Cliffe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
1) If ailines can segregate 1st class passengers with a partial bulkhead and curtain, why not segrgate, on flights of 5hrs or over, smokers to the rear of the plain using a full bulkhead? I believe, though i have no facts or data, that a good deal of the recent air rage incidents, if investigated beyond the consumption of achohol, would point to a tobbacco deficiency in the perpertraitors.
2) Only airlines, and there are still a few i believe, that continue to allow smoking, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SELL, AND MAKE VAST SUMS OF MONEY from tobbacco products.
SEA nw DC10 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Smoking shouldn't be allowed on any planes. I think it gives us non-smokers a sence of no escape, we are trapped in a metal tube, now it is filling with smoke from a passenger. We cannot open a window....having a smoking section in a plane is like having a peeing section in a pool.
Purdue Cadet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1364 times:
Smoking shouldn't be allowed anywhere that it affects non-smokers involuntarily, and airplanes are no exception. In California, our lawmakers have gone so far as to ban smoking in enclosed restaurants, realizing that you can't really keep the smoke from drifting into other parts of the room. The same should definitely apply to airplanes - the inhalation of a thousand known carcinogens shouldn't be considered an inherent risk of air travel.
AWA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
Although I am a smoker, I would prefer not to be in a smoke-filled enclosed tube for hours. I feel the way I do about smoking in an airplane as I do in my own car and home... I don't do it! I can't stand to have the smell lingering on my fabrics and everything else it touches. If I need to smoke, I go outside where it doesn't affect the people around me and my belongings.
Pmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1355 times:
I have to admit, every now and then I love to smoke a hand wrapped Honduran, however I do not believe that smoking on an aircraft is healthy, polite or safe! My grandmother was a two pack a day smoker and died of it, when we cleaned her house we had to bleach the ducts to get the cigarette smoke out! Imagine all that collecting in the airhandling system on an aircraft! Sorry folks, having an open flame in an aircraft is not a good thing, I'm sure some of the older people in here can tell horror stories of dropped cigarettes and lighters.
Buff From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
PMK said it all.
If you're not prepared to "go without" for the required amount of time, then take the train, or don't go. If you attempt to smoke with full knowledge that you're not allowed, you are committing a criminal offence, punishable by the law of whatever country the Captain diverts to throw you off.
It is however a very interesting point raised by Cliffe that airlines do in fact make lots of money on Duty Free cigarette sales.
Markdc10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Sorry guys but I don't happen to agree with you on this one. When I started to fly back in 1976, we had the smokers in the rear of the airplane. No one said a word about them. It was only when our goverment started to stick their nose in that people started to complain. Then in the 80s it banned smoking on all flights under 2 hours. Then finally smoking was banned altogether. I thought then as I do now that was the dumbest idea ever to come out of Washington. Now FA's have to contend with onboard fires in the lavs, air rage when you tell someone who just purchased their full fare ticket and probably paid a fortune for it, that they can't smoke. In the 23 years that I have been flying I have never been overwhelmed by cigarette smoke. In fact I have never smell it. I think alot of the complaining is due to the fact that most non smokers just want something to complain about and a smoking pax is an easy target. I for one would rather have a pax smoking, then my entire lav on fire from someone who tosses a cigarette into the trash bin.
Adam84 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1400 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1342 times:
I think smoking should be allowed on airplanes, I agree totally with Markdc10,
its like, I think the people are just complaining for nothing and they have something to complain about, its like I read somewhere that smoking actually
makes it easier for mechanics to find stress fractures in the fuselage cause the smoke leaves a streak, but anyhow my view on it is. Like say for example someone disagrees with religion, and the guy in the seat next to them starts reading a bible, what are they gonna do, ban reading a bible, but anyways
I think they should have a section of the aircraft that is for smoking as Cliffe pointed out. This is my Opinion!
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1339 times:
Apart from the general safety issues aren't airlines protecting their own backs? Some have been sued by FAs for having been forced to work in smoke-filled environments and the subsequent health problems.
Anecdotally, An airline I have been flying on 757s has demand driven smoking sections that have shrunk over the years as follows:-
1987 Rows 1-20 No Smoking Rows 21-40 Smoking
1991 Rows 1-30 No Smoking Rows 31-40 Smoking (Just rear cabin)
1994 Rows 1-36 No Smoking Rows 37-40 Smoking
1996 No smoking on flights over 6 hours
1998 No smoking at all!
There have been no problems I can see from the smoking ban - no business has been lost as all British airlines agreed to implement the ban at the same time so no airline got a commercial advantage/loss from the policy change. Demand to smoke on aircraft has dropped and a smoking ban seems a sensible safety precaution. Most air rage incidents appear to come from excess alchohol - not cigarette deprivation (although it may well contribute)
Purdue Cadet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
"Like say for example someone disagrees with religion, and the guy in the seat next to them starts reading a bible, what are they gonna do, ban reading a bible"
The big difference here is that reading a Bible doesn't affect anyone else. Just because the person next to you reads a Bible doesn't mean that you're forced to be a Christian. If, however, the person next to you starts smoking, you are forced to inhale all of the carcinogens that are put into the air.
Cubanaair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
I can only speak for myself but as a flight attendant for over 22 years now, I know for a fact my health is improved overall since we went to no-smoking flights.I'm a non-smoker but even my colleagues who STILL SMOKE say the same thing (they use nicottine gum or patches inflight and RUN off the a/c after landing to light up). An aircraft inflight is a sealed container and no matter how great the air purification system I can categorically state that even when I was working First Class with ALL non-smokers and did not actually noticed anything while in the air, my uniform and my hair would stink when I got home as if I had been in smoking.For years I suffered from allergies and upper respiratory problems that disappeared just months after the smoking stopped.I'm convinced this is the case with most of my fellow workers but I can be sure it's true for me. FernAAndo. :-)
TriStar From Belgium, joined Oct 1999, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
I'm with SEA nw DC10 and other opponents, on this one. An aircraft is indeed a confined space, and you can't keep smoke from reaching non-smokers. In that respect, I *love* SEA's comparison with the pool. ;-)
As for selling tobacco on board; the same goes for alcohol. There's a law that says a passenger cannot drink any alcoholic beverages that haven't been handed to him/her by the flight attendant. I would think a bottle of scotch that has been purchased by a traveller, would fall under that same law. Hence I don't see how it would be okay for a passenger to light up a cigarette he has just purchased, even if (s)he would be on a flight where smoking is still allowed.
As far as I am aware, duty free items cannot be opened, let alone consumed, until the passenger has reached his/her destination.
Regarding the airlines making profits on selling tobacco, I can't contradict that argument. Then again, I don't think a smoker would oppose to the possibility of buying those cigarettes at a lower price, even if it were on a non-smoking flight.
In closing, may I add I -as a non-smoker- think highly of the position taken by AWA320 and fellow-smokers who are courteous toward the people surrounding them.
B-707 From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
I really can't understand the thinking behind the statement "Smoking should be allowed on board an aircraft"
Secondary smoking kills - that's a fact.
A friend of mine (many years ago) was seated just in front of the smoking section. She found it very difficult to breath (due to smoke from the smokers). Several requests to stop were ignored. So she purchased a large bottle of perfume from the Duty Free trollie and sprayed it all over the smoking department.
You should have heard them complaining. She told me they were furious to say the least. It was expensive , but it proved a point.
I don't allow anybody to smoke in my house. My sister doesn't visit anymore because of this restriction. Tobacco smoke gets everywhere and makes everything smell.
Jim From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 455 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1301 times:
My wife and I became ill from smoke on an interational flight once. Business class was full of smokers and from the moment the light went out they lit up. We could see into Business and several people lit up, took a drag or two and then let the cigarette burn down to the filter. They then lit up another one and did the same thing again. We noticed that they were inhaling through a filter, but we didn't have that option! The smoke finally got so bad that the pilot came over the PA and announced a non-smoking period of 15 minutes to allow the plane to clear out. Almost all of the smokers complied, but two just comtinued to puff away WHILE THE FA WAS TELLING THEM TO PUT IT OUT! Such arrogant behavior!
One other point: one of the most hated jobs at Delta when I hired on was having to clean the nicotine stain from around the outflow valve on the DC-9. We not only had to get the stuff on our hands (it was the days before latex gloves were readily available) but we had to use some strong, toxic solvents like MEK and acteone to get the aircraft clean.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
I completely support banning smoking on all flights. It should always be non-smokers' choice whether they want to be subjected to breathing cigarette smoke due to the health hazards.
On the whole, I have noticed that few smokers have any regard or courtesy for those around them. In cases where they refuse to extinguish their cigarettes when politely asked to do so by a flight attendant, I think very stiff fines should be imposed by the airline. There is no excuse for rudeness and inconsiderate behaviour, and I think those exhibiting such should pay dearly.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1294 times:
While trying to be fair and impartial, I, for one, CANNOT see the benefits from allowing people to smoke in flight. It's dangerous (and has been attributed to a number of inflight fires) and it's bothersome to others.
Also, we must take into consideration that other factors are attributable to "Air Rage," not just tobacco withdrawal (IE: Getting to the airport and finding out that you're not 'confirmed' on the flight like you thought you were, luggage getting lost, having your flight delayed not once, but 3 or 4 times with no explaination...)
I'm very senstive to cigaratte smoke. I can tell if someone's smoking clear on the other end of the hall in my dorm. It becomes harder and harder for me to breathe... I feel as if my throat is closing up. I have to open a window. Now, I have just attributed this to cigarette smoke after I figured out that it coincided with my mother smoking.
I don't allow anyone to smoke in my car when I carpool, and certainly won't let anyone smoke on anyone of my flights.
I don't mean to be caustic here, but you smokers must take into consideration that you are in the minority and your habit is a detriment to the health/safety of others.
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
California is one of my two homes, Wash, DC the other. I won't go to bars in DC where everyone seems to smoke but do in California where smoking is not allowed. Looks like I'll make 100,000 miles this year and I can't imagine how I'd feel inhaling smoking on all those flights.
I hear San Diego lost the World Trade Organization conference to Seattle because of foreigners' concern that they couldn't smoke in California. Good riddance. I hope they fly to Seattle on long non smoking flights!
Buff From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
Thought I'd jump back into this - I don't smoke, I quit when I was seven - I got caught! But I digress.
It is my experience that Europeans, including folks from the UK smoke much heavier than North Americans. The non-smoker in Europe is in the minority. This is an observation for those who have entered this discussion using the North American point of view, just to aid in the understanding of those Europeans who have advocated inflight smoking - the anti-smoking stigma just isn't there as it is on this side of the pond.
I am against smoking on board primarily for safety reasons. Second hand smoke is, pardon the pun, a secondary concern only.
Fire on board an aircraft is The Most Serious Emergency that can occur. All it takes is a shot of turbulence while that butt is smoldering away while you're lost in concentration in your magazine/laptop/pretty girl sitting next to you. Once the butt is on the floor or in the seat cushion area, it may be either forgotten or inaccessible. Inflight seat fires will spread like wildfire. And it's not the fire or immediate smoke that will be dangerous - it's the toxins released by the burning/smoldering plastics - they can kill very quickly.
Given the circumstance of the Learjet crash yesterday, when things go wrong on an aircraft, they can go wrong fantastically fast and in the most unpredictable manner. If an airline has the opportunity to reduce a particular risk by banning open flames and smoldering ashes, why not reduce the risks?
As I mentionned in another post, a great many of contributors to this great forum are neither pilots nor flight attendants, so don't have the same insight to air safety that is ingrained in both groups. This is not a criticism, but simply a statement to heighten awareness. Flying is regarded by most non-aviation involved people as dangerous. Personally, I think walking a beam on a highrise construction project is dangerous. But in both cases, those who are closest to the action, so to speak, are best able to ascertain the risks/dangers.
Most passengers opinions of the pilots and flight attendants perceive them as necessary to pay 99% of their attention to passengers as customers and 1% to safety related matters and getting to destination on time, when in reality its the other way around.
It's been a good discussion and in closing I would wish that everyone who flies as a passenger in an aircraft realize that there is usually a very good reason for everything demanded of them.
Buff From Australia, joined Mar 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1276 times:
I forgot to include an explanation of exhaust gases that enter the cabin. This occurs when the aircraft is stopped in a light wind condition and the engines at idle. The wind will normally be from behind, drifting some of the engine exhaust around to the front of the engine. This exhaust gets sucked back in through the compressor, where the normal air conditioning source air comes from. The air conditioning packs are unable to filter these exhaust fumes and they enter the cabin.
You usually experience this immediately after push-back from the gate while the aircraft is starting engines and static.
It is possible to anticipate this condition and limit the use of the air conditioning packs. Unfortunately, it takes a really heads-up flight crew who will anticipate this phenomena and delay switching on of the ACP's after engine start.
I agree, it is MOST annoying, and not good for you.