Airline Industry Then and Now

On my discussion group of retired pilots the subjects of engine failures, pilot pay, safety, and advanced technology were discussed.

Dennis R wrote, "Personally, I think we may see one pilot in the cockpit within our life times."

I believe Dennis R is correct. Though maybe not in my lifetime:-) As the public becomes accustomed to military drone operations as being normal, newer generations will accept having only one pilot in the cockpit.

The first adjustments will likely be the relief pilots operating from the ground, monitoring the cockpit while one pilot sleeps and another flies the airplane. The relief pilot may even monitor two cockpits from the ground. The relief pilot will be working in his own domestic time zone. No need to pay a pilot while he is sleeping.

Technology improves productivity. I remember my first flight from O'Hara to Honolulu in a four engine DC-8-62. We had five crewmembers in the cockpit; Capt., First Officer, Second Officer, Navigator, and relief Capt., all to carry about 160 passengers. Now a crew of 2, with one relief pilot, in the cockpit can carry twice the number of passengers on a twin engine 777 from ORD to HNL with more fuel efficient engines. And of course, more people are flying, creating more pilot jobs than when I flew ORD/HNL.

This link shows some airline data from 1960 to 2006. My interpretation of the data may not be accurate.

The passenger enplanements went from 56 million in 1960 to 675 million in 2006. That was a 12 fold increase while the U.S. population only increased by 80%.

The number of airline aircraft in 1960 was 2100. In 2006 that number increased to around 4000. Despite this improvement in technology and the cockpit crew reductions, the number of airline employees increased from 170,000 in 1960 to 539,000 in 2006.

Much of the reason for growth and improvement in the airline industry is due to technology, like other industries. The airline industry in the U.S. was deregulated in 1978. This made it easer for non union airlines to be created with non union pay scales. This has lowered labor costs, though fuel costs have increased, which is why, along with too much competition, has prevented airlines from being profitable. While flying became affordable to more people under deregulation, it also became safer.

Denis O'Malley is right when he says United Airlines could not get any new routes before airline deregulation in 1978. Promotions were slow at the major carriers and rapid at the smaller carriers because the Civil Aeronautics Board awarded new routes to smaller carriers. The fear about deregulation was the big carriers would dominate. What did United Airlines, a giant carrier at the time, decide to add as their first new route after deregulation? It was Buffalo to Orlando!

The airline industry is unlikely to be profitable for any length of time. As soon as an airline buys new aircraft they park good airplanes in the desert, which will soon be flown by a new startup airline with lower labor costs, and the cycle continues.

Here is a link to a good article about the past airline industry and some of the future challenges.

Despite the lower pay for airline pilots the accident rate has diminished since 1990 according to this NTSB page. There is no data that shows higher pilot pay determines safety. (Montreal - The International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced the aviation safety performance for 2009 showing that the year’s accident rate for Western-built jet aircraft as the second lowest in aviation history.)

If you increased pilot pay from $50,000 per year to $500,000 per year you would increase the number of pilot applicants. But how much safer would it make airline travel? If you increased teachers' pay ten fold would you get better teachers? How about truck drivers and police? As long as you have and adequate supply of applicants it does not matter about the pay. If the supply of applicants decreases, the pay will increase. If the supply of applicants increases, the pay will decrease.

The May 2010 Transport World Magazine article that said the pilot profession is starting to lose its luster is correct. It started when, as Dick Ferris is famous for saying, "It is now possible for a flight attendant to get a pilot pregnant." When an airplane can make auto landings the pilot has become a system manager and the pilot image has lost luster.

Most airline passengers never experience an engine failure. When a turbine engine is shutdown in flight there is no visible evidence to the passengers, like a feathered prop. I had one engine failure on a 727 around 1969 shortly after takeoff, I was the S/O, and a precautionary shutdown on a DC-10 with Dick O'Toole as captain and I as F/O. With such current safety the fear of flying is diminished, along with the pilot's luster.

There was a discussion about reciprocating engine failures and about a B-36 bomber with multiple engine failures. This reminded me of my tour on Okinawa as an infantryman stationed close to Kadena AFB in 1953-56. It was quiet common to see B-29s in the landing pattern with an engine shut down. Soon the new B-47s jet bomber with six jet engines started appearing in the pattern. What a beautiful sight they were! I suspect some of the B-47s had an engine shutdown but, who could tell from the ground?

When earlier piston engine powered airplanes had an engine failure on takeoff the rudder input necessary to correct the yaw required significant leg strength from the pilot. Today that input can be automatic, done by the aircraft systems, further tarnishing the image of the heroic pilot.

Steam engine technology diminished the image of the sailing captains. The railroad engineer's image was diminished by the airline pilot. Artificial intelligence and bio engineering will diminish the images we have painted of ourselves. And so it goes.

Charles Tolleson