4 ms·

Also the ratio of driver to passenger especially compared to say a taxi, is negligible so the amortized cost is basically zero. That said, they’re not exactly u

Also the ratio of driver to passenger especially compared to say a taxi, is negligible so the amortized cost is basically zero. That said, they’re not exactly useful on trains, you don’t chit chat with the man in the armored cab.

Macha 2y ago
You would think so but e.g. airlines pushed quite heavily to reduce pilots from 3 to 2 and occasionally lobby for 1.
- equestria 2y ago
  Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight. Public transit is quite different. It's not as opex-intensive as flying, it's usually subsidized by the state, and it's often pretty much a monopoly.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight They also removed the roles of radio operator, navigator, flight engineer and third officer without compromising safety or capability [1]. I'd want to see studies. But single pilot + relief crew should be safe enough to start with for long-haul flights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew
  - nradov 2y ago
    Single pilot is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting. Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help. The higher risk level might be judged acceptable for cargo flights but I think it will be a long time until automation makes it viable for scheduled passenger flights.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting This argument was made for each of those now-obsolete roles. I'd want to see data before concluding there is a benefit to a second person on checklists. In reality, that advantage would only manifest if the captain is inexperienced, self-check systems have failed and the radio/remote ops have failed. > Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? I don't think that's a strong argument. The only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected. Planes so rarely have excitement occur at that phase of flight that the odds are really low of it happening at the exact moment one of the pilots is using the head.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected Planes don't have something go wrong to the point of running checklists in an expected way.
      - dghlsakjg 2y ago
        > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents. More importantly I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground. Or flights where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid. Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  The numbers are pretty different, though. A subway driver might make $50K/yr and the train has a thousand people, with short runs at high frequency. A long haul flight will have 300-400 passengers for hours and 3-4 pilots each making $250K/yr.
  - do_not_redeem 2y ago
    On the flip side, a subway/bus ticket is usually around $1-$10, while an airplane ticket is $100-$1000.
  - lores 2y ago
    That's way more than the end-of-career salary for a pilot at a major UK airline, around £140k. Newly-qualified pilots at Ryanair make around £23k.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      It's a bit more lopsided in the US. A regional carrier pilot makes peanuts (due to how they are paid, only when wheels are up, there have been pilots effectively paid lower than minimum wage). At regular carrier like American/United/Alaska, pilots make waaaaay more. A captain may make half a mil. If you can suffer through the regionals and make your way up the ranks, it eventually pays off.
Rendello 2y ago
The conductor wages over the system as a whole are a large part of operating costs. Another issue you can have is a lack of conductors, which is a big issue in the Netherlands apparently.
- ggm 2y ago
  More to the point, staffing isn't setting the price of transport, it's subsidised almost everywhere. Sure. It's a cost. The cost:benefit here is more than just apparent budget impact because public transport is a utility function.
  - Rendello 2y ago
    I don't disagree. One thing that RMTransit on Youtube talks a lot about is that transit is a lot more expensive to build in the Anglosphere of the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and so despite these countries investing a lot of money into it recently, there's an order of magnitude less return on investment than similar projects happening in the rest of Europe and Asia. Return on investment not being profit for the transit system, but moreso a more extensive, faster network for riders.
    - ggm 2y ago
      I used scotrail for the first time in years as a casual return visitor to the UK from Oz. It was ok and on time and clean, and the QR code on/off experience was fine but the confusion of choices trying to book.. complete nightmare. Privatisation has only partially been unwound and multi app multi provider timetable and ticket exposure to casual users is away with the bees.
  - blibble 2y ago
    if you look at the accounts/statistics: staff is the majority of the cost the official figures here are however misleaading as their "staff" numbers only include those directly employed by TOCs and Network Rail under "other" there's the vast army of contractors, including cleaning staff, track maintenance contractors, train maintenance contractors, private security, and so on what's left is fuel, interest payments, depreciation, premium payments to government and some capital expenditure (not much...)

Macha 2y ago

You would think so but e.g. airlines pushed quite heavily to reduce pilots from 3 to 2 and occasionally lobby for 1.

equestria 2y ago
Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight. Public transit is quite different. It's not as opex-intensive as flying, it's usually subsidized by the state, and it's often pretty much a monopoly.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Airlines are trying to squeeze every penny out in a depressing race to the bottom because they couldn't really differentiate themselves and travelers overwhelmingly just pick the cheapest flight They also removed the roles of radio operator, navigator, flight engineer and third officer without compromising safety or capability [1]. I'd want to see studies. But single pilot + relief crew should be safe enough to start with for long-haul flights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew
- nradov 2y ago
  Single pilot is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting. Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help. The higher risk level might be judged acceptable for cargo flights but I think it will be a long time until automation makes it viable for scheduled passenger flights.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > When a problem occurs then workload can get really severe really fast. You need one pilot flying and the other running checklists and troubleshooting This argument was made for each of those now-obsolete roles. I'd want to see data before concluding there is a benefit to a second person on checklists. In reality, that advantage would only manifest if the captain is inexperienced, self-check systems have failed and the radio/remote ops have failed. > Even if there is a relief pilot onboard they might be sleeping and unable to make it to the cockpit fast enough to help Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom?
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? I don't think that's a strong argument. The only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected. Planes so rarely have excitement occur at that phase of flight that the odds are really low of it happening at the exact moment one of the pilots is using the head.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > only time a pilot goes to the bathroom is during the most boring portion of the flight when everything is going exactly as expected Planes don't have something go wrong to the point of running checklists in an expected way.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      > Can you name a crash which occured because the FO was in the bathroom? Germanwings 9525. Can’t discount human factors, especially in an industry where human factors are very frequently the root cause of incidents. More importantly I can name any number of flights where two pilots became task saturated and flew a plane into the ground. Or flights where a single pilot used bad CRM to force the other pilot to do something stupid, even though they both knew it was stupid. Both of those would be more common without a second pilot, general aviation is proof of that.
rootusrootus 2y ago
The numbers are pretty different, though. A subway driver might make $50K/yr and the train has a thousand people, with short runs at high frequency. A long haul flight will have 300-400 passengers for hours and 3-4 pilots each making $250K/yr.
- do_not_redeem 2y ago
  On the flip side, a subway/bus ticket is usually around $1-$10, while an airplane ticket is $100-$1000.
- lores 2y ago
  That's way more than the end-of-career salary for a pilot at a major UK airline, around £140k. Newly-qualified pilots at Ryanair make around £23k.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    It's a bit more lopsided in the US. A regional carrier pilot makes peanuts (due to how they are paid, only when wheels are up, there have been pilots effectively paid lower than minimum wage). At regular carrier like American/United/Alaska, pilots make waaaaay more. A captain may make half a mil. If you can suffer through the regionals and make your way up the ranks, it eventually pays off.

Rendello 2y ago

The conductor wages over the system as a whole are a large part of operating costs. Another issue you can have is a lack of conductors, which is a big issue in the Netherlands apparently.

ggm 2y ago
More to the point, staffing isn't setting the price of transport, it's subsidised almost everywhere. Sure. It's a cost. The cost:benefit here is more than just apparent budget impact because public transport is a utility function.
- Rendello 2y ago
  I don't disagree. One thing that RMTransit on Youtube talks a lot about is that transit is a lot more expensive to build in the Anglosphere of the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and so despite these countries investing a lot of money into it recently, there's an order of magnitude less return on investment than similar projects happening in the rest of Europe and Asia. Return on investment not being profit for the transit system, but moreso a more extensive, faster network for riders.
  - ggm 2y ago
    I used scotrail for the first time in years as a casual return visitor to the UK from Oz. It was ok and on time and clean, and the QR code on/off experience was fine but the confusion of choices trying to book.. complete nightmare. Privatisation has only partially been unwound and multi app multi provider timetable and ticket exposure to casual users is away with the bees.
- blibble 2y ago
  if you look at the accounts/statistics: staff is the majority of the cost the official figures here are however misleaading as their "staff" numbers only include those directly employed by TOCs and Network Rail under "other" there's the vast army of contractors, including cleaning staff, track maintenance contractors, train maintenance contractors, private security, and so on what's left is fuel, interest payments, depreciation, premium payments to government and some capital expenditure (not much...)