Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1316 times:
From The Indepedent newpaper, UK
Aeroflot, the Russian airline, has forced the US transport department to back down from its strict anti-smoking policy.
Last week, the Russian airline gained a waiver from the American laws which ban smoking on all international flights to and from the US – allowing the carrier to maintain its practice of allowing smoking on flights of more than three hours. To pursue its action, Aeroflot has cited smoking as a "sovereign and fundamental right under a UN charter".
Curiously, Aeroflot's UK office said last week that they had not yet heard of the ruling. But a backlash against anti-smoking appears to be under way. The decision comes hard on the heels of smokers' rights group Forest's annual awards ceremony, in which the millionaire publisher Felix Dennis won the "Smokers Champion of the Year" gong for agreeing to finance a legal action to allow smokers back on-board international flights.
Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "Dennis told me that he'd be able to finance a class action against the US government, and he was very bullish about it."
Clark admits that he didn't hold out much hope until the Aeroflot initiative. "It may change everything," he said. "Prior to this, I thought we'd get a judicial review."
He believes that a potentially huge market for smokers is untapped by the airlines. "We have maintained for some time that if British Airways had one flight a day to New York that allowed smoking, it would be overbooked," said Clark. "The technology is there to make flights with a smoking section that disperses the air so that no one would notice. But airlines are put off by the threat of legal action."
However, there is a faint possibility of smoker-friendly charter flights. "I've been approached by an entrepreneur to start a smokers' flying club, and we're looking seriously at charter flights to destinations like Spain and Cuba, where smokers can get back the price of their flights in cheap tobacco," said Clark.
He is certain that these would succeed, although Freedom Air, a smoker-friendly airline in the US launched several years ago, quickly closed.
The Civil Aviation Authority in the UK is sanguine about the in-flight smoking issue. "We prohibit it in aircraft toilets for obvious safety reasons," said a spokesman. "Otherwise, we leave it to the airlines to make their own commercial decisions about whether to allow smoking."
The Ticketor From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 434 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
Smokers do not have a "sovereign and fundamental right" to force me to breathe their stinking health-damaging smoke, so forget it! And about the technology that removes the smoke, I believe it's called WMS, Wing Mounted Seats
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 38 Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
I detest smoking on planes as well, but it was about time the FAA is shown they´re not god or something. They simply don´t have jurisdiction over a Russian plane as long as it isn´t in US airspace. That plane is a part of the country whose flag it´s bearing.
OO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1214 times:
Aeroflot is right on that one.
They transport US passenger and goods, ok, but they transport also russian passengers that have rights as well. If the US passengers are offended, then they can fly an american airline. FAA rules, ok, but not outside US airspace.
KUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1200 times:
Brassie, FAA has the right to regulate flights into/out of US. They have no right to regulate the Aeroflot itself, but they can and should put some rules to any airline that want to do business with US.
Any country would do it.
The reason why FAA backed off is because powers behind Aeroflot. Lets see, would Sabena have the same clout? Maybe yes. But would the Tarom, Malev, or Gabon Airlines have the same rights? No, FAA would fine them in the second if they failed to comply with FAA's guidlines on US-bound flights.
Another item -- perhaps Aeroflot is the only airline with services to Russia. What happens then? US passangers have no other choice flying direct in non-smoking flight. But even if there are, lets say Delta flights to Russa, US carrier would not be on even ground with the carrier who has looser standards.
Lets drop smoking issue; lets use some other example. Lets say Gabon Airlines has different safety guidlines than FAA demands. Should they be allowed to operate into US under their rules? Should they be allowed to fly only into East Coast, and not overfly any city? How is that policed?
My point is -- whatever airline wants to operate services internationally -- it needs to comply with local laws, regulations, rules and standards of the country it wants to have business with. It isn't that difficult to understand that any airline flying into EU, should comply with JAA regulations... and the same works for FAA.
OO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1186 times:
Air Gabon should follow FAA rules within the US Airspace. Outside, it's simply not their business.
Now if an american airline needs to land in Gabon, they need to follow Gabon's CAA guidlines when ENTERING their airspace.
If Russian CAA allows smoking in flight, why the hell should Aeroflot follows FAA rules while enroute outside US Airspace ?! Again, if US passengers don't want a smoking flight, just take another carrier. US rules are not the ones of the entire world.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1183 times:
US rules are not the ones of the entire world. - disregard whether you are right or wrong in a discussion (I believe you are right in this one) - can this kind of "arguments" be avoided? We are not imperialists here, we are just regular people It's easy to understand why there is so much hysterical anti-American crap in Russian media (I read some their sites almost every day and always see something like "America is a new Hitler"), but you, the Europeans... Why?
KUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1174 times:
OO-AOG, you're obviously not listening to me. For whatever reason you keep distorting my point.
Lets summ two different lines of thoughts:
Should country "A" impose their aviation regulations on foreign airlines when granting them service rights?
I say yes.
Should country "A" impose their aviation regulations on foreign airlines flying in international space?
I say no.
Should counry "A" impose their aviation regulations on foreign airlines flying in international space, enroute to the country "A" (and on outbound flight)?
I say yes, because this falls into the cathegory 1.
Airline that does not satisfy aviation regulations of specific country should not be granted business rights with it. Simple fact.
When Aeroflot files for routes, they hope to fly as many passangers, so premises "US passengers don't want a smoking flight, just take another carrier" is somehow discriminatory. It is not the point in the citizenship of the passanger, the point is in the standards that all of the passangers (regardless they are non-immigrants, immigrants or citizens) should be able to expect on their flights into specific country (US in this case).
I hope this was simple missunderstanding and you did not mean it this way.
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 38 Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1160 times:
I agree with your Air Gabon example, because different safety standards can´t be switched on and off when crossing imaginary borders when being airborne.
But service issues such as smoking or non smoking, alcohol or non alcohol can.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
I believe you a bit overreacted... It's not a Finnair attitude, but one of a private person. An airline attitude is, say, F/A is smiling to you when you are boarding but you never know what he/she may think of you this very moment. If you are lucky then you may learn it somehow (in this forum or some other way) but then you will soon have nothing to fly with... So, I think, you'd better keep flying Finnair - at least until you see some WMS on their aircraft
KUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1157 times:
Exactly airsicknessbag; the air travel is of different nature than the travel at the time those international laws were made; I believe that were designed for naval transports in previous centuries.
Nowdays, it is very difficult to set different regulations and rules for portions on flight -- eg. turn on your ACARS when entering Canadian airspace. Or: "Ladies and gentlmen, dear comrades, please extingush your cigarets, we are entering into US airspace!"... It doesn't work, any flight is too short to operate under different standards on its portions -- something that might be tolerated on ocean liners.
Please note that my point is limited only to those services to the specific country.
Perhaps, different requirements could apply for flights overflying the airspace (example Air Canada flying Toronto-Mexico should allow smoking if their Canadian and Mexican FAA regulations allow). I don't see it as a problem in service area such as smoking, alcohol, gambling etc.
But there are other issues -- like entering cockpit enroute. BA had those problems recently; lets assume that British authorities banned that service. Would eg. Finnair pilots be required to kick out jump-seat passangers when they cross into UK airspace (on UK bound flights)? And other way, should they keep them in galley until they leave UK airspace?
Goods and services should be transported under the same regulations. Airlines have right to provide different products, but they should all follow the same standards - aircraft need to have functioning avionics, up-to-date logs,.... seats need to have belts, life vests for flights over water, oxygen masks.. etc.... toilets need to be sanitized, smoking banned (or allowed) ---- but the same rules for everyone on that service route.
OO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
You dont see my point, I am listening to you but I just dont agree with you. There is a difference.
As Airsicknessbag said, there is a difference between safety rules and smoking rules.
FAA is right to request that any airline flying to the States must comply with their safety ops requirements.
Now, requesting non smoking flights as mandatory is just against freedom that has a company to choose their smoking policy.
We, europeans, are used to enjoy a lot of freedom in our countries. US strict rules for nearly everything is somewhat frustrating for us sometimes. Apologies, my post was not intented to be anti-american.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1141 times:
We, europeans, are used to enjoy a lot of freedom in our countries - the same we are here! my post was not intented to be anti-american - of course it was not! My apologies if I looked THAT serious - didn't intend to be...
a European/former Soviet guy before 1996
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1135 times:
The point of my post on that other thread, is that the FAA DOES NOT have any right to tell an airline what type of service they can offer.
Safety procedures, and safety of aircraft issues are entirely different matters, and you will find that all countries have these regulations.
For the the White House to legislate non-smoking for a foreign private company is playing imperialistic bully just a bit too much
You mentioned Air Gabon....what pull would they have? Well this is known. Aeroflot was going to go to court over this issue. And they would have won! If Air Gabon, Air Tahiti Nui or Air Pacific took the case to court, they would have had the same arguments which Aeroflot would have presented, and they probably would have won the case too. Remember, law, in a utopian world, is supposed to be about presenting your argument, and proving wrong doing, not how much pull a person has.
But if a foreign airline wanted to have a prostitution service, or a heroin shooting gallery as part of it's in-flight service, as long as the rules of that foreign airline's home country are being followed, there is nothing that the White House can do in legislating.
Remember....flying is a choice NOT a right. Flying with Aeroflot is a choice NOT a right. If you don't like smoking and don't want to fly with smokers you have the CHOICE not to fly with Aeroflot. Simple as that!
KUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1132 times:
we are almost there.
Yes, flight rights granted to foreign airlines are not "rights"; they are rather sort of priviledges. Like businesses biding for goverment contract. I was thinking about that earlier today.
Same thing you mentioned about passangers, applies to airlines. FAA grants those priviledges as they would. They can revoke those rights, just as China can reward UPS or deny application to Delta.. for any reason they chose.
I would also like to believe that Air Gabon and Air Tahiti would have same success as Aeroflot in international court, but on the other hand I think world is less ideal. We all know that.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1110 times:
You have yet again pulled the bullshit.
I shot your other bullshit down in flames in the other thread...Am I now going to have to do it here as well?
OK...I will.....here it is from the other thread on this subject.
You know that is a bullshit analogy, so why even bring it up?
NO airline in this world has ever, or will ever, allow heroin to be used on flights. I will add the following on this thread as well: SMOKING IS NO ILLEGAL IN 100% OF COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD....HEROIN IS
Let's use a more appropriate analogy shall we?
Royal Brunei announced that they will be starting non-stop flights from Bandar Seri Begawan to Los Angeles, with 3 daily services utilising their brand new A380s. The two countries have open-sky agreements in place, but three days before Royal Brunei is due to start services, the White House presents the airline with a condition which will affect their operations. That condition being:
That alcohol must be sold on board, and it must be served upon request by the passenger.
Does the White House have any right to tell Royal Brunei which level of service they will offer on board? Just because a lot of Americans drink alcohol doesn't mean that just because an American may fly on a particular airline, that that airline has to cater to that American's demands.
It is against Islamic law for alcohol to be consumed, and for the White House to even suggest a demand that alcohol be served on board, is infringing upon Negara Brunei Darussalam's sovereignty and right to make laws for their companies. (By Islamic law I am coming at that from a cultural side).
A new airline, which is calling itself QANTAS, has announced that they will start flying to this country which is called America. Flights will be flown from Sydney - Los Angeles two times daily using the airlines brand new Ilyushin Il-96Ms. The flights won't be flown non-stop, as there will be a brief stop in Rarotonga (Cook Islands).
The services start, and their load factors are high. Customers are happy with the service which is being offered. The American passengers are especially happy, because QANTAS will serve alcohol to those passenger who are clearer under the age of 21 but over the age of 18. Afterall, Australian law (under which QANTAS operates) allows a person to legally drink alcohol after the age of 18.
Some politician in Washington D.C. who is no longer seeing mistress, and is a bit bored decides he is going to go on a moral crusade. His target is going to be QANTAS.
Talks are held in secret with the White House, and the decision is made (without consultation with the airlines) that airlines which fly to the US are not to offer alcohol to those passenger under the age of 21, even if it is legal everywhere else in the world for that airline to do so (although the passenger still has to be 18).
QANTAS is pissed off at this decision, because they understand that the US has no right to tell them that they have to operate under US law...not Australian law.
What especially pisses QANTAS off, is that the Americans are demanding that this law is not just for Australia-America flights, but also for sectors which are part of a company's flights to America. Aloe Kapisi, a 19 year old Cook Islander who is return home to Rarotonga boards the QANTAS flight in Sydney. He has had a long day, and once they are airborne, he asks the flight attendant for a tinny of Victoria Bitter. The flight attendant asks this passenger for his ID. He hands it over, and it clearly shows that he is only 19. The drink he orders is refused, and is offered a coke instead. He is then told that even though the flight he is taking is as far as Rarotonga, the fact that the flight continues to America means that the airline doesn't operate under Australian law but American laws. Aloe says "Lahor" and proceeds to take his own bottle of Jack Daniels out of his bag. The flight attendant gives him a smile and a wink. He get's half way thru one glass, when a couple of US FBI agents who are on board (they were in Sydney to investigate an increase of protests outside the US consulate there....in this latest case, the protests took the form of a large group of 18-20 year olds throwing beer bottles and tinnies at the consulate building) witnessed Aloe drinking this alcohol. The airline allowed this to happen. Aloe was arrested with "underage" drinking, and QANTAS was indicted for allowing this to happen..........................
The White House is impeding upon Australian laws which allow drinking at the age of 18, and is also dictating to QANTAS what level of service they will offer.
But Toxtethogrady, if it were legal in Russia for heroin to be used freely, and Aeroflot decided that within the confines of that Russian law, that heroin injecting would be allowed on their flights, the US laws would have no bearing upon their right to do so.
Like I said, the analogy you used is a bullshit one, because I am sure that there are INTERNATIONAL laws thru ICAO which prohibit the use of drugs on board aircraft, and those laws would be recognised by all member states.
But for one moment, let's say that there is no law, and that the airline can offer what other services they want, in line with their mother country's laws......if Aeroflot was to offer heroin flights, then the customer has a CHOICE to fly that airline, or fly with Delta Air Lines. BTW, Delta Air Lines is offering flights in which passengers are allowed to carry hand-guns and shoot passengers who look at them funny (in line with American laws).
25 Watewate: Easy with profanity Brissie. Your objective words underscores your otherwise fine argument. It's just a forum- no need to get emotional.
26 Rickster: Interesting that discussions about smoking or non smoking on planes or somewhere else allways tend to end up on a very emotional level while the use o
27 Mx5_boy: And now I chime in..... It's pointedly clear that certain American member of this forum believe that the authority of their country's legislation shou