Any comments or thoughts on this?

All I can say is stuff 'em and go Aeroflot!

------------------------------------------------------
Aeroflot Asks IATA about US Ban on Foreign Plane Smoking

The Russian Aeroflot airline sent a request to the International Air Transport Association concerning legality of a ban by American aviation authorities on smoking aboard airliners of foreign companies, Itar-Tass learnt at the press service of the air company here on Thursday.

A similar request was also sent to the Aeroflot office in the United States to study the question with local lawyers of the company.

The problem emerged due to the fact that starting from this year's summer, the U.S. Transportation Department introduced new rules, banning smoking on flights of foreign companies, incoming or outgoing from the United States.

"Introducing new rules, the U.S. spread, thereby, the operation of its legislation to the activities of foreign legal persons outside their territory, which openly contradicts norms of international law," claimed
Aeroflot specialists.

From: Itar-Tass

Maybe their afraid about the foreign smoke which would sneak through the Finger when the plane embark´s ?

I can't speak for the americans, but in Canada we have had that law for years, and it is designed to protect non smoking Canadians, who are travellin abroad, and I think that it is a great law...why should I be submitted to the stench of smoke filling the small airplane cabin....and what about the F/A's who are subjected to the smoke all the time.....it is an enclosed public space and should therefore be subject to the same rules that every other enclosed public space must follow.....

Then you´d have to make shure you book your flight on a non-smoking airline. Otherwise you may see yourself forced to deal with `foreign-law´s.

As this law only covers flights coming in or leaving the U.S., I would say it compares to the E.U.'s proposed law on stricter noise regulations on all aircraft operating into or out of E.U. nations. The same theories apply, just a different circumstance.

Hamlet69

Noise which annoys people in their homes and smoke on the Airline you booked on your own ? There is a difference.

Yes, but the objection is the same, and that is laws passed over a foreign company. I agree that the noise issue is a much broader one. However, it is still a law from one nation governing the actions of a company from another. I personally don't see this as wrong, it is the cost of doing business in a foreign nation. If you want to operate in a foreign country, you obey their rules.

Hamlet69

I don´t agree the similarity of noise vs smoke. You choose your ticket on your own but you are far away from choosing the planes which cross your house at 2.00 am.

There are plenty of rules that each country sets up concerning which equipment, crews, airlines, and even routings are allowed to terminate in said country. It is up to that country to look after the best interests and safety of its citizens. And, right now in the US and Canada (and probably a few other places I don't know about), there is a large anti-smoking majority to look after. Are there enough seats on non-smoking airlines to hold all the people who don't want to be on a smoking flight?

I see this as an excellent move by my government to keep me from exposure to harmful cigarette smoke.

If Aeroflot doesn't like it then they can stop flying to the United States.

Please don't get me wrong, the USA sticks it hand into many places that it has no business putting it but they are right on this issue.

Copper1

Actually a non smoking airline should offer 100% of their seats to non smokers ( at least during flight ). It´s up to you to choose the right Line.

Try this one on for size:

There is no difference between the smoking laws and the noise laws. Neither issue requires a law of any sort. If you dont like the smoke book a non-smoking flight. If you dont like the noise MOVE. Any time you have politicians of any stripe meddling in personal decisions you're going to have a disaster. What happened to freedom of choice and personal responsibility?

Moving or choosing. Book your flight/ leaving your house..... please put that in relation.

Smokers can all go to Hell as far as I'm concerned. Except in Hell it will be their ass that will be smoking.

This case is problematic because it is at a dividing line where the Western air transport world meets the Russian contingent of the Asiatic cultures. In such cultures smoking is divine right. Russians, all the former republics, the arabic states and, of course, the biggest smokers of them all, the Chinese, together puff out more smoke combined than all the cars in LA. And none of those cigarettes has a catalytic converter.

While the Western world has seen the health consequences of smoking and is quickly butting out, the non-Western world continues to puff away with mad abandon. And telling them that they can't aboard their planes, is not going to work. These cultures have never been too impresssed with Western mores, Western laws, Western values, or Western priorities, much less Western dictates on anything concerning them.

We shun smoking because it is fatal and we value human life. But in these other societies, smoking is not the bad guy because human life is very plentiful, very cheap, and has no intrinsic value in, and of, itself. That's a fetish the West invented. And remember that the heroes of these societies are, more often than not, angry malcontents who target our airliners, bomb our embassies, kidnap our tourists, kill our nationals, murder our journalists, threaten holy war for perceived insults, and instigate political revolutions to purge their nations of evil Western influences. You think for a moment that they are going to let us tell them they can't smoke on their own planes?

Is the US wrong in this instance? Well, if it is illegal to serve alcohol on a Western plane travelling to and from an arabic country, then hell no. If yes, then hell yes.

Hmmmm...

I think that their argument is one of juristiction: that the US has no juristiction to regulate the actions of people outside the US, as would be the case for the majority of the flight. The noise issue is different as noise generated inside the US or EU would be subject to local law.

Like copper1 said if they don't like it they don't have to fly there. It is as easy as that. And great move Brissie, another way you can bring up your anti-american views. That was smooth.

It's simply a matter of a visitor is subject to the laws of the country/state/city he visits...plain (or is it plane   ) and simple. If Aeroflot doesn't like the USA's law, then they shouldn't fly to the USA

Personal opinion (lob eggs here if you're a smoker): I think IATA should ban smoking on commercial a/c worldwide....

Ab. 400 and Hamlet69: Before another mindless off-topic fight starts...the theory of the laws are the same...EU carriers have to obey the smoking laws in the USA, and US carriers have to obey the noise laws in the EU.

Corey777

I've flown Aeroflot NUMEROUS times, folks. They DO have a ban on smoking on domestic flights in Russia. Do you think anyone, including the cabin crews, respect the rule??? HELL NO!!! Everyone is lined up down the aisle during flight, including the cabin attendants, so they can go into the bathroom and smoke.

Smokers will continue to smoke, regardless of laws, rules and regulations. I myself am not a smoker, but I have learned to accept this as just the way it IS. And personally, I would not want to have to deal with someone who smokes regularly and has NOT had a cigarette for several hours. You wanna talk about air rage...

Interesting point made, of course, in regards to airlines flying to countries where alcohol is forbidden and alcohol consumption not being allowed on flights to that particular country. That is a religious matter, though. I don't think the same will work for smoking. And not just for Aeroflot, but for any airline flying to and from the States with smokers aboard. Don't get me wrong, I think non-smoking flights are GREAT, and the smoking ban would be in the interest of everyone's better health. But is it REALISTIC? That's what I wonder.

IL96M

The similarities between smoking and airplane noise are very few. The distinction is that smoking is a DISEASE, and harmful to other people. Airport noise is a PERCEPTION, one that is lodged in the minds of local residents, in order to grab a penny or two from the local authorities (another topic, another time).

The thing is that I should not have to put up with somebody else's cigarette/cigar smoke, and I should be made to. The US issued its smoking ban years ago, and they are continuing that ban to outside carriers that use the same facilities that domestic airlines use. Those foreign carriers should be held up to the same laws as everybody else. Like the man said, it's the price of doing business in the US.

If I had to make a wager, sometime in the future, all flights will be smoke-free, with the Asian airlines being the last and final ones to comply.

Tom in NO (at smoke-free...more or less...MSY)

Ok, this is a little off-topic but under the same general subject I suppose.....

I've been wondering this for a while: I read in "Flight International" an article "GE/P&W Eyes Boeing Exclusivity" about them perhaps becoming exlusive engine suppliers with the GP7000 for the proposed 747X and the 767-400ERX. Here is a quote from the article:

"Before the study can progress, however, the Alliance partners [GE and Pratt] need the sanction of the European Union, which approved the formation of the partnership with the proviso that GP7000 engines be used on proposed quad jet designs such as the 747X and the Airbus A3XX."

And I also seem to recall during the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger, something about the European Union having to give their ok. What's up with that? Are these not American companies involved? GE? Pratt and Whitney? If they want to form an alliance to make and market large turbofans, why is any type of "sanction" needed from the European Union?

Well, maybe if hte plane reaked of smoke, it wouldn't smell as bad as they do now...just a thought...

Tom in No, noise is harmfull too.

As far as i know the EU also plans to put a smoking ban on airlines with operations base in EU. But i believe that foreign airlines are excluded from this rule.


reno

"You choose your ticket on your own"

Wouldn't that be much in the same way as how one chooses ones house?

[unless houses are assigned in Germany...]

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

I am a non-smoker. I dislike smoke - a lot. But you know what, I eat at non-smoking restaurants. I ask people to not smoke in my car - and I ask people not to smoke in my home. However, I would never ask someone not to smoke in their home or their car. I believe the government (local, state, and federal) has overstepped it's bounds in regards to smoking (not just on airplanes). It's a personal decision. If you do not like smoking on your flight to Moscow - fly Delta. Just my two cents.

FLY777UAL, shure you choose the place were you live, but Airport´s increased the number of flights and adding runways and want to go on like that due to the raise of air-traffic. So people get influenced by noise on places where it has not been maybe 20 years ago. So , in my opinion, a noise-restriction for AC´s which affects people on the ground every day can not be compared to smoke-restrictions inside the cabin.

Ab.400, do you smoke?

How does this law not compare to the US not allowing foreign air carriers to land on US soil if they don't follow proper ETOPS or other safety procedures during their flight there? I still say it is an appropriate law. Now, if the US tried to declare that the airline has to be smoke free on its entire system, or lay down any other law that doesn't directly affect travel to/from the US, that would be inappropriate, the the gov't would never do this.

Let´s hope that we all live to witness the moment the very last cigarette will pest our world.

The weapon- and the cigarette-industry are the two industries I would love to see dead.

That´s all I want to say about this topic.

Come on, think a minute.
ETOPS, safety regulation which affects also the people on the ground which is overflown by 150 tons of materia , and smoking onboard ? Hard not to see the huge gap.

I'm totally & utterly with the US on this one! Without a shodow of a doubt.


virgin744


I feel confrontational...

I am non smoker and hate smoking in an aircraft. But this law is typical US. It is non of US business what happens within a foreign aircraft. They interfere in things which are not theires. I am lawyer and believe that US laws and jurisdiction are worse than in a banana republic.

Even though there might be a slight increase in the amounts of flights operated per year, noise, both direct and indirect has remained at the same level. 20 years ago you had the noisiest of all planes flying, not the quiet planes of today.

I do see your point about the additional runways which were built, adding more and more flight paths over houses which, when they bought there, didn't have any aircraft near their property, however, if the airport has room to expand, you'd better prepare for the worst--additional runways are to be expected.

If I buy a piece of property for my house, and the lot next door is zoned not for residential, but for commercial use, I have to look at the lot next door and say, "hmm..maybe they'll put a Circle K in there, or maybe it'll be a strip club. Either way, they bring lots of [weird] people around my neighborhood."

The same thing goes when you build near an airport. "With that extra room they have, will they build an extra runway, which will be noisy as hell, or will they hopefully build an airport office building?"

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

See FLY777UAL, you agree about the noise-restriction thing since you say that AC´s are much more quiet than ever before ( which is probably a result of this ).
But the restriction which is subject of this topic is wrong in my opinion, simply goes too far.

ETOPS affecting all those people on the ground? You mean, all those fish in the sea that an unsafe plane might fall upon?   Dude, (And you too, ZRH) it's all about protecting the people on board, and there are no other people involved. It is certainly the US's business to protect the people on board when the flight is too or from the US. Not only is it the US's business, it is the US's responsibility.

DLX, don´t you know that ETOPS is not limited to overwhater flight`s ?

No it is not US business. I my opinion everybody can choose the airline. If people want to fly a smoker airline it is their problem and not a problem of any governement, anything else is socialism!

Of course I do. Don't you know that the reason why a flight is ETOPS is because no one lives there? (No place to land...)

Sorry to get snooty, but this point is in fact very relevant.

The problems that the EU has with old aircraft isnt the noise, its the pollution. An aircraft can still operate to EU if it does not comply with noise regulations but it must comply with the pollution regulations.

And the EU is actually doing the same in the EU. The EU will prohibit onboard smoking for any flight that serves an EU destination.

reno

But this stays completly inside the EU.

Okay, so everyone chooses an airline. My question is still there. Are there enough seats on non-smoking airlines for all the non-smokers who want to fly abroad? I don't think there are.


Off topic a little, but I always get a kick out of the fact that the EU has harsher environmental and stricter pollution laws than America, but yet smoking is VERY prevalent there, much moreso than in the US and Canada. It's almost like saying pollution is okay, as long as it goes straight into the polluter's lungs.   I am actually somewhat surprised that the EU bans smoking on intra-EU flights.

In my opinion, Aeroflot can go stuff themselves. Smoking creates a very hazardous environment inside the aircraft, both physically and sanitarily, and I think the US has the right to ban it on flights going to and from American cities. If Aeroflot does not want to have non-smoking flights to the US, they can pull out and let their partner Delta take over!

Aaron G.

The rule applies to all EU carriers. International flights are also affected but foreing airlines may still have smoking sections. The law is about to be implemented soon.


reno_air

The EU does not have harsher pollutions laws and tighter restrictions than America. Emission controls are a joke in Europe. Every second car is a diesel blowing black soot in your face. Ever been stopped in traffic in any of Paris' tunnel roads under the Seine? Don't. Might as well be stuck in a giant tailpipe. Or try importing a Ferrari from Italy to the US for sale, much less to California. Forget the Ferrari. Try it with a Fiat. Try it with anything. Then you'll see who has strictier emission laws.

Hmmmm...

Diesel actually pollutes less than gasoline.
The EU does have equally strict environmental laws. tunnel. Try the air in a new york tunnel, its the same thing as in Paris or LA. And for Ferraris you have to obtain special permission because its a racing car.
But for environmental laws the EU is much stricter. Try cutting a tree in your own yard. If its older than 30 years and if there are more than ten of them you cant cut it because its a small forest. Ridiculous.


reno

I think it's sad that laws had to be developed to stop smoking in planes. One would think that laws of common decency would prevail in such a situation. You have to be extremely selfish in order to light up a cigarette inside of a small, enclosed area full of strangers. I used to smoke, and I would never have thought of lighting a cigarette next to three non-smokers, including a small child. You have to understand, here in the U.S, personal space is highly valued. When someone smokes right next to you, they are invading your personal space. That is basically why the U.S. has adopted these statutes. It may be the way I was raised, but I wholeheartedly agree with the decision to make all flights to/from the U.S. non-smoking. We do have the jurisdiction to make such a decision, and if airlines want to fly to/from the U.S. they must ensure that American passengers will not be subjected to hours upon hours of second hand smoke.

this is us segeration. years ago it segerated blacks
from whites and now smokers from non smokers.
but the joke is we the flying public have no choice
anymore. just stupid!!!

Can you people come up with better analogies? I mean come on.....comparing non-smoking laws to segregation in the U.S. is ludicrous. Besides, the airlines are not segregating.....we all sit together in a smoke free environment. We are all entitled to the same facilities, we just can't do whatever the hell we want in them. I just can't friggin believe that people would have the nerve to blow smoke all over me at a distance of three feet if they had the opportunity. Thank goodness for this decision.

I agree. This is in no way similar to racial segregation. Sitting next to a person of a different race for 5 - 10 hours won't give you cancer. Sitting next to Mr. Camel lighting up can.

BTW, Ben88, You must be from California (where smoking is most taboo these days). I didn't realize they had enough ice to play hockey with out there.  

I stand behind the United States 100% on this one. How would you like to be stuck on a plane for one hour with someone in the cabin smoking? That would be pretty awful. And then, extend it another 10 hours (the equivalent of JFK-Moscow) and that would be torture (In my opinion). Also, if you are stuck in a room with a smoker that is smoking for an hour (cabin certifies as a room in this case), it is equivilent to having one cigarette, and you didn't do anything. I would like to see smoking banned on all flights throughout the world.

Jeff

Yup.....Santa Monica to be exact. We have some cool ice rinks, although the price of renting one is significantly higher than on the east coast. Smoking is prohibited pretty much everywhere around here nowadays, although it's not hard to find a place to smoke. But if you think about it, the places in which they are restricted are reasonable; restaurants, malls etc.... All places where children are present. Like I said earlier, I used to smoke and would never have thought of bothering others with MY addiction. Why the heck should airlines cater to my addictions, especially at the cost of other passengers? I'm sick of people who think that they have a God given right to do whatever the hell they want. This goes back to my other post, in which I asked why people wouldn't voluntarily give up their cigarettes for a few hours in the name of common decency.

Sorry Reno Air, but I don't know what you are talking about. Emission controls have always been stiffer in the US. California is the stiffiest in the world. European versions always produced more horsepower because of the lack of similar emission control standards. Unless that has changed in the last few minutes. Ferrari or Fiat it is the same. Try importing one. Actually, all you have to do is ask US Customs what is necessary to import a car and sell it in the US with respect to emission controls.

if i can go for hours without food or water (its been done), then smokers can go without cigarrets. try using a patch or gum. Also, when i used to fly with airlines that had smoking sections, the sections were only the last 2 rows in coach. this doesnt bother me unless i am flying non-rev and am in the row infront of them smokers. Why should the airline cater to a person's addiction? If i were a heroin addict and i shoot up in my seat. would it be ok? i wouldn't be harming anybody, and it could be quasi-legal (flight from amsterdam?). I am just sick of governments telling people what to do, but that belongs in another forum.

BTW- When AR joined oneworld(breifly), they suddenly stop having smoking on their flights. Wouldn't aeroflot be pressured to do the same (qualifier)? Also, i believe that it doesn't matter if there is smoking on the flight i am on, if there was smoking at one point on the aircraft or the airquality is bad. Then the same effect is created. I don't care about cancer, and the chances of me getting it from a little second hand smoke from one ciggarett is about .000000000000000000000000001%*10^9999999999999999999999999999999999999 (scientific notation if you didnt know).

one more thing, people from the states. Dont be so paranoid. Microwaves and TVs can cause cancer but do you still use them? the body is made to survive and 1 cig won't kill you

Once again smokers are targetted by the anti smoking brigade. We smokers don't make a fuss about breathing in the car exhuasts fumes from an anti smokers car. Live and let live, that's what I say.

In an ideal world aircraft should have a designated smoking area partitioned off from the rest of the cabin, thus preventing smoke from disturbing the anti smokers.

It's all about freedom of choice and living in a democratic society.

this is just another example of the US trying to enact extra-territorial laws. They US has been doing this for many many years. US courts issue discovery of coduments orders against document slocated in foreign jurisdictions. US courts order order the cuban government to pay damages for Cuban acions in cuban/international waters against cuban citizens. US congress enacts anti0trust alws and tries to have tem enforced outside of their jurisdiction. issue of unitary tax systems are another: some US states try and tax the operations in foreign jurisdictions of companies registered in that state, and the operations of foreign companies in foreign jursdictions if they have offices in that state.
EU noise regs are the same as US TCAS regs: it affects aircraft operating in US/EU airspace. The Us simply does not have the jurisdiction to enact laws purporting to apply US laws on board a foreign registered aircraft operating outside US airspace. And Aeroflot do not have to abide by US laws when their aircraft are beyond US airspace (unless the aircraft is owned by a US lessor and leased on a non-demise basis to SU thus retaining its US nationality. The law that applies on board an SU aircraft is that of Russia, possibly qualified by the law f the state in which the aircraft is flagged. Pure and simple issue of law!

In my opinion, they should impose a worldwide ban on smoking on all commercial airline flights.

The reason is very simple: pressurized airplanes recirculate the air inside the plane at altitude. Who would want to recirculate the air full of cigarette smoke, especially on very long international flights ot six hours or more. I mean, we're already have Boeing 747-400's and Airbus A340-200/300 planes on routes where the flying time can be as much as twelve to sixteen hours (e.g., JFK-NRT, ORD-HKG, SFO-HKG, LAX-SYD, and so on); passengers and crew deserve to have tobacco smoke-free air for such long flights.