In 1986, Wall Street investor Ivan Boesky gave the commencement address at the UC Berkeley School of Business Administration. His speech included, “Greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself.” This speech was the inspiration for the movie Wall Street starring Michael Douglas as the notorious Gordon Gekko. Boesky, once highly successful, was convicted of filing false trading records in 1987, paid a $100 million fine for insider trading, and received a three-year prison sentence. Maybe greed isn’t good after all.

Financial decisions amongst aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and even federal agencies often overshadow critical safety issues. Shareholder profits, passenger seat mile calculations, and fuel conservation are all top-of-mind for airlines. Manufacturers are concerned with labor costs, efficient supply chains, and production schedules. Federal agencies like the FAA or NTSB are seemingly under continual budget constraints.

At first glance this makes sense. After all, aviation is a massive industry and the mighty dollar is vital for continued operations, infrastructure investment, and future expansion. But at some point, these pressures can influence decisions that put employees and the flying public at risk. Examples of this are often so blatant as to be shocking.

The manufacturing issues within the Boeing factories are well known at this point. As one former Boeing employee told the Foundation, “Schedule is king.” Driving employees to complete work within aggressive time constraints is a clear example of unsafe work practices. Mandatory overtime is commonplace if jobs are not completed on schedule. This leads to rushed work and an increased potential for manufacturing errors. Combine this with the elimination of thousands of quality assurance inspections and it becomes clear why Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 suffered a door plug blowout. The desire for profit created the culture that resulted in a near disaster and certainly eliminated any profit in the near term.

As reported in Flying Magazine, on March 20, 2024, the Boeing CFO at the time, Brian West, told a Bank of America Global Industrials Conference in London, "For years, we prioritized the movement of the airplane through the factory over getting it done right, and that’s got to change." While there is consensus that change is necessary, it remains to be seen whether Boeing has effectively improved its manufacturing processes. Key considerations include whether the company is now prioritizing safety over profitability, addressing employee feedback, and implementing effective solutions on the factory floor. Successful progress in these areas could enable Boeing to meet production targets and deliver safer aircraft.

The question of whether commercial aircraft can be safely operated by a single pilot remains a subject of ongoing analysis within the aviation industry. Airlines seek to lower labor expenses, while manufacturers are interested in advancing and marketing new technologies. As highlighted in this NASA study, this issue has been under examination for several years. Although theoretical models have increasingly aligned with practical realities, pilots continue to play a vital role in ensuring airline safety. The presence of a two-pilot crew provides an additional layer of oversight, which can be critical for safe operations.

In 2021, ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) funded the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to conduct the Extended Minimum Crew Operations – Single Pilot Operations (eMCO-SiPO) project. The overarching goal was to determine if current technology could allow fewer pilots in the cockpits of commercial aircraft. eMCO would allow single-pilot operations while in the cruise phase of flight while SiPO would allow end-to-end single piloted options.

Fortunately, this recently released study has determined that current technology and cockpit configurations do not support a sufficient level of safety and EASA has suspended progress on authorizing single-piloted operations for commercial aircraft.

Airline labor costs and employee manning levels are the only reasons these options are desirable. Automation has certainly come a long way over recent decades and the industry has navigated the transition from three flight crew members to two while still providing an acceptable level of safety. However, moving from two pilots to one is significantly more challenging and wrought with safety concerns. The second pilot is often critical in high workload phases of flight, during difficult weather conditions, or during emergency or abnormal operations. Several examples of this include the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 door blowout. The first officer has said, “I’m thankful that there were two flight crew members in the flight deck as it enabled us to work as a seamless team in returning to the ground safely.”

‍

In February 2024, Lufthansa flight LH1140's first officer suffered a seizure while alone in the cockpit. Security measures delayed the captain's reentry by 10 minutes, leaving the aircraft temporarily without a pilot and highlighting the safety risks of single-pilot operations.

General aviation aircraft are often single-piloted. However, even in this environment of smaller aircraft the second set of eyes can be extremely valuable. The tragic Cessna Citation S550 crash in San Diego involved a single pilot who made poor decisions throughout the descent and approach. Could a second pilot have been helpful in preventing this crash? We will never know for sure, but it is likely.

Flight attendants are crucial to aviation safety, handling emergency procedures both on the ground and in flight. According to federal regulations, specifically CFR 121.391, at least one flight attendant is required for every 50 passenger seats.

However, American Airlines just received an exemption to decrease the number of flight attendants from eight to seven on their B787-9P, a configuration with an increased number of business class suites. This number is still more than the required minimum but raises safety concerns. The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), representing 28,000 American inflight crew members, objected to American’s plan. In December 2024, the flight attendant union said that it “is unrealistic and unsafe to expect that seven Flight Attendants can adequately serve and ensure safety under the new configuration of the 787-9P, especially with an increase to 51 private Business Class Suites.” With eight exit doors this reduced staffing requires one flight attendant to be assigned to two widebody exits during an emergency evacuation.

American has stated that this flight attendant decrease provides more flexibility in scheduling and could reduce delays and flight cancellations in the future. Their focus remains on financial and operational goals rather than the safety of the flying public.

Commercial aviation depends on a consistent system-wide approach to incident and accident prevention. Decades of experience have taught us that cutting corners in pursuit of financial gains can lead to disaster. One major incident can be extraordinarily expensive both in dollars and human loss and suffering. Even Ivan Boesky might agree that there is no place for greed in the aviation industry. Recent global accidents highlight the need to prioritize aviation safety.

‍