$5 billion on $375 billion is a 1.3% savings, with considerable technological, social, political, and other risks.
Seems that there's an argument toward more automation, but a full adoption of the technology to the extent described in the article strikes me as unlikely, and could well have downside costs well in excess of the claimed benefits.
The potential savings are substantially larger. The article cites a 12%-15% reduced fuel use, as well as increased cargo capacity from losing the bridge.
I was simply contextualizing CHY872's claimed savings.
The stated crew savings should account for a sizable chunk at 44% of operating expenses, unless capital expenses are an even larger share. I don't know the numbers and the article doesn't supply them.
Seems that there's an argument toward more automation, but a full adoption of the technology to the extent described in the article strikes me as unlikely, and could well have downside costs well in excess of the claimed benefits.