I’m not sure how exactly to feel about this, and for that matter wonder if this will ever become a reality.
In this post:
Long haul flights currently have up to four pilots
For some context, currently virtually all commercial flights have anywhere from two to four pilots:
- Two pilots is the absolute minimum for any length of flight
- Then for long haul flights there are often one or two relief pilots, who take turns at the controls while the primary captain and first officer are resting; this way one set of pilots can be alert for landing
- As a general rule of thumb, many airlines have three pilots on flights of 8-12 hours, and four pilots on flights of 12+ hours; this varies based on regulations in a particular country, pilot contracts, etc.
Pilot staffing can be expensive, especially on long haul flights, where pilots are paid for the entire flight, even when they’re resting. For example, take a 17 hour Dallas to Hong Kong flight on American Airlines, which has four pilots (this route is suspended right now, but I’m using it as an example);
- American 777 captains earn up to $342 per hour
- American 777 first officers earn up to $234 per hour
Assuming you have one captain and three first officers, you’re potentially looking at $1,000+ per hour in pilot pay alone, which could translate to $17,000 in pay over the course of a one-way flight. That’s a lot.
How long haul pilot staffing could be reduced
It’s being reported that Airbus and Cathay Pacific are collaborating on something known as “Project Connect,” which could greatly reduce pilot staffing on Airbus A350s operating long haul flights by 2025. Here’s the concept:
- Rather than there being up to four pilots on long haul flights, there would be two
- Both the captain and first officer would be in the cockpit during takeoff and landing, while during cruise the pilots would alternate resting
- This means that for most of the cruise, there would be one pilot in the cockpit, rather than two
- There would be constant monitoring of the vital signs of the pilot flying by onboard systems, so that there would be an alert in the event that the pilot becomes incapacitated
- In the event of an emergency, the other pilot could be called into the flight deck within minutes
There had been rumors of Airbus working on this concept in general, but up until now no airline partner had been identified as being interested, at least not publicly. Cathay Pacific is the first to acknowledge involvement in this.
Airbus claims that the company has proven over decades that safety can be enhanced by putting the latest technology in aircraft, and that this is no different.
This will no doubt be an uphill battle. Regulatory approval will be required for this to be allowed, and that seems like a big “if” to me. Furthermore, Cathay Pacific is stating that it would only implement this if there were “absolutely no compromise on safety.”
Per a Cathay Pacific spokesperson:
While we are engaging with Airbus in the development of the concept of reduced crew operations, we have not committed in any way to being the launch customer.
The appropriateness and effectiveness of any such rollout as well as (the) overall cost-benefit analysis (will) ultimately depend on how the pandemic plays out. Having said that, we will continue to engage with Airbus and to support development of the concept.
The head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Patrick Ky, has expressed his general support for the concept:
Typically on long-haul flights when you’re at cruise altitude there’s very little happening in the cockpit. It makes sense to say OK, instead of having two in the cockpit, we can have one in the cockpit, the other one taking a rest, provided we’re implementing technical solutions which make sure that if the single one falls asleep or has any problem, there won’t be any unsafe conditions.
Unsurprisingly, pilots are opposed to this concept across the board. They cite safety concerns, though of course even bigger picture a lot of pilot jobs could be lost if this technology were implemented.
My thoughts on reduced pilot staffing
My initial reaction is that the thought of a single-pilot at a time in the cockpit of a long haul jet makes me uneasy. But am I being logical, or do I just feel that way because it’s what I’m familiar with?
Realistically speaking, I think this probably doesn’t pose that much of a risk if everyone is acting in good faith:
- Most problems arise during takeoff and landing, and not at cruise
- If pilots’ vitals can be monitored in a way that ensures they’re alert when alone in the cockpit, then that potentially addresses the risk of them being incapacitated
I have two major concerns.
My first concern is how exactly bathroom breaks will work for pilots. Will a flight attendant be put at the controls of the plane while a pilot uses the bathroom? Not all bathroom breaks take just 30 seconds, so how exactly will that be handled? Will flight attendants be trained in communicating with air traffic control, or…?
My biggest concern, though — and I hate to even go here — is mental health. Over the years we’ve seen several plane crashes happen due to intentional acts by pilots. We know that happened with Germanwings 9525, and it sure seems highly likely that also happened with Malaysia Airlines 370 and EgyptAir 990 (along with many other flights).
What do these flights have in common? There was just one pilot in the cockpit when the pilots made the decision to take the planes down. I imagine that’s not a coincidence, both in terms of the mental state one is in when attempting something like this, and also the opportunity to do something like this when there’s a second person in the cockpit.
Am I the only one who would feel at least slightly uneasy knowing there’s just one person in the cockpit? If another pilot intentionally takes down a plane in the future (which I hate to think about, but history has a tendency to repeat itself), and if it happens on a flight with a new system like this, would that cause us to reconsider this, or is that just a “cost” associated with lower staffing?
Bottom line
Airbus is exploring the possibility of single-pilot cockpit operations on long haul flights, as a way of reducing the overall number of pilots on some flights from four to two. The cost savings for airlines would be significant.
Cathay Pacific is now partnering with Airbus on this concept, with the goal of implementing this new reduced staffing by 2025.
Maybe my opinion will evolve on this, but the whole concept makes me uncomfortable. It’s not safety as such that I’m worried about, in the sense that not all that much happens at cruise. Rather it’s mental health that concerns me a lot more, particularly when you have just one person in a cockpit for hours on end.
What do you make of the concept of single-pilot long haul flights?
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.
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.
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.
Naturally the airlines would rather save money over the safety of passengers.
I'm only trying to "Load all 54 Comments" as per your link?? What next?
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.
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.
$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...
$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.
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.
No chance in hell... ask yourself, would you board this? Hong Kong, quickly becoming a farce of the PRC
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.
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...
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.
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
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...
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.
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
What if both pilots have the fish?
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...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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
Nothing is infallible. Be it technology or humans. Keep 2 pilots ready at the controls to solve problems at all times.
4U9525 period
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...
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.
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...
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.
Wait isn't this just an Air Marshall with an extra 2.5 hour online training course about monitoring fire safety and pressurization systems?
So he should work a 15hour+ shift?
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?
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...
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!
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.
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!
you are totally wrong.
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.
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.
Unless that Cargo plane crashes into a school…..
Eventually no person is going to have a job. Robots are going to do it all.
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.
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.
Big difference!
How many people have been killed in " drone" incidents in the last 25 years?
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.
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’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
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.
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.
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.
Yeah no thanks, keep it two at all times, happy if higher ticket prices reflect this.
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
@ 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.
Have you ever flown a leg like that?
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.
@ 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.
@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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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