Eek: Airbus & Cathay Pacific Partner To Cut Pilot Staffing On Long Haul Flights

100% agree. Plus the factor of there only being one person to resist any attempts to take over the fight ala 9/11. There's too many safety risks imo

Does this mean the door would open automatically if the pilot is incapacitated or where the other captain have a key to the door? Seems like someone else would be able to access the cockpit in these scenarios.

Why on a long haul would 4 pilots be necessary? It doesn’t really make sense. They can just use three even for long flight

@ Alec -- It's my understanding that there's generally a code to enter the cockpit, but it only works with a delay. So if entry into the cockpit is requested then the pilot in the cockpit can reject the request. However, if there's no response (like if a pilot were incapacitated) it would open after a short time, something like 30 seconds. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

@ Sharon -- We can argue whether or not it's necessary, but the logic is that having four pilots on ultra long haul flights allows pilots sufficient rest so they can be alert for landing. For example, take a Los Angeles to Hong Kong flight that's 15 hours long and departs at 1AM. If there are four pilots, each pilot could get roughly seven hours of rest. Meanwhile if there are three pilots, you're looking at closer to four hours of rest per pilot.

Yeah no thanks, keep it two at all times, happy if higher ticket prices reflect this.

If there are only two pilots and one of them is resting in the cruise on a 14 hour flight; split in half that's 7 hours alone flying the aircraft most probably in the middle of the night, ok fine. What happens when the one flying the aeroplane needs to go to the toilet? Who will fly the aeroplane then? Let's stick with the current number of pilots thanks.

@Ben and Alec

I know the information is out there and can be gotten publicly with a bit of effort, but could we pls refrain from heading towards sensitive security information on here. Just a respectful request from someone who sits in the pointy end!

Hopefully this bad idea won’t fly (excuse the pun). I can’t imagine any Pilot’s Union agreeing to this. I sure wouldn’t feel safe would gladly pay extra to keep the current two pilot cockpit in place at all times.

Seriously Dan? There is nothing in the article that isn't in the public domain and very easy to find in minutes and more likely seconds.

I’d rather see Airlines negotiate with pilots for cheaper pay while resting so they can have more pilots on board but less than the cost. This does absolutely not advance safety in aviation and tires pilots alone in the aircraft is a recipe for disaster when teamwork alphas many times over saved peoples lives in tense situations. I hope it is not approved

The autopilot flies the plane for 99% or more of any flight already. The pilots do have to monitor things and be ready to handle emergency events, but their continuous workload is not terribly high. I would be ok going from 4 down to 3 pilots for long haul flights.

Dan, there is nothing in the article that isn't in the public domain right this second and it's a whole lot more easily retrieved than you think. @Ben, well thought out article with detail that's important for your readers to understand so they can size up the situation and proposal for themselves. Keep up the good work. Thanks.

Yeah, I would say 3 at a minimum. With ETOPS-180 you are looking at a 3 hour diversion if one of the pilots has an incident. Worst case scenario, pilot 1 goes off duty and pilot 3 (his replacement) has an incident in the next few hours, pilot 1 is at his scheduled time + 3 hours.

I'm opposed to this and would prefer to pay higher ticket prices in order to have the cockpit be redundantly staffed with well-rested pilots.

That said, the military flies drones using pilots who are halfway around the world. I wonder when airlines will realize that they could use that technology. For example, they could pay one pilot to monitor several flights during those long stretches between takeoff and landing.

3 Pilots at an absolutely minimum for long haul.
2 at the controls at all times.

It's all fine until one single pilot crashes a plane during the cruise, lets remember even 3 Air France Pilots could not stop this (hate to bring it up)
So 1 Pilot alone at the controls worries me. Even with monitoring.

8 hour shift remote operators can monitor 2-3 flights at a time in cruise and then shift to full attention during departure and approach eliminating much pilot pay, layover costs, etc. It will start with cargo flights, then to the low cost operators, and then to the rest of the industry. Its gonna happen, whether pilots like it or not.

CX has been plagued by excessive number of expatriate pilots of senior ranks (mostly from UK and Australia) with a pay package that defies the pandemic and its legally expensive to retrench them, hence this could be a counter measure.

NSL,

I wasn’t referring to the article, I was referring to the direction one of the comments was going, I also clearly said it was easily obtainable knowledge with a little effort BUT I was asking nicely out of a sense of courtesy to those in the industry, but by all means.... go right ahead and have an in depth discussion of cockpit access methods on different planes. It was just a respectful request.

I took my first post-pandemic flights two days ago. Both legs JAMMED full of mask-compliant passengers. UA's boarding computers were offline at MSO, so for the tiny Canadair 200 they just "winged it" by checking last names off a paper list. Next leg, on a fully loaded 737-900, was lowlighted for me by having a considerably overweight, off duty but in-uniform pilot plop down in the isle seat next to my wife and me and promptly demonstrate the relationship between obesity and sleep apnea. If I ever saw that guy head onto the flight deck where he might be solely responsible for the lives of > 200 souls, I'd deplane instantly!

I can see Cargo Planes being flown by Operators for sure.
If it crashes its not 100's of people killed.

I can certainly see the Low Cost Airlines thinking about it.

From a passenger view, I'm not sure I trust a pilot on the ground with weather and turbulence and not being able to feel it when it gets rough, that would just put me off flying as I like that the pilots are feeling mainly what we are when it comes to rough weather.

I think it's stupid. It's just shows that capitalists are only concerned about profits. All they are concerned about is getting labor as cheaply as they can. If they could get all Asian pilots at half the price, they would do so. Remember when cockpit crews were captain, first officer, and flight engineer?

A compromise could be a "cockpit security officer." One who is trusted and trained to be in the cockpit as a second set of eyes and ears while the pilot is flying "solo." This individual would not be a licensed pilot, so at a much lower salary. He/she could also babysit the cockpit for bathroom breaks while a solo pilot is out for a break; the cockpit security officer would be trained on emergency procedures in the unlikely event something happens when alone in the cockpit, i.e. monitoring fire safety and pressurization systems. During T/O and landing, he/she could be in the jumpseat; at other times when the two pilots are in the cockpit -- in a crew rest seat.

I'm surprised no one brought up AF447 yet. While most people remembers the pitot tubes, many might forget that the fatal decision was "dual input" from the 2 pilots. One pilot was saving, the other was stalling.

While AF447 had poor CRM, we can't dismiss the ones with good CRM like US1549. I'm not sure but if you put "Sully" alone in AF447 or the correct AF447 pilot, I can't say either can 100% save the plane.

What I can say, if you put the wrong AF447 pilot as the only pilot, AF447 would have an even higher chance of crash.

I think the redundancy here are here for a reason. Unless computers can entirely replace one cockpit crew (like the flight engineer), we still need 2 people in the cockpit.

And we still need someone to prevent another rogue pilot.

I would compare to open source computer encryption - the whole point is to expose the methodology to public comment so that weaknesses in design are identified. That doesn't make encryption weak.

4U9525 period

Wait isn't this just an Air Marshall with an extra 2.5 hour online training course about monitoring fire safety and pressurization systems?

Nothing is infallible. Be it technology or humans. Keep 2 pilots ready at the controls to solve problems at all times.

As the flying public you should be much more concerned with the overall safety of a 2 person crew conducting an approach and landing a plane after a 16 hour flight than discussing the cockpit door operation... Ive operated those flights before and many many “errors are trapped” by the guys and gals (who are exhausted at that point) augmenting in the jumpseats. You are “beat” once you get firmly back on the ground.

No no no and once again no. I'm glad you brought up Germanwings and Egypt Air because those were my first two thoughts immediately after reading the start. Even barring an intentional act, it takes time for a replacement pilot to get into the cockpit and get aquainted with what is happening in the case of an incapacitated pilot

What happens to double checks across the Atlantic for example. So the flying pilot has a bad day and punches in the wrong revised routing or he deviates for weather - who is flying (PF) and who is monitoring (MP) - is this not the fundamental corner stone in safety on airlines. So again the commercial gain and profit before safety - why go half way - go the whole way with single pilot and single engine!
If you think safety (2 pilots + at least 2 engines) is expensive try see how expensive an accident is - it’s closed many an airline.

Eventually no person is going to have a job. Robots are going to do it all.

There should always be two pilots in the cockpit at all times. If one needs to rest, go to the lavatory etc... another should take his/her/they/them place.

You don't know what your talking about. As part of the restructure during the pandemic expatriate pilots lost it all, an expat pilot is now paid the same as a local cadet pilot. Some of the pilots at Cathay have had remuneration cuts as large as 60% yes 60%. Your average inexperienced regional jet captain in North America now makes more cash than a Cathay pilot!

The problem is, being an instrument pilot for 27 years, is that " nothing will go wrong in high speed/altitude until it does. " Want one pilot on a 777 trying to manage an engine fire and hydraulic issues at the same time as the electrical issues emerge. The ticketing staff at major airlines better start informing customers how many qualified pilots will be on board. I would never fly commercial, lord, a 13 hour flight with one pilot up front?

Unless that Cargo plane crashes into a school…..

Have you ever flown a leg like that?

Part of the proof of concept with this trial should be the installation of cctv in the cockpit ( which again pilots are against ) which can be monitored by ground operations periodically throughout the flight.

Big difference!
How many people have been killed in " drone" incidents in the last 25 years?

I cannot see how this will not impact safety-
Post 9/11 cockpit doors can only be unlocked from inside the cockpit. This is the main loophole that was exploited during the Germanwings crash.
On the other hand, giving access to pilots on rest or flight attendants to open cockpit doors poses major security risks in the event of a hijacking as was the case during 9/11.
Moreover, how is a single pilot supposed to manage situations such as mid-air stalls, sudden diversions or any other control issues that demand immediate action?
And last but certainly not the least is the issue of bathroom breaks?
This is part of a growing narrative to build aircrafts that are controlled by computers vs pilots. Airbus pioneered this with the A320 and is now taking this to another level. There have been far too many examples of this leading to several catastrophes. Are we comfortable having a cost benefit analysis that is essentially a trade off between cost and the probability of fatal accidents? I for one am not.
I would rather have airlines to cut costs by removing IFE screens, reducing catering waste and perhaps digitising inflight service and reducing the number of flight attendants on a flight. It seems bizarre why an airline would even risk going down this path?

What if both pilots have the fish?

I used to want to work for Cathay… started my pilot career with the mindset that I was going to work there but they just keep finding ways to screw pilots and flight screw over

We have gone from 4 engine to mainly 2 engine planes on long haul. I must admit I was not happy with that at first.

Most of the flight crew spend a lot of time monitoring. However when things go wrong they really earn their money.

Apart from the issues mentioned about mental health which are very concerning. There are instances where crew overload during emergencies has happened with disastrous results. BD92 crashed at East Midlands because the 2 man crew shut the wrong engine down.
More recently a Qantas A380 had a problem with an engine after leaving SIN. There was a training captain on board and it took 4 highly experienced crew to recover the aircraft.

As we saw with the 737 MAX saga it takes a few tragedies to make people sit up and take notice.
This will come in at some point , hopefully not for many years.

Cathay i may still trust better to fly with as passenger as they can be very stringent. Others esp US carrier.... Not sure.... Esp with off your flight attendant issue... And their mental health country disaster

Implementing technology to monitor pilots is one thing but the aviation world has a very poor record of successful and seamless tech. There is a reason why they still rely on mainframe technology. We already Also know that some pilots do their own thing and now without a 2nd they are even more likely to do whatever they want. Think pilots who smokes wherever they feel like or those who drink. And I vote they eat meals separately. We don't need both getting sick. Maybe they should have at least one FA on board with a pilot's license and for God sake pay them more.

You have to wonder what CX are up to . No airline has tried so hard to destroy it's own reputation. It's almost as if they are trying to find an excuse to close it down.

So he should work a 15hour+ shift?

No chance in hell... ask yourself, would you board this? Hong Kong, quickly becoming a farce of the PRC

Totally agree on the mental health issue. Personally, I would not feel comfortable with one or even zero (in the future) pilots in the cockpit at any given time.

I hope people feel the same way. Even if the plane flies itself, having multiple humans making critical decisions, is much more comfortable.

$17000 to pay the flight crew is not alot. You also have to pay the Flight attendants and the support staff. The aircraft a B777 burns 7.5 to 8.5 tonnes an hour (fuel is the biggest cost in flying and the FlightCrew and ATC manage the way its burnt). Cutting the manning and the pay in the flight deck is a cheap foolish idea, you are getting a bargain at $17000. The safety implications of having 2 crew on the flight deck are high. After
German Wings every flight had a 2 crew at all times rule and many had it before that horrible disaster.

Same as the above, staffing cost is a big concern to the airlines, but the potential risks are way too much when implying these changes.

Each airline has decide why they are in the ultra long haul space. It’s not a space for low cost / low value and in my experience there’s reductions in cost by not having an intermediate stop. When I compare pricing there is always a surcharge to passengers for ultra long haul flying versus prices with a stop and given this has already been tested in terms consumer value and uptake surely the extra crew costs are factored in to airfare pricing.

Cathay has forced up to 70% permanent pay cuts onto their most senior crew 8 months ago. Getting paid any less would be just cruel.

you are totally wrong.

I'm only trying to "Load all 54 Comments" as per your link?? What next?

Naturally the airlines would rather save money over the safety of passengers.

After Cathay Pacific had fired all pilots and crew who were sympathetic to the pro-democracy and anti-Chicom-extradition protests 2 years ago, I suppose CX can foresee when travel demands pick up they will have a hard time hiring pilots, particularly western pilots, who are willing to pledge their absolute allegiance to the totalitarian Communist Chinese regime.

Uhh, no. I want two fully competent, rested and alert pilots flying the plane at all times. That certainly isn't too much to ask for from the passengers perspective. If an airline is so concerned about profit that they are willing to leave one pilot in the cockpit, I will not be a customer. Screw them.

The faa mandates that TWO people must be in the cockpit at all times to prevent pilots ftom commiting suicide or from falling asleep while in the cockpit.