The furure of employment for pilots?

[Ted]

The issue of seniority gets very difficult in airline world.

As an airline pilot, what "merit" advances would you get? Most flight hours without an accident? Everything is so procedural and based on what's written down I can't see how you'd get a merit increase while still being fair. I see the seniority system making sense, although it definitely is problematic that it effectively marries you to your company for life.

In most other jobs, it's a lot more obvious who's doing a good job and who's not.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

You get the system that an awful lot of us (myself included) work under.

Yeah? And what would that be?

 

[steingar]

I consider the airline deregulation as one of the most successful policies ever envisioned by government. As I understand it (and some of you fogies can correct me if I'm wrong) the airlines were originally regulated in the name of safety. Well, the deregulated airlines are far safer than the regulated airlines ever were. Not only that, but they have engendered unseen economic activity. The sort of domestic tourism we have in the US is both unprecedented and impossible without inexpensive air travel. Prior to deregulation few people could afford air travel. After many people could, allowing increased activity both by the airlines and the industries feeding off them.

Show me the down side. Yeah, the customer service stinks, but that is corporate culture and has nothing to do with regulation. It has been hard on pilots, admittedly. What it has been good for, really good, is the American public. And that is who the Congress and the government is supposed to serve in the end.

 

[astanley]

Yeah? And what would that be?

Speaking for the Capt., a merit based system that has the potential for abuse. I agree with Ted, I've actually put some thought behind this, and I can't think of a way to fit merit in with route based professional piloting. (I could advocate for a way in charter, on-demand, and corporate flying, but that's not the subject at hand).

The one challenge to all systems is customer service. I've flown behind crews who are the epitome of exceptional customer service. On international legs, I've had off-duty cabin crew walk through my cabin and thank us for flying, and ask us if there is anything they can do for us. A great gesture. Ones that stand at the door during boarding, welcoming you aboard. If the airline could link customer satisfaction with repeat business, then you could mix that in. But I doubt there is a high enough correlation, especially where competition on a route is low, to warrant including merit-based systems in airline labor management.

One thought -- does anyone know how B6, WN, and FDX did it prior to unionization?

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Everskyward]

(I could advocate for a way in charter, on-demand, and corporate flying, but that's not the subject at hand).

These kinds of flying are generally not seniority based, at least not in the rigid way that airlines are. Seniority may count for something but certainly not everything.

 

[flyersfan31]

Exactly.

If you eliminate the seniority system within a company, and base advancement on merit, you introduce a whole lot of potential for abuse into the system. You get management that plays favorites, Chief Pilots who may not like you, vice presidents that want to get their Sister-in-law a good job. Politics, favoritism, cronyism, nepotism. It goes on and on.

I agree that the universal seniority likely wouldn't work. That's why I think you have to ditch it and start over.

The merit system works pretty much in other areas of business. It's interesting that your objections are the same ones levied by teachers against a merit system. Any system will have its flaws. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or whatever that saying is. I can't imagine you wouldn't be able to put in safeguards to prevent the worst abuses. Moreover, if a company allowed that to happen, then pilots likely wouldn't want to work there.

It just seems to me, as an outsider, that seniority has so many downsides, the biggest of which is that it makes pilots virtually indentured servants. To wit, when I went to SimCom last year, my CFI was on furlough from Spirit. He had too much seniority to risk taking another job, so he was working for peanuts and brown-bagging lunch hoping to get back on with Spirit. If he had, say, enough hours to be Senior Vice Pilot under my plan, he could apply to any other airline and not sweat the seniority.

AAhh, but I hear you thinking, that's not fair, because there are guys already at the other airline toiling the Asst Sr Pilot level that this guy is going to jump over. Well, that's true. If there aren't enough openings, they may have to jump ship to another airline in order to advance, or keep building hours until they too meet the Senior Vice Pilot standards. That's how things work in, say, finance.

I dunno. Again, it just seems that there has to be a better way. Furlough just doesn't make sense to me. ALPA might not care because (I'm guessing here) furloughed pilots still pay union dues, so the incentive isn't there to get them in the air. I might be wrong there, and I hope I am. I would, if I were ALPA, suspend dues for furloughees.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Speaking for the Capt., a merit based system that has the potential for abuse. I agree with Ted, I've actually put some thought behind this, and I can't think of a way to fit merit in with route based professional piloting. (I could advocate for a way in charter, on-demand, and corporate flying, but that's not the subject at hand).

Yup.

How one would apply it to a pilot is something I haven't thought about. But the sentiment I've seen expressed is that there is no (I need a word here, but can't come up with the right one) difference between professional pilots? One is as good as another? I would think not. I would assume that many pilots could point at the others in a room and say "good stick", "OK pilot", "box of rocks", "accident waiting to happen", etc... Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I agree that the universal seniority likely wouldn't work. That's why I think you have to ditch it and start over.

Nothing to ditch because it does not exist in the airline world.

It just seems to me, as an outsider,

Key word, there.

that seniority has so many downsides, the biggest of which is that it makes pilots virtually indentured servants.

Well, what you are inadvertently suggesting is that a pilot be able to jump from company to company at a whim. Thing is, do you think a company would go for that? The industry as a whole? They aren't going to hire a pilot at a 12 year salary level when they can hire someone at a zero year level.

To wit, when I went to SimCom last year, my CFI was on furlough from Spirit. He had too much seniority to risk taking another job, so he was working for peanuts and brown-bagging lunch hoping to get back on with Spirit.

Plus the fact that NO ONE IS HIRING right now.

If he had, say, enough hours to be Senior Vice Pilot under my plan, he could apply to any other airline and not sweat the seniority.

Yeah. As I mentioned, you also have to get the airlines to buy off on that and that ain't gonna happen in this lifetime. I mean, what is the upside for the airline?

AAhh, but I hear you thinking, that's not fair, because there are guys already at the other airline toiling the Asst Sr Pilot level that this guy is going to jump over. Well, that's true. If there aren't enough openings, they may have to jump ship to another airline in order to advance, or keep building hours until they too meet the Senior Vice Pilot standards. That's how things work in, say, finance.

This isn't finance. Different animal, different set of issues.

Furlough just doesn't make sense to me.

What is your suggested alternative?

ALPA might not care because (I'm guessing here) furloughed pilots still pay union dues,

Wrong. Dues are based on salary. No salary, no dues.

I might be wrong there, and I hope I am.

Yep, you are.

Seniority, while not perfect, beats the hell out of the alternatives.

You are looking at it from purely an employee point of view. You ALSO have to factor in the companies. To get them to hire a pilot at a higher pay level than entry level does not make financial sense to them. And in Management's view, the bottom line is the bottom line. Why hire someone at 150,000 a year when they can get someone at 75,000 a year?

 

[Everskyward]

How one would apply it to a pilot is something I haven't thought about. But the sentiment I've seen expressed is that there is no (I need a word here, but can't come up with the right one) difference between professional pilots? One is as good as another? I would think not. I would assume that many pilots could point at the others in a room and say "good stick", "OK pilot", "box of rocks", "accident waiting to happen", etc... Correct me if I'm wrong.

Subjectively there is some difference between one pilot and another but how do you measure that? Is it even measurable? Presumably if you pass the test that everyone else passes you are good to go. Hopefully you will have already weeded out the "accidents waiting to happen".

 

[astanley]

Subjectively there is some difference between one pilot and another but how do you measure that? Is it even measurable? Presumably if you pass the test that everyone else passes you are good to go. Hopefully you will have already weeded out the "accidents waiting to happen".

In most private sector jobs, as you move up the ranks, it's more about subjectivity than objectivity. At the top of many companies, there are a legion of executives who can cut cost like a surgeon, please customers like an entertainer, exhibit vision like a futurist, and deliver results like the FedEx. So, the move "up" becomes about subjective factors. It can be a bit of a popularity contest (or, reverse musical-chairs, such as the BoA CEO hiring games we all saw recently). While I do agree with Ted's point, I do not think "subjectivity" is insurmountable as a challenge to managing "who does what" at any employer.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Everskyward]

In most private sector jobs, as you move up the ranks, it's more about subjectivity than objectivity. At the top of many companies, there are a legion of executives who can cut cost like a surgeon, please customers like an entertainer, exhibit vision like a futurist, and deliver results like the FedEx. So, the move "up" becomes about subjective factors. It can be a bit of a popularity contest (or, reverse musical-chairs, such as the BoA CEO hiring games we all saw recently). While I do agree with Ted's point, I do not think "subjectivity" is insurmountable as a challenge to managing "who does what" at any employer.

I think the problem is scale. Even at a large company aren't you talking about maybe 10 or 20 people who are competing for a job, not thousands?

 

[flyersfan31]

Seniority, while not perfect, beats the hell out of the alternatives.

You are looking at it from purely an employee point of view. You ALSO have to factor in the companies. To get them to hire a pilot at a higher pay level than entry level does not make financial sense to them. And in Management's view, the bottom line is the bottom line. Why hire someone at 150,000 a year when they can get someone at 75,000 a year?

I know universal seniority doesn't exist. What I meant was, if somehow you were to restructure things I would say ditch the concept of seniority, period.

AFA the Spirit guy on furlough, there were airlines hiring, but he'd give up his seniority and be low guy on the totem. Seniority forces you to put all your eggs in one basket. For me, I wouldn't like being tied down to one company.

Companies hire people at higher pay grades all the time. My wife, for example, came in at a high pay grade in her new job. They needed someone experienced to fill out the position. They could have promoted from within as well.

What I'm trying to do is explore alternatives. What if ALPA negotiated that an airline had to have a certain number of slots at each of my pilot ranks. Somebody changes jobs, or moves up a rank - that slot has to be filled. Airline might say, "well, all our Asst Sr Pilots are 4000hrs or less. We have this resume from a guy at UAL who is at 6700 hrs, all in A3X0 which we are looking to add to the fleet, lets pick him instead. Given our ALPA contract, that says we are REQUIRED to have 100 Sr. Pilots at $150k per year, lets get someone with some helpful experience."

Yes, it's a paradigm shift, under the assumption that pilots would like more freedom than they currently have under the existing paradigm. Again - I'm looking it from the perspective who would hate to be more or less stuck with whatever company originally signed me on.

 

[astanley]

I think the problem is scale. Even at a large company aren't you talking about maybe 10 or 20 people who are competing for a job, not thousands?

In my company of 25,000, there are about 750 people who are in a "subjectivity reigns" role. Objectivity plays a larger part the farther down the pole you are, but subjectivity is still a large part.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Everskyward]

In my company of 25,000, there are about 750 people who are in a "subjectivity reigns" role. Objectivity plays a larger part the farther down the pole you are, but subjectivity is still a large part.

But what I'm trying to say is that when you have upper level job opening not all 750 people are going to apply, right? Maybe not even 50? I don't know anything about the staffing of upper level management of big companies. However, at an airline say a 747 captain position opens up. Even if you put some conditions on it like you need 10,000 hours total and 2,000 hours as PIC in some other jet, you'll still get many applicants, probably hundreds. And that's just for one position. That means someone needs to screen all those applicants, rate them in some way and come up with a decision. That's just for one position. Then the position that pilot vacates needs to be filled too, and on an on.

 

[flyersfan31]

But what I'm trying to say is that when you have upper level job opening not all 750 people are going to apply, right? Maybe not even 50? I don't know anything about the staffing of upper level management of big companies. However, at an airline say a 747 captain position opens up. Even if you put some conditions on it like you need 10,000 hours total and 2,000 hours as PIC in some other jet, you'll still get many applicants, probably hundreds. And that's just for one position. That means someone needs to screen all those applicants, rate them in some way and come up with a decision. That's just for one position. Then the position that pilot vacates needs to be filled too, and on an on.

That's what HR is for. How do you think they fill lower level positions, where you get that pile of resumes??? You flip through a huge pile of resumes. Rely on recommendations. That sort of thing. Typical for hiring. Now, at the exec level, it's done through headhunters.

Say you have an opening for chief pilot. The 5 internal Executive Vice Pilots are in contention, but you open it up to outsiders through a headhunter. Maybe the EVPs are flaming aholes and nobody wants to see them as chief. Maybe they get po'd and go to some other airline and become chief pilot there. It's no less fair than saying, well, you got signed the day before me, you get to be chief.

 

[Everskyward]

That's what HR is for. How do you think they fill lower level positions, where you get that pile of resumes??? You flip through a huge pile of resumes. Rely on recommendations. That sort of thing. Typical for hiring. Now, at the exec level, it's done through headhunters.

I'm just trying to imagine how that would work for upgrades in the airline environment when so many people have similar qualifications.

Say you have an opening for chief pilot. The 5 internal Executive Vice Pilots are in contention, but you open it up to outsiders through a headhunter. Maybe the EVPs are flaming aholes and nobody wants to see them as chief. Maybe they get po'd and go to some other airline and become chief pilot there. It's no less fair than saying, well, you got signed the day before me, you get to be chief.

I think that once you get into management positions airlines no longer go by seniority. The number 1 person does not get to be the chief pilot.

 

[flyersfan31]

I'm just trying to imagine how that would work for upgrades in the airline environment when so many people have similar qualifications.

Kinda like biz, where people have similar quals. Interviews. Recommendations. Might a better stick suffer because she doesn't interview as well? Maybe.

No system is perfect.

think that once you get into management positions airlines no longer go by seniority. The number 1 person does not get to be the chief pilot.

Ahh. Interesting. But they don't go outside the airline to hire, do they??

Again, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to pee on the seniority system. If pilots are happy with it, good for them. I'm just curious if there isn't a better way that would create more career flexibility for them.

 

[Everskyward]

Kinda like biz, where people have similar quals. Interviews. Recommendations. Might a better stick suffer because she doesn't interview as well? Maybe.

Maybe, but I guess you would need a much bigger HR department to handle all of this. And what does HR know about flying airplanes anyway.

No system is perfect.

I agree and I'm not trying to defend the seniority system anyway and I'm glad I'm not subjected to it. I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

Ahh. Interesting. But they don't go outside the airline to hire, do they??

I don't know. Maybe someone else would have more insight.

Again, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to pee on the seniority system. If pilots are happy with it, good for them. I'm just curious if there isn't a better way that would create more career flexibility for them.

I think it's one of those things that's so entrenched that it would be hard to do something else. If you were starting over entirely that would be a different matter. But what do you do with the people who are already in the system?

 

[Ted]

Maybe, but I guess you would need a much bigger HR department to handle all of this. And what does HR know about flying airplanes anyway.

About as much as they know about engineering or much of anything else.

 

[maddog52]

Nothing to ditch because it does not exist in the airline world.

You are looking at it from purely an employee point of view. You ALSO have to factor in the companies. To get them to hire a pilot at a higher pay level than entry level does not make financial sense to them. And in Management's view, the bottom line is the bottom line. Why hire someone at 150,000 a year when they can get someone at 75,000 a year?

That nailed it!! The airlines have already proven that they are willing to let go highly skilled/experienced pilots and outsource those jobs to much less experienced pilots with fewer qualifications. Why would they suddenly decide to start paying top dollar for a quality new hire under a "merit based" system when they can get him/her much cheaper in a seniority based system. ALPA or anyone could come up with a brilliant and "Fair" system, but the airlines would never go for it unless it was cheaper than the current system.

 

[TMetzinger]

In my engineering job, my creativity, smarts, and work ethic have a direct impact on the quality of the service I give my clients. I solve problems faster, client saves money. I design a system with super-high reliability, client saves money on operations and maintenance. When a new problem comes along, I may have to INVENT the solution to it.

Compare that to airline flying. Every part of normal operations has been thoroughly analyzed, there's a process for it, and the SYSTEM is designed to be able to work well as long as the pilot is competent to do his task flying the airplane in accordance with company procedures. Airline pilots should only be inventing stuff in an emergency, and then only in emergencies like Sioux City or Sully's flight. "Normal" emergencies already have a procedure.

So, given that, how can an airline pilot "add value" and stand above his peers in a way that directly affects the company's finances? Short of going into a management role (like the guy at Alaska who led the charge for RNP operations to improve reliability), there doesn't seem to be much to do, but I'd be willing to hear Greg say otherwise.

If an airline pilot truly is an interchangeable part, with the only difference being qualified as captain or not, then seniority is about the only way to reward folks for loyalty to the company.

Other types of flying, where the pilot is much more a "representative" of the company, and may wear customer service and operations management hats (like I'm sure Mari does), there are other factors to judge and I'm sure they come into play.

 

[Gmaper]

That nailed it!! The airlines have already proven that they are willing to let go highly skilled/experienced pilots and outsource those jobs to much less experienced pilots with fewer qualifications. Why would they suddenly decide to start paying top dollar for a quality new hire under a "merit based" system when they can get him/her much cheaper in a seniority based system. ALPA or anyone could come up with a brilliant and "Fair" system, but the airlines would never go for it unless it was cheaper than the current system.

This is an interesting discussion. I don't see anyone complaining about unions. I thought management does not like unions. I thought a lot of people don't like unions.

I would expect to see the airlines work towards a non-union environment and ditch seniority in the process. They will hire the cheapest pilots they can find.

 

[Speed]

So somebody wanted to see an actual schedule? Here's one... This is an old trip rig, but it gives a good example. Obviously you can't do this trip 4 times in a month, so one week or two would be alternated with a slightly lower block time trip.

Sorry, it doesn't copy/paste too well, so I attached a jpeg too.

104 FR REPORT AT 5.05 EFFECTIVE NOV 02 ONLY

DAY FLT. EQP DEPARTS ARRIVES BLK. BLK. DUTY CR. LAYOVER
02FR 2230 400 PDX 0630 SEA 0717 .47 HANGAR P/U
02FR 2429 400 SEA 0800 PDX 0844 .44
02FR 2450 400 PDX 1005 YVR 1109 1.04
02FR 2451 400 YVR 1150 PDX 1300 1.10
02FR 2354 400 PDX 1340 GEG 1441 1.01
RED LION RIVER INN/509-326-557 4.46 9.51 4.46 GEG 13.19
7/VAN
03SA 2371 400 GEG 0500 SEA 0601 1.01
03SA 2390 400 SEA 0645 BOI 0905 1.20
03SA 2391 400 BOI 0940 SEA 1010 1.30
03SA 2486 400 SEA 1055 BLI 1132 .37
03SA 2487 400 BLI 1205 SEA 1241 .36
03SA 2275 400 SEA 1415 RDM 1520 1.05
BEST WESTERN RAMA/541-548-8080 6.09 11.20 6.09 RDM 15.25
/VAN
04SU 2294 400 RDM 0645 SEA 0750 1.05
04SU 2287 400 SEA 0900 PDX 0944 .44
04SU 2242 400 PDX 1030 SEA 1117 .47
04SU 2475 400 SEA 1220 STS 1430 2.10
FOUNTAINGROVE INN HOTEL & CONF 4.46 8.45 4.46 STS 14.30
CTR/707-578-6101/VAN
05MO 2467 400 STS 0600 LAX 0735 1.35
05MO 2468 400 LAX 0815 STS 0955 1.40
05MO 2474 400 STS 1035 SEA 1250 2.15
05MO 2376 400 SEA 1400 GEG 1455 .55
05MO 2377 400 GEG 1530 SEA 1631 1.01
05MO DH2459 400 SEA 1730 PDX 1814 .44
7.26 13.04 8.10
CREDIT HRS. 23.51 BLK. HRS. 23.07 LDGS: 20 TAFB 86.14

 

[flyersfan31]

This is an interesting discussion. I don't see anyone complaining about unions. I thought management does not like unions. I thought a lot of people don't like unions.

I would expect to see the airlines work towards a non-union environment and ditch seniority in the process. They will hire the cheapest pilots they can find.

To get rid of unions, you first have to have the pilots vote them out. The union is the only thing standing between the pilots and flying a 747 for $19,000 per year. Don't expect unions to go away.

In my experience, unions are strongest in general where management is the worst. Auto industry, anyone? Airlines have some of the absolute worst management I have seen. Its no wonder they're heavily unionized. I'd be unionized too if I had to put up with that crap.

If the execs would take the 40% pay cut with everyone else it would be one thing, but they don't. Somehow they still pocket the bonuses. First principle of leadership: make sure the men are fed before you eat.

 

[Gmaper]

To get rid of unions, you first have to have the pilots vote them out. The union is the only thing standing between the pilots and flying a 747 for $19,000 per year. Don't expect unions to go away.

In my experience, unions are strongest in general where management is the worst. Auto industry, anyone? Airlines have some of the absolute worst management I have seen. Its no wonder they're heavily unionized. I'd be unionized too if I had to put up with that crap.

If the execs would take the 40% pay cut with everyone else it would be one thing, but they don't. Somehow they still pocket the bonuses. First principle of leadership: make sure the men are fed before you eat.

I have every expectation of unions going away. They have diminished considerably since there hey-day. I expect to see a future Congress side with the big money and legislate the effective demise of unions.

 

[flyersfan31]

I have every expectation of unions going away. They have diminished considerably since there hey-day. I expect to see a future Congress side with the big money and legislate the effective demise of unions.

Not gonna happen. What big money, anyway? How is a verging-on-bankruptcy industry big money???

 

[Gmaper]

Not gonna happen. What big money, anyway? How is a verging-on-bankruptcy industry big money???

Here is an example of how FedEx suggested to Congress that they didn't like unionization. They supported their argument with $$$$ impact.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/24/10-billion-threat-fedex-warns-lawmakers-over-union/

I agree that the airlines are in poor financial condition. I think their poor financial condition would actually help them because Congress would be able to say that whatever they did was to "help the ailing industry and preserve jobs, blah blah blah." Congress is quick to help industry if it preserves jobs. So what if the jobs preserved are lower paying.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

It is clear that UAV technological advances are coming. Technically Advanced Aircraft have already changed (not eliminated) the traditional pilot workload. The next space shuttle will be pilotless. As the public learns about pilots over flying destination airports, or mistakenly landing on taxi ways, or being arrested for flying drunk, it seems their opinion may be more favorable towards flying in fully automated systems. While a pilot may be sitting up front, his duties will be significantly different. (Maybe sitting alone on the starboard side of the cockpit.)

You reference such publicized but rare incidents. On average there are almost 30,000 commercial flights operated each day.

 

[Everskyward]

Here is an example of how FedEx suggested to Congress that they didn't like unionization. They supported their argument with $$$$ impact.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/24/10-billion-threat-fedex-warns-lawmakers-over-union/

But it doesn't sound like they are having much success.

At the moment, the Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill is stalled in the Senate Finance Committee, where it's likely to remain at least until after Christmas. But the measure doesn't contain the FedEx labor provision. There simply wasn't sufficient support among senators, says one senior Democratic staffer.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/12/08/fedex-and-ups-feud-over-union-rules.html

I thought this was an easier to understand article which gives the background of this argument. This is the first time I had heard of it but I don't pay much attention to union issues.

 

[Trapper John]

But it doesn't sound like they are having much success.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/12/08/fedex-and-ups-feud-over-union-rules.html

I thought this was an easier to understand article which gives the background of this argument. This is the first time I had heard of it but I don't pay much attention to union issues.

"We are two great companies. Let us continue to compete without the government stepping in on behalf of one of us."

LOL, time to put on the waders!


Trapper John

 

[Alice R]

The biggest single thing that keeps flight school classrooms full is enthusiastic young people who envision becoming an ATP someday.

The day is rapidly approaching when most commercial flights will be roboticly flown, probably starting with cargo planes. I'm talking within the next twenty or so years.

What will become of GA aviation when that happens. Empty flight schools, and all the supporting industries. Will they even need control towers anymore?

GA will probably be dominated by older guys like myself, who have a little extra cash, just wanting to learn something new, and hopefully, have a little fun.

Will there be enough of them to sustain an industry? Every year that goes by, the regulations increase. In 1970, the FARs publication was barely an inch thick, what will it be like in another forty years? Will anybody even want to go to the trouble?



It is going to happen, I have no doubt about that. Robots do not get tired, they don't make mistakes, they don't need retirement packages. You can bet airline companies are already looking at this technology.

John

John , New member here . I agree with what you said about GA and the FARs but the Otto Pilot thing is never gonna happen . This has been studied in the past in great detail and it was determined as far back as the 70s (In a basic nutshell ) that there is too much that goes on during even a routine flight that requires skill and judgment that a computer would never be capable of . That said , automation has made fliying much safer and easier .
Take a look at Military UAVs . As cool as these things are , they operate in a narrow profile and most use some human input / intervention . UAVs are also expendable .
I like the pension comment ! Apparently pilots don't need these either . Just work em 5 more years
Happy Holidays