The aviation industry teeters on the edge of a profound change: Single-Pilot Operations (SPO).
SPO (or SiPO) is the concept of operating commercial flights with only one pilot instead of the current standard of two.
Commercial aviation has relied on a minimum of two pilots in the flight deck in recent decades–a standard borne from necessity and refined by technological advances.
Propelled by technological strides and economic urgency, SPO ignites a debate transcending mere innovation. Is it a feasible, safe, and publicly acceptable alternative?
If history is any indication, SPO represents a fundamental shift that could redefine aviation, like the introduction of jet engines, fly-by-wire technology, GPS navigation, paperless flight decks, and composite materials. However, unlike those advancements, which improved safety and efficiency, SPO raises critical concerns about redundancy, risk mitigation, and public trust.
Proponents see it as an inevitable evolution. Corporations see it as a money saver. Airlines see it as a way to reduce costs and mitigate chronic pilot shortages.
Opponents call it a reckless gamble with safety.
So, how close are we to seeing single-pilot commercial operations? Let’s examine how we got here.
A Historical Perspective: From Crowded Cockpits to the Two-Pilot Norm of Today
The flight deck of a Pan Am Boeing 314 Clipper, circa early 1940s | IMAGE: Airliners History on Facebook
SPO isn’t the first radical idea to challenge aviation norms. In the 1950s, it was common for commercial flights to have up to five crew members on the flight deck: captain, first officer, flight engineer, navigator, and radio operator.
With the advent of new technology, some crew roles became obsolete. Flight engineers began disappearing with the launch of the Boeing 737. The transition continued for the next two decades as glass cockpits–such as those on the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A300–entered the scene in the 1980s.
These shifts weren’t seamless; they demanded rigorous testing, regulatory nods, and pilot retraining, but they stuck.
Automation has become the unsung hero of modern aviation–yet it’s not flawless. Human pilots step in when systems falter, proving their worth in split-second decisions and complex crises.
Now, SPO proponents propose cutting that human presence in half. With an ongoing pilot shortage and rising costs, they see the concept as a lifeline to trim costs and crew needs.
But at what price?
The Push for Single-Pilot Airliners
Rendering of a single-pilot flight deck in the future | IMAGE: Airbus
Europe’s leading the charge. Airbus is forging ahead with its extended Minimum Crew Operations (eMCO) concept. This controversial plan would allow single-pilot operations during cruise. Airbus is eyeing its new A350F freighter, due for delivery to Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific beginning in 2027, as a proving ground for the concept.
Meanwhile, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, or EASA (the European equivalent to the FAA), is crafting a safety-risk assessment framework under its eMCO-SiPO project. Though, regulatory green lights won’t flash before 2027.
Cargo flights could test the waters by the early 2030s, says the Royal Aeronautical Society, but the timeline for passenger jets is at least a decade away–probably more.
IMAGE: European Cockpit Asssociation (ECA)
This drive stems from economic pressures: rising costs and pilot scarcity are squeezing airlines. Boeing’s 2024 forecast of 674,000 new pilots needed over two decades underscores this issue.
Additionally, technological advancements, like Airbus’s Project Morgan, propose AI-driven cockpits and ground-based support to replace the second pilot. However, pilot unions–like the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), and Britain’s BALPA– are sounding the alarm, accusing industry giants of chasing profits over passenger safety.
SPO in the Wild: Real-World Trials
A U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus from McConnell Air Force Base’s 22nd Air Refueling Wing (U.S. Air Force photo/ Staff Sgt. Devin Rumbaugh)
Reduced crew operations (RCO) have already taken flight in controlled settings. In 2020, Airbus marked a milestone in aviation history with the A350-1000, completing a fully autonomous flight–takeoff to landing. The experiment relied on advanced automation and onboard vision systems, sans human intervention.
On this side of the Atlantic, the United States Air Force pushed boundaries in 2022, flying a KC-46 tanker without a co-pilot, leveraging cutting-edge tech to execute a mission solo.
These feats spotlight automation’s potential, yet they remain outliers–military and test scenarios far removed from the complexities of commercial passenger service. Still, they fuel the case for SPO and RCO, offering glimpses of a future where machines shoulder more of the load.
Can AI-Driven SPO Match the Two-Pilot Gold Standard?
Transaero Boeing 777-212ER cockpit – aircraft is landing at Sharm-el-Sheikh Airport in Egypt | Wikimedia Commons
At the heart of the SPO debate lies an underlying truth: safety is non-negotiable.
Modern airliners are engineered for two-pilot crews, with redundancy as a cornerstone–dual engines, hydraulics, and human oversight. Removing one pilot dismantles this critical backup and greatly amplifies risk. Much like driving automated driving vehicles, SPO introduces two categories of potential peril.
First, an AI system malfunction could overwhelm a lone pilot, forcing them to simultaneously control the aircraft and diagnose the failure without human assistance–a daunting, if not impossible, task. Second, untested scenarios, such as a bird strike shredding a leading edge, thrust the aircraft into a test-pilot realm where AI’s response remains unknown.
Decades of NASA and FAA research, reinforced by a 2024 ALPA white paper, reveal that single-pilot simulations strain workload to unsustainable levels, eroding performance in emergencies. EASA’s eMCO-SiPO framework aspires to “equivalent safety” through advanced automation and remote assistance, yet its blueprint lacks clarity.
Beyond technical risks, human discretion remains irreplaceable. Complex emergencies often demand pilots deviate from standard checklists, drawing on deep knowledge and experience to improvise. After all, no two emergencies, such as engine fires or sudden structural failures, are the same. Can AI muster the same seasoned judgment to avert a crisis? Does it possess the requisite strength, power, or energy to wrestle an aircraft through chaos?
Unions argue two pilots provide irreplaceable benefits: cross-checking to reduce errors, workload sharing, better decision-making, and a safety net for incapacitation. ALPA emphasizes that pilots learn from each other, adapt to unexpected situations, and offer versatility that automation can’t match. Cybersecurity risks—such as hacking of automated systems—add another layer of concern.
Redundancy is There for a Reason
On 10 June 1990, British Airways Flight 5390, a BAC 1-11, suffered a dramatic decompression when a cockpit windscreen panel blew out at 17,300 feet, partially sucking the captain out of the aircraft, though he survived the ordeal thanks to the crew’s quick actions.
History bears witness–real-world examples of redundancy’s value abound: the explosive decompression and windshield blowout of British Airways Flight 5390 in 1990, Southwest Flight 6013‘s 2023 mid-flight medical emergency, and Alaska Airlines Flight 1282’s 2024 door plug incident. Every one of these incidents hinged on crew synergy.
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi didn’t mince words when referencing a 2023 near-collision in Austin, Texas, between a FedEx Boeing 767 and a Southwest Boeing 737, averted only by the FedEx crew’s quick decision to go around.
“Some manufacturers and foreign airlines are actually working to design flight decks that replace the very safety features that averted these disasters,” Ambrosi warned in a 2024 speech. “They plan to replace pilots with automation. Of course that’s insane.”
They plan to replace pilots with automation. Of course that’s insane.
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi
Beyond emergencies, opponents also draw parallels to aircraft design. Modern planes feature redundant systems—dual engines, generators, hydraulics—for a reason. If one fails, another takes over. Pilots, they argue, are no different. A single pilot risks lower situational awareness, heightened workload, decision-making overload, and no backup for emergencies like engine fires, medical events, or even a bathroom break. (Although there’s a solution in the works! Introducing the cockpit potty!)
Security threats, unruly passengers, and operational challenges like weather or equipment malfunctions further complicate the picture.
Opponents liken pilots to redundant systems: lose one, and the margin for error vanishes.
Public Perception: Will Passengers Board a Single-Pilot Flight?
Rear-facing seats on an old Southwest jet | IMAGE: Southwest Airlines on X
History offers a cautionary tale.
At one time, it was not uncommon for commercial aircraft to have rear-facing seats and front-facing seats. A 1957 United States Air Force study showed that rear-facing passenger seats had a survival rate ten times higher than forward-facing ones in crashes. Yet, passengers overwhelmingly preferred facing forward. They felt safer despite the data. By the 1970s, manufacturers scrapped them as forward-facing seats sold out first on mixed-configuration planes.
Similarly, the Boeing 737’s three-person cockpit (pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer) in 1967 shrank to two with the Airbus A310’s debut in 1982, thanks to automation like GPS and autopilot. Passengers balked initially, fearing less human oversight, but adapted as safety records held.
The Resistance: Toxify the Idea of SPO
An ad from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) depicting its stance against single-pilot operations | IMAGE: ALPA
Today, SPO faces a similar hurdle. An ALPA study found that 80 percent of U.S. adults agreed that “two pilots working together is the best option when it comes to problem-solving while operating an aircraft.” In addition, 81 percent said they would never feel comfortable flying with just one pilot.
The resistance isn’t surprising. Aviation safety is a public good, and passengers equate crew presence with security. Unions seize this sentiment with campaigns like the ECA’s “One Means None,” BALPA’s “Safety Starts with 2,” and the Spanish Air Line Pilots Association (SEPLA)’s “United for Your Safety.” These campaigns amplify this sentiment, framing SPO as a risk too far. Their strategy: make SPO so toxic that no airline dares become the first adopter, stalling manufacturers’ plans.
If airlines push forward, they’ll need to overcome technical barriers and a skeptical populace–a challenge no technology can fully address. Currently, not a single airline worldwide has publicly endorsed SPO, likely wary of potential backlash.
History suggests acceptance hinges on trust, not just technology. As such, the public’s confidence in two-pilot crews runs deep, and shaking it could be an uphill battle.
The European Experiment
Ad for European Cockpit Association’s (ECA) “One Means None” campaign | IMAGE: One Means None
EASA’s eMCO study tackles concerns head-on. The study examines physiological issues like fatigue, sleep inertia, and incapacitation alongside practical questions like lavatory use.
The goal is to have a knowledgeable base to assess SPO feasibility. If optimistic timelines hold, eMCO could roll out by 2030, with SPO to follow. But critics, like Ambrosi, see it as a Trojan horse–a vague term deliberately avoiding the words “single pilot” to downplay the endgame.
For now, SPO remains theoretical, but its fate rests on this European experiment.
The European Cockpit Association vows to do “whatever is necessary” to stop it. The union accuses manufacturers and airlines or prioritizing profits over safety.
“Manufacturers and airlines will always pursue their financial interest,” the ECA stated in a 2023 press release. “But the regulator must preserve safety.”
Even if SPO becomes something closer to being seriously considered, U.S. regulators, under pressure from ALPA and public sentiment, may resist importing the concept, setting up a transatlantic divide.
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi addressed the European experiment and said all parties must unite to stop SPO.
“To prevent this risk to safety from reaching our country, we must work together with aviation regulators and stakeholders to discourage it across the globe,” said Ambrosi. “We cannot allow foreign regulators to grease the skids for their manufacturers, trying to force our hand to undermine safety in our country.”
He calls the push to SPO a “gamble with safety” and a “gamble with people’s lives.”
Oof.
The Bigger Picture: Profit vs. Safety
IMAGE: European Cockpit Association (ECA)
SPO crystallizes a profound tension: Should aviation bend to the fiscal ambitions of manufacturers and airlines, or should safety chart the course?
Airlines and manufacturers see dollar signs; pilots and safety experts see red flags. For them, the answer is clear. The push for SPO may promise efficiency, but it risks eroding the human element that has kept flying the safest mode of travel.
As EASA’s study nears its conclusion, aviation faces a defining question: Is this an evolution worth embracing?
ALPA might have said it best in its campaign against SPO and reduced crew operations.
Save a buck or save a life.
That’s the choice.