Falls apart right here: "Imagine David. David is an airline captain lincenced to fly B737, B747-400, B-747-800 and any B777" There may be pilots who have flown 737, 747, and 777 before, but there are none (or practically none) who are current in all three at once. To get your currency back in a particular airframe could be as simple as a single check ride with a qualified (and current) pilot if it's only been a few weeks since you've flown last, all the way up to a review test and multiple check rides if they haven't flown in that airframe in quite a while.

And how did David get qualified in each of said airframes? An airline wanted David to fly a different route that used a different plane so they PAID for him to get the training and get certified. That would not happen in a freelance system.

There would likely be a freelance community around each type of plane, especially the smaller commuter varieties, but each pilot would basically be restricted to a single airframe until he/she could afford to pay for certification in a bigger and more lucrative jet on their own.

Would the FAA allow such a system to arise? Probably not. The status quo of having airlines schedule crews on routes that they are familiar with (with the occasional change) seems safer than having every single flight be with a crew that is unfamiliar with their route.

The article was written by somebody who knows very little about airlines:

- an airline has to have pilots at the gate on time, guaranteed

- each airline has its own operating rules and checklists

- planes and airports have unique combinations of Cat III landings

- airline pilots are route-checked. they don't fly random routes.

- most major airlines have unions, so freelancers are not allowed.

However, he could be describing ferry pilots or Netjet pilots or some other non-scheduled route.

This makes little to no sense. Flight schedules are worked out months in advance, it's a carefully planned system where many pilots fly particular routes only, and often back and forth. There's no way it could work with pilots signing up for arbitrary flights to whatever destinations mere hours before takeoff, unless there was a huge surplus of pilots waiting at all airports who are willing to constantly go to random places and have no certainty about where they might be tomorrow. It would be massively inefficient. I doubt any current pilots have unplanned 15 hour downtimes because they have to wait around for the right flight to come along. I just don't believe that many pilots want to bounce around randomly, never knowing what's happening beyond the next flight. The article also seems to ignore the existence of short domestic flights.

Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them

This seems to be creating a problem where one doesn't exist. Today most people accept that any pilot on an established airline will be considered safe, and you don't have to give it any more thought. I don't think any airline will want to advertise varying levels of safety...

And yeah the Bitcoin product placement seems totally unnecessary.

I have my certificate and know many career pilots. I can for aure say that pilots want a schedule more than anything. When they're on the road so much all they look forward to is getting home. Leaving that up to the mercy of a free market wouldn't work for a majority of career pilots. Many young pilots do charters and it's basically slave labor like this... The charter co's will only fly the jet home if the leg is paid for. So these guys end up spending a lot of time doing nothing while they wait for new legs to be booked. And those legs will turn into many stops before coming home. It's grueling work but pilots do it to build a lot of hours. Number one complaint is not knowing when they're going home.

I thought this was going to be a counterpoint about "so, pilots don't fly this way -- why should developers?" or something.

This sounds like the libertarian fantasy blog post awhile back where a freelance cop is shooting heroin in his patrol car, and deciding whether to take the next radio call.

> had not the unions had so much power, you'd see this happening already.

It is funny that you only mention airlines (lufthansa, Air France) where pilots are organized within strong unions. And most pilots would love to work for just those airlines, because they are the last ones which pay good wages.

Very good; I can't tell whether it's parody or not.

This would never fly (excuse the pun). For all the practical reasons like currency on so many aircraft and the cost (being checked to line on a A380 takes 2-3 months full time - who pays for that? Simulators ain't cheap!)

Above all else, the human aspect is terrible. I'm flabbergasted the author glosses over this. A Frankfurt - Chicago - Frankfurt trip would see a pilot away for 3-4 days as it is. Factor in not getting a direct flight back and waiting 15 hours for the opportunity to fly a 1 hour flight, it's gonna be closer to 5-6 days. What spouse is going to be happy with that?! Pilots already have enough stress worrying about how to their family while away - adding in a variable time frame would be hell on earth.

"Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them"

This makes it seem like reasonable defaults are absent; "safe for them" is a one-size-fits-all when we are talking about air travel.

Uber for pilots! The next big unicorn!

I do think that pilots are commoditized, but not to the extent that they are interchangeable in this manner. The industry is way too heavily regulated for this to ever work, and for good reason.

Honestly, well before something like this would come to pass, there will be whole fleets of autonomous planes in the air, thereby avoiding this scenario altogether.

Imagine how big the reserve army of pilots would have to be for this to work! Like half the world would have to be pilots. They'd make five bucks a flight.

Now imagine something better: Universal Basic Income.

My best guess? In less than 15 years most aircraft will be self-flying. It will probably start with cargo planes over ocean routes, then inland, then passengers.