A while back, we began soliciting reader questions for Captain Steve, a captain with a major U.S. airline. He made his debut here, with his rather spirited take on the state of the modern pilot, and now is back with his first round of answers to reader questions. Thanks to him, and to you — and please leave new questions for Captain Steve in the comments section below.
Seriously, how does my keeping my iPod on affect flights taking off? It’s so annoying when they ask me to turn my iPod off; I’ve had it on (secretly, of course) and the flight has never really had a problem taking off. – Schmetterling
These rules are derived to the lowest common denominator. The F.A.A. can’t seem to screen every piece of hardware, so they go to the lowest, safest level: off.
How safe is it to fly regional jets compared to larger planes? How experienced (in general) are the pilots of the regional jets? Do pilots today begin their careers with regional airlines or other types of flying such as cargo planes, military, etc? — Alissa Murphy
See my previous post of a few weeks ago. I have very strong opinions about that.
I have been on too many flights to count where our flight path and altitude has the plane flying through clouds for many minutes at a time. I wonder why this happens, and wonder what is involved with a pilot getting permission to alter his/her path or altitude so that this annoyance can be avoided. Or is this such a minor thing to a pilot that he or she just doesn’t care? I’ve always been a fan of crew members who give updates from the cockpit as to why certain things are happening (turbulence, turning, circling, etc.) and wonder how you, Steve the pilot, feel about whether this is useful or not. — Doug Schoemer
I too like it smooth. My philosophy has been that if I do my job right, you never feel the airplane. But that is too simplistic. We avoid some clouds if we are able, but some are more rough than others. It is not a minor thing to us pilots. Turbulence is not enjoyed. It can upset folks and in some cases people get hurt. We never want that.
I remember hearing that landings are completely controlled by auto-pilot. Is this true? How much actual flying do pilots do? — Jeff
Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of landings are made with the pilots at the controls all the way until the wheels touch the ground. Rarely do we ever do automatic landings. Yes, the technology exists, but it is impractical in everyday airspace congestion.
How is it possible that a roundtrip ticket for the route DEN->PDX->EUG is cheaper than the roundtrip ticket for DEN->PDX? Same flights, planes, airline, and schedule. — H
Because the airlines like to fill the seats. Everyone wants a non-stop flight if they can get one. Filling seats into and out of a hub is easier. Getting the seats filled on the connecting flights is the goal.
During weather delays, do airlines serving their hub get preference in takeoff and landing order? If I’m going through Chicago, should I always fly United? — Sam Carter
No they don’t get preference, even if it seems that way. There is sequencing done in Washington Air Traffic Control Headquarters based on many variables.
Malcolm Gladwell once made the point that all aspects of travel, including ground transportation, airports, hotel/lodging, are all profitable businesses except for the air carrier business itself that feeds those businesses. David Einhorn wrote his senior thesis on how airline profitability is cyclical and inversely correlated with the level of regulation (when carriers become profitable, the government steps in and regulates the profitability away, when they see that this bankrupts them, they lower regulation, and the cycle continues). What are some ways traditional carriers can emerge from chronic unprofitability? Lower regulation? Lower pension benefits? — vimspot
You might get me into another of my pet peeves. Contrary to the regulation, the airline business has never really been able or allowed to operate under a truly free market environment. The government continues to meddle in the business. It doesn’t let airlines go out of business as a rule, even though several of the current airlines should have been allowed to die. Trust the market. Even if there were only a few airlines, the market, not the government, would set the fair price of air travel. But we shall never know what true free markets would allow to stabilize the cycles for all of us.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I think I have the answer to the whole free market issue: like most people who lament the lack of truly free markets, the captain does not take that thought experiment to its logical conclusion, which is a monopoly that can maximize profits by setting whatever prices it chooses and exploiting its employees, thus taking full advantage of the free market situation.
@MG – Perhaps I can address some of your concerns.
The materials you mention are likely the newer “composite” materials. These are newer materials and are beginning to replace traditional metals in some portions of aircraft. The new 787 Dreamliner from Boeing will make extensive use of composites. These materials are lighter and stronger than traditional metals, leading to stronger, lighter airplanes that cost less to fly (from the airline’s perspective anyway). There is a lot of fear surrounding this because it’s relatively new and people don’t understand it well enough. Each aircraft design undergoes incredible amounts of testing before the FAA will give its stamp of approval. The composite materials undergo the same (if not more) testing than traditional materials and must meet the same standards of quality before they can be used.
For the control systems, Boeing and Airbus have fundamentally different view on how that should work. In Boeing aircraft, the flight controls are physically linked with their assist mechanisms. In smaller airplanes, the control inputs are linked directly to the surfaces with wires and cables. As the pilot moves the input, the surface moves, etc. In larger aircraft, the control surfaces are too large and must be controlled mechanically, usually by a hydrolic system. In Boeing aircraft, the control inputs are directly linked to the hydrolic systems, so the pilot is in full control. The auto-pilot is simply connected to the physical cables and can manipulate the control cables just as if the pilot had physically moved the controls. These can be disconnected easily by the pilot in the event of an emergency.
In modern Airbus aircraft, the control inputs are connected to the flight computer. The computer then takes the control inputs and sends them electronically to the various control surfaces. The receivers at the control surfaces interpret the electrical signals and move the surfaces accordingly. Since the control is sent over a wire electronically, they call this “fly by wire.” This adds a layer between the pilot and the control surfaces of the aircraft. There are several backup computers on board in case one of them fails, and control will move between them automatically in the event of a failure. The auto-pilot in this case is just software within the computer.
I haven’t kept up with the Air France crash enough to know if/how this difference contributed to the crash, but the loss of all of the flight computers would probably have a significant impact on the ability to control the airplane (granted, I am not an expert in these systems, and this whole explanation is grossly simplified).
As for turbulence, any pilot will tell you, myself included, that airplanes are designed to take a beating. The stress levels that they must pass in testing far exceed any stress they would encounter under normal flight conditions. This includes flight through light thunderstorms and the ability to deal with lightening strikes. Any pilot, myself included, will also tell you that we don’t mess around with thunderstorms. They’re extremely dangerous and can exert very strong forces on the aircraft. Any pilot who wants to land safely will do their best to steer well clear of thunderstorms and the extreme forces they can create. They put weather radar in the cockpit of most airliners for a reason. In most cases, if a pilot finds themselves heading into a thunderstorm, the airplane will be fine, but you never know what sort of wind shear, wind reversal, downdrafts, and other nasty stuff is waiting for you in there, so it’s not a place we venture voluntarily (unless you’re in a hurricane hunter or other specialized airplane made for the task).
Hopefully that will shed a little light on your questions if you don’t get a response from the editor.
Tom- one ways aren’t more expensive than round trips, normally they are priced at 60% to discourage flying the return leg on another airline. If the one way is more expensive id guess they are different flights. The lowest available one-way is often just 60% of the lowest available round trip rate based on inventory availability.
Who is John Galt, I nominate Capt. Steve. Great piece on regional and cost cutting airlines.
Corey – wrong, wrong, wrong. Where did you ever get that as the logical conclusion? Come on, now.
Which specific regulations does the Captain think the airline industry would be better without?
Are there areas where more regulation might be needed? Or perhaps different approaches/stiffer fines/etc. for violations of certain existing rules?
The first article outlined the difficult flight schedules and rigorous requirements of the job. Does he think it would it be appropriate for the FAA to change/refine those details in any way? Or should the labor standards be left to the airlines?
I have to agree that complaints about poor working conditions and $99 fares versus lack of free markets seem strongly contradictory, so addressing the details would probably be helpful. Is there a happy medium?
I think airlines is one of those businesses that in a free market would eventually whittle the competitors down to a few.
Once just a handful of companies exist they can basically collude to keep prices high and screw the customers.
You see this in the cellphone industry in Canada. Just a few companies provide service to all of Canada and we get screwed compared to consumers in other countries.
Please see my comment at the original unionist rant.
And regarding the pricing, see your local Econ 101 instructor–aske hera bout “Supply and Demand” curves.