a ridiculous 1.21 jigawatts of pure American-made trons. Believe it or not, 757s don't have a lot of spare power available for that kind of stuff.

It has been in the news...every time