Tim Burns has spent decades engineering cockpits. From Gulfstream’s G500 to Honda’s jets and military avionics at L3Harris, he knows what human pilots face in the air. Now as chief technology officer at Merlin, he argues the fuss over autonomy misses the point. Autonomous systems don’t replace pilots. They evolve the cockpit itself.
That evolution matters more than ever. Commercial operators grapple with structural crew shortages. Military services watch readiness erode as experienced aviators leave for airlines. And adversaries pour resources into their own unmanned programs. Merlin’s latest move targets both problems at once.
On May 14 the newly public company unveiled Merlin Pilot for Commercial Cargo. The system forms the heart of Condor, a new product family aimed at large multi-crew aircraft. It applies the same AI-powered autonomy core already advancing through military airworthiness reviews on the C-130J. The goal is straightforward. Let the machine handle systems monitoring, environmental awareness and communications so human crews focus on judgment calls.
Merlin’s technology has already flown hundreds of test sorties across multiple platforms. Its civil certification path continues. On the defense side the company holds more than $100 million in indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract ceiling value with U.S. Special Operations Command. The C-130J program cleared its preliminary design review in March. Those milestones give Merlin a rare dual-track foundation. Military rigor informs commercial development. Commercial scale could eventually feed back into defense needs.
Matt George, Merlin’s CEO and founder, put the timing bluntly. “The pilot shortage is structurally impacting operators and comes at a time when the conversion market is at record volume,” he said in the announcement. “The window to integrate autonomy, both during the Passenger-to-Freighter conversion and in aircraft being currently built, is open.”
Boeing’s cargo outlook supports the claim. The manufacturer projects the global large-cargo fleet will expand from roughly 2,340 aircraft today to nearly 3,900 over the next two decades. More than 2,800 new builds and conversions are forecast. Finding crews for that growth presents real strain. Merlin is not the first to spot the gap. It may be among the best positioned to address it with retrofittable technology rather than clean-sheet designs.
The company works with freighter lessor World Star Aviation and builds ties across the passenger-to-freighter conversion sector. Its approach differs from many autonomy startups. Instead of designing new airframes, Merlin builds an operating system that slots into planes operators already fly. That pragmatism appeals in an industry where capital intensity and certification timelines run long.
Yet the path forward is anything but certain. Aviation Week and other observers note that pilot unions and industry groups view crew-reduction talk with deep skepticism. The Federal Aviation Administration’s AI roadmap relies on existing certification standards and offers no immediate support for single-pilot operations under Part 121 rules that govern major airlines. European regulators at EASA have studied reduced-crew concepts and expressed doubts about equivalent safety levels. Merlin executives acknowledge the regulatory climb. They describe a gradual progression. First assist in the cockpit. Then prove reliability in cargo. Military programs may move faster given national-security urgency.
Burns made the national-security case explicit in a commentary published the same day as this article. He pointed to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula’s observation that more than two-thirds of the U.S. Air Force fleet consists of aircraft designed before the internet existed. Those platforms now fly networked, data-heavy missions in contested airspace. Pilots face cognitive loads that exceed what any single human can sustain indefinitely.
“The problem is no longer whether pilots are capable enough,” Burns wrote in Fortune. “It’s whether the human brain alone can continuously absorb the growing amount of information modern aviation demands in real time.” He cited the 2009 ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 as illustration. Captain Chesley Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles performed heroically after a bird strike caused dual engine failure. Even so, the ditch switch intended to reduce flooding was never activated. Extreme time pressure forced prioritization that left some critical steps undone. Autonomy, Burns argues, could distribute workload intelligently so humans stay ahead of the airplane rather than reacting inside it.
The military implications run deeper. Combat search and rescue, aerial refueling, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, wildfire suppression. These missions expose crews to unnecessary risk or tie up scarce pilot resources. Autonomy that reliably handles the “aviate, navigate, communicate” basics frees humans for the “operate” function. That function now includes sensor management, electronic warfare, threat identification and coordination with other assets. In high-threat environments the difference between task saturation and mission success can be measured in seconds.
Geopolitical pressure adds momentum. China and others accelerate their own autonomous aircraft programs. The United States cannot afford to lag in trusted systems that multiply force effectiveness without multiplying pilot headcount. Merlin’s USSOCOM work on the C-130J tests exactly that proposition. Success there could open doors to KC-135 tankers, other transports and eventually fighter-adjacent collaborative combat aircraft concepts.
Recent partnership news reinforces the trend. In late 2025 GE Aerospace and Merlin announced a collaboration on autonomy cores for crew reduction across civil and military platforms. The effort targets AI solutions that ease the burden on existing fleets while preparing for more uncrewed operations where appropriate.
Critics remain unconvinced. Some argue current automation already handles routine phases of flight. Others worry about edge cases, failure modes and the irreplaceable value of human intuition when sensors lie or algorithms encounter the unexpected. Burns concedes the point. Autonomy should not remove pilots from the cockpit entirely, at least not in passenger-carrying operations. It should act as an embedded crew member that never tires, never loses focus and maintains lower stress levels than any human.
Merlin’s public listing earlier in 2026 provided capital to scale. The company now balances defense revenue, which anchors its near-term business, against commercial ambitions that could dwarf those contracts if certification succeeds. Its stock ticker MRLN trades on the promise that retrofittable autonomy solves real operational pain today rather than futuristic visions tomorrow.
Industry data paints a consistent picture. Boeing’s long-term pilot and technician outlook forecasts demand for hundreds of thousands of new pilots globally over the next two decades. The U.S. faces acute regional airline shortages and military retention challenges. Training pipelines cannot expand fast enough. Retention bonuses help but do not create more hours in the day or more cognitive capacity under fire.
So Merlin pushes ahead. Hundreds of test flights logged. Military preliminary design reviews passed. Commercial cargo partnerships formed. The bet is that safe, certifiable autonomy on existing airframes offers the fastest route to operational impact. Regulators will demand exhaustive proof. Unions will resist any hint of job displacement. Yet the structural forces, pilot demographics, fleet growth, contested airspace and peer competition, show little sign of easing.
Burns closed his commentary with a simple reframing. The future cockpit will contain pilots and a new kind of crew member. One built from code and sensors rather than flesh and training hours. That combination, he believes, makes both commercial aviation and national defense more capable, more resilient and ultimately safer. Whether regulators, operators and the public accept that vision will determine how quickly the technology moves from testbed to everyday flight deck.
Recent coverage suggests momentum is building. A June analysis in Polaris Market Research highlighted how collaborative combat aircraft programs address the same pilot shortages and cost pressures now facing manned fleets. The Stimson Center’s June assessment of American airpower stressed that transport aircraft should retain human crews for the foreseeable future while allowing advanced automation to handle routine segments. These pieces underscore a growing consensus. Full autonomy may remain distant for passenger flights. Targeted, certifiable assistance on cargo and military transports sits within reach.
Merlin intends to prove it can deliver exactly that assistance. Its success or failure will help shape whether the United States maintains its edge in the skies or cedes ground to faster-moving competitors.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication