RCO Update: The Fight to Keep Two Pilots on the Flight Deck

Partnership Among ALPA, IFALPA, and ECA Proves Effective

As flight deck automation advances and operators and aircraft manufacturers explore new business models, one core principle of airline aviation safety remains unchanged: there must be at least two qualified, well-trained, and well-rested pilots on the flight deck at all times. As the world’s largest pilot union, ALPA continues to jointly lead an international campaign to oppose any attempt to reduce the number of required pilots on the flight deck—whether it’s called reduced-crew operations (RCO), extended minimum crew operations (eMCO), or single-pilot operations (SiPO).

Advocates for these proposals often cite technological inevitabilities, fatigue mitigation, or gains in economic efficiencies as justification for this dangerous concept. But the shared expertise, coordination, and judgment that two pilots provide are irreplaceable. When things go wrong, two professionals on the flight deck remain the essential safeguard for protecting passengers, crews, and cargo.

Safety Starts with Two

Launched in June 2023 as a global effort by pilot unions to oppose attempts to reduce the minimum number of required flightcrew members, the “Safety Starts with 2” campaign serves as a way to educate regulators, lawmakers, and the public about the issue. ALPA, working closely with the European Cockpit Association (ECA) and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA), has delivered coordinated messaging, joint statements, and evidence-based position papers that underscore the simple truth that removing a pilot eliminates an essential layer of safety. ECA’s companion message—“One Means None”—captures the same idea, emphasizing that cutting crewmembers also means reducing the margin for error.

This coalition approach has proved to be an effective strategy. While manufacturers and some operators are testing regulatory boundaries, ALPA, the ECA, and IFALPA have responded by showing up wherever it matters, briefing civil aviation authorities, participating in panels and working groups, and equipping pilot leaders and line pilots with clear talking points. The result is an effective advocacy campaign that’s shifted debate away from hypotheticals and arguments about economic efficiency and put the focus back on demonstrated, real-world safety data.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is supporting those advocating for eMCO. For the past two years, EASA contracted with an aviation research organization to conduct a safety risk assessment as a precursor for changes to rules that enable SiPO. Subsequent to the completion of the assessment, EASA concluded that “an equivalent level of safety between eMCO and the current two-crew operations cannot be sufficiently demonstrated.” This is also reflected in the most recent update to the “European Plan for Aviation Safety.” But while EASA has adjusted timelines and refocused elements of its rulemaking task from eMCO to “Smart Cockpits,” the underlying pressure to enable eMCO or, ultimately, SiPO has not ended.

A discussion panel at ALPA’s October Executive Board meeting provided union leaders with an update on various legislative and regulatory activities, in part giving insight into the current situation regarding the reduced-crew issue. The panel, moderated by Capt. Jason Ambrosi, the Association’s president, included Capt. Ron Hay (Delta), IFALPA president; Elizabeth Baker, director of ALPA’s Government Affairs Department; and Dave Semanchik, an ALPA senior managing attorney. Panelists noted that EASA’s leaders have publicly acknowledged that an equivalent level of safety for eMCO compared with today’s two-pilot operations hasn’t been established.

“Two and a half years ago, we were in a very different place,” said Ambrosi. “There was talk of an A350 flying with a reduced crew by 2026. Today, after sustained advocacy, that push has stalled.”

But even with that win, the opposition to any effort that ultimately leads to RCO continues. If a concept nudges design and procedures toward RCO without fully resolving safety, security, certification, and accountability gaps, the Association will oppose it.

The Safety Starts with 2 campaign has also bolstered efforts to oppose the issue within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). IFALPA arrived at the recent ICAO Assembly meeting prepared for a fight on eMCO/SiPO. IFALPA representatives precoordinated with like-minded organizations and member states to be certain that there would be broad opposition to any proposals. They came ready with arguments about insufficient data. But surprisingly, the pro-eMCO groups didn’t advance a working paper at the meeting.

That success reflects years of groundwork: IFALPA-sponsored working papers on safety culture and fatigue management that reinforce safety policies, relationship-building with state delegations, and targeted outreach through the International Transport Workers’ Federation to widen support.

“At ICAO, the other side didn’t advance a working paper for eMCO—not because it lost interest, but because pilots were too well prepared and had our allies lined up,” Ambrosi remarked. “That’s what showing up looks like.”

The Fight Continues

Outcomes at ICAO Assembly meetings, which bring together ICAO delegations from up to 193 countries at least once every three years, aren’t the end of the story. Between assemblies, the ICAO Council and its panels and working groups shape the practical direction.

“The process matters,” Hay acknowledged. “Assemblies set direction, but panels and working groups are where ideas slip in—or get stopped. And let’s be honest. The push for reduced-crew concepts will come back. We need to keep our foot on the gas.”

The discussion panel at ALPA’s Executive Board cautioned that some stakeholders (participating at ICAO) may try to sneak in with reduced-crew concepts through technical subgroups or by reframing the problem as a fatigue solution. When that happens, ALPA and IFALPA will continue to counter by advocating raising rest and duty standards globally.

“One of the big talking points for Airbus has been that it’s trying to solve fatigue problems in other parts of the world with the single-pilot-crew A350,” said Semanchik. “Our answer is simple: the rest of the world should have better fatigue and rest rules, not fewer pilots.”

The Association has also made clear through engagement with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FAA that SiPO in airline transportation is a nonstarter. This includes meetings with senior officials to ensure that U.S. positions at international forums don’t create opportunities for reduced-crew ideas to resurface. This engagement is effective because it’s paired with tangible, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. When federal officials can point to broad congressional backing for the two-pilot standard, it strengthens the U.S. position internationally.

According to Baker, ALPA has intensified its member education and advocacy around the reduced-crew issue over the past two years, with 175 pilots meeting with elected officials on Capitol Hill during ALPA’s most recent Legislative Summit (see the August issue). As a result, 190 members of the U.S. House signed letters urging the DOT to oppose any attempt to reduce the minimum number of required flightcrew members on the international landscape at ICAO and to proactively prioritize the two-pilot standard. In the Senate, a bipartisan group of 35 senators sent a parallel letter, demonstrating that having two pilots on the flight deck isn’t a partisan talking point, but a shared safety imperative.

The Association also went on offense in the appropriations process. ALPA successfully opposed “proautomation” provisions that would have opened the door for reduced-crew possibilities and secured protective language, making clear that no federal funds should be used to advance reduced-crew initiatives in FAR Part 121 operations. A similar approach is being taken in Canada, where ALPA’s Parliament Hill advocacy keeps the issue front and center with decision-makers.

Of course, none of this means that the push to implement questionable and shortsighted schemes by pro-RCO supporters is over. The panel made clear that those actors will keep testing boundaries by rebranding concepts or moving the discussion into working groups where the concern over the threat to safety can be minimized.

Reduced-crew proposals promise efficiency. What they risk is the safety and security of airline operations. The last line of defense in a complex, dynamic aviation system isn’t a software patch to an automated aircraft system. It’s having two highly trained professionals, cross-checking, coordinating, and deciding together in real time. That’s why ALPA and its partners worldwide will continue to oppose RCO, eMCO, and SiPO in all forms, in all venues, and under whatever name they’re branded.