In the earlier section of this article, I shared some personal insights regarding the following points: - Disciplines such as data science, machine learning, advanced analytics, and artificial intelligence are poised to revolutionize the commercial aviation sector. - Although it may not happen immediately, self-piloting aircraft are likely to become commonplace in the future.

Additionally, I emphasized several factual elements: - Currently, self-piloting aircraft do not exist. - Presently, there is no developed technology capable of facilitating autonomous commercial flights. - Compared to commercial airplanes, drones are significantly less complex and generally cannot execute intricate operations independently (most are remotely controlled). - On the regulatory front, a multitude of complicated factors must be considered, and a global framework for self-piloting aircraft has yet to be established.

Now, let’s briefly examine two critical aspects concerning the advent of self-piloting airplanes: economic considerations and social factors. I will clarify these points with straightforward reasoning drawn from basic observations.

Economic Considerations

The air transportation industry represents a notable segment of the global GDP and is often viewed as essential for economic policy-making.

It is useful to recall several economic characteristics typical of the aviation sector and airlines: - Significant capital investment requirements. - Labor-intensive operations. - High fixed costs. - A demand that is partially influenced by the need for other goods and services. - The perishable nature of commodities (a seat is a perishable commodity). - Inflexibility in the long-term provision of services. - Intense competition (the last 15 years have seen deregulation and open skies policies that allowed Low Cost Carriers (LCC) and Ultra Low Cost Carriers (ULCC) to change the market dynamics). - Extensive regulation at both national and international levels, driven by economic significance and safety concerns. - Acute sensitivity to geopolitical situations, local and global events, and both microeconomic and macroeconomic factors.

Moreover, despite numerous violations, the globally accepted principle of free market limits state funding (with few exceptions).

Historically, state loans and aid have supported the air transport sector, impacting airlines, airports, manufacturers, and others.

In today's climate, airlines find it increasingly challenging to achieve profitability. To remain competitive, they have focused on cost control strategies while rigorously conducting cost-benefit analyses to determine which investments to prioritize.

Consider the example of safety. Many assume that airlines invest in safety measures without restrictions, given its non-negotiable importance.

They believe that such investments are automatically prioritized due to moral obligations (like the value of human life) and economic rationales (greater safety leads to lower insurance premiums, reduced capital costs, and increased demand).

However, the reality is more nuanced.

Firstly, safety is not an absolute concept; it is influenced by specific conditions and associated risks. It is not simply a matter of being right or wrong; it encompasses various shades and dimensions.

Airlines approach safety investments with caution. They invest only when mandated by authorities or when they deem non-mandatory safety measures beneficial for internal policies (or required by lenders).

In other scenarios, companies' investment decisions in safety are guided by cost-benefit analyses, much like all other sectors. Importantly, these choices are not made in isolation; they consider all appropriate investments for the organization.

Many might not realize that the team of professionals dedicated to aviation safety within an airline operates within a budget, competing with other departments for approval of their investment proposals based on cost-benefit evaluations.

Imagine two proposals presented to an airline board: one from the safety team advocating for enhancements in avionics or maintenance processes (not legally required) and another from a different group proposing a new efficient in-flight Wi-Fi system for customers.

While safety is an attractive feature for passengers (“You fly on a safer airplane”), the immediate and measurable benefits of enhanced Wi-Fi might be more compelling, especially during challenging times.

So, how would an airline evaluate an investment in self-piloting airplanes?

To revisit the example, a superior Wi-Fi service onboard would likely increase demand. A passenger, all else being equal, would prefer an airline offering this service and might even be willing to pay a premium.

Thus, the airline would not only invest in this but also aim to be the first in the market, seeking a competitive edge.

In contrast, investments in self-piloting airplanes present a more intricate scenario. Let's first consider the demand for these autonomous flights from both passengers and airlines.

Initially, passengers might respond with caution or skepticism. Even after successful testing and well-targeted marketing by the airline, the 2008 incident involving Qantas 72 would linger in memory, highlighting the risks of complete reliance on machines.

Consequently, many passengers might delay booking flights on self-piloting aircraft until they observe how initial flights perform, even if these flights feature dual crews (AI + Human Pilots).

Thus, the immediate consequence would be a decline in demand for those tickets, redirecting it to traditional aircraft, resulting in significant losses in market share, revenue, and influence for the pioneering airline.

Next, let’s look at the investment aspect. Importantly, this is not an investment an airline can undertake independently. At least two other stakeholders must also invest significantly: airports and Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs), alongside maintenance centers.

The system operates as a unit; we cannot envision a self-piloting aircraft still receiving voice instructions from a conventional air traffic controller or landing at an airport lacking appropriate systems, or undergoing standard maintenance.

Assuming all involved parties are willing to invest in supporting the self-piloting initiative, the airline would need to purchase more costly aircraft. For instance, if a B787 or A350 costs 100 today, tomorrow's model, equipped for both AI autonomy and human oversight, may cost 100+X, even if manufacturers offer notable discounts to promote the new model (any risk incurs a cost, sometimes substantial for manufacturers).

In the short term, the airline would inevitably incur higher capital costs while earning less due to reduced demand and lost market share.

Some may argue that significant savings on fixed and variable costs could offset these capital expenditures. However, such savings would typically only become meaningful with considerable synergies and economies of scale, which are often limited in the initial phases of introducing self-piloting aircraft.

Transitioning can also lead to increased costs for all parties involved, as managing old and new systems concurrently tends to be more expensive and riskier.

Thus, airlines may choose to wait. Likewise, ANSPs and airports lack incentives to invest in such innovations given the uncertain return on investment (and the strong resistance from air traffic controller unions to technological advancements).

In conclusion, unless an airline is in excellent financial health with near-monopolistic control, it is unlikely to rush into early investments in this project. If, as anticipated, all stakeholders hesitate and look to others for direction, the timeline for self-piloting airplanes will likely extend.

Social Factors

This topic is equally complex, encompassing moral, ethical, legislative, and emotional dimensions. While I cannot address all these aspects here, I wish to make one observation.

In previous discussions about the challenges of introducing autonomous systems—whether in vehicles or aircraft—I have noted the regulatory hurdles involved. It’s important to highlight that while many may express enthusiasm for new technologies and their benefits, acceptance of these innovations comes with potential negative and conflicting implications.

The crux of the matter is that society may not be fully prepared to embrace this change—no matter how captivated or eager for innovation we may be. This readiness is not just a matter of safety but fundamentally relates to the concept of responsibility.

I believe the role that AI will assume in our society will vary significantly, but the issue of accountability in situations where human lives are at stake is particularly sensitive.

We are not prepared, and I doubt we will quickly establish a new ethical framework that can be seamlessly adapted into a new legal structure.

The journey ahead is fraught with challenges. What has been discussed paints a complicated and winding road toward the adoption of self-piloting airplanes.

Yet, I find myself pondering: what role will safety organizations and professionals play in this evolving scenario?

Stay tuned for the next article.