Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No "Smoking Boxes" In UltraLong Haul Flights?  
User currently offlineCheco77 From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 8
Posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 11698 times:

Hello guys,

first, I want to say I am a non-smoker and that I totally hate smoking and the smoke smell!!!  

Second, I wanted to ask you, why there are no smoking boxes in UltraLong Haul flights? Regulations don´t allow for this? There is no technology yet that would allow this to be installed inside a plane without the risk of the smoke dispersing through the cabin?

Let´s take an A380 as an example. There is loooots of space, we have showers, etc, why there are no hermetically closed boxes with ventilation where passengers might go in turns and have a cigarette?

This could work in super long flights, such as EK´s DXB-IAH flight and similar one.

From an economical point of view, it does make sense, since I totally can see a smoker rather choosing an airline with a smoking box rather than a completely non-smoking airline. I guess for smokers must be a really hard to survive a 16+ hrs flight without smoking...

Thanks!
Adam


Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4842 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 11649 times:

Mainly because the law in the U.S. doesn't allow for it. Smoking is not permitted by Federal Aviation Regulations as well as flights to the U.S. on other carriers too.


Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 11634 times:

Quoting Checo77 (Thread starter):
From an economical point of view, it does make sense, since I totally can see a smoker rather choosing an airline with a smoking box rather than a completely non-smoking airline.

But many non-smokers (the majority) would avoid an airline that permitted smoking in any manner. Government regulations in most countries prohibit smoking on aircraft and that's very unlikely to change. It's also an ICAO policy. Handing out free nicotine patches is much cheaper than modifying aircraft and reducing the number of revenue-generating seats. It would also add to maintenance and cleaning costs.


User currently offlinebrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 11582 times:

How many fires are started each year by cigarettes that are not properly extinguished?

On an aircraft, the smoking box would have to be more than hermetically sealed: It would have to be fire-proof. There have been crashes caused by cigarettes that have not been properly extinguished before (I believe AC had one on a DC-9).

"Fire-proof" is expensive and heavy -- two things airlines don't particularly like.

Add to that, a separate ventilation system would probably be required.

Even if regulations allowed for it (which they don't), it would be cost-prohibitive to commercial airlines.

And, as Viscount says, non-smokers would avoid any airline that allowed smoking on board -- I know I would!



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11319 times:

Quoting Checo77 (Thread starter):
Second, I wanted to ask you, why there are no smoking boxes in UltraLong Haul flights?

There's no business case for it.

Quoting Checo77 (Thread starter):
Regulations don´t allow for this?

Depends on the jurisdiction...some do, some don't.

Quoting Checo77 (Thread starter):
There is no technology yet that would allow this to be installed inside a plane without the risk of the smoke dispersing through the cabin?

The technology exists (the same general design concepts are used to provide EE bay cooling and make sure fire from the EE bay doesn't get smoke into the cabin).

Quoting Checo77 (Thread starter):
From an economical point of view, it does make sense, since I totally can see a smoker rather choosing an airline with a smoking box rather than a completely non-smoking airline.

There is no way enough smokers would care enough to pay the exorbitant cost to design, build, and certify such at thing. Not to mention the opportunity cost of using up space that could otherwise be devoted to something else more likely to make or attract revenue.

Tom.


User currently offlinebahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1757 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11297 times:

It's called cockpit in Turkish airlines flights..  


Earthbound misfit I
User currently offlinerduguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11267 times:

But think about all the people that get on planes, either completely wasted or get that way on the flight. Think about the problems they cause. Last time I flew with a belligerent drunk passenger on my flight, he ended up cornering a flight attendant and basically pulling a fast one on her and feeling her up. I'd rather a smoker light one up, than risk traveling with an idiot that doesn't know how to control his liquor

User currently offlinecf6ppe From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11249 times:

And how would the smokers smell/stench on clothing, hair, etc. be handled, removed....???

Pardon, it I've struck a nerve... but....


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12409 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11190 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
There's no business case for it.

   More people will avoid an airline that allows smoking than smokers will fly (and pay) for the opportunity to smoke. Among some premium passengers there is the opinion that airlines that allow smoking must not be 'world class.'

I would expect allowing smoking on a flight, even in a 'box,' would not only be expensive, but would cut RASM.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11039 times:

These days, I don't think fire and smoke don't mix well with airlines... no one forced them to start smoking...


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5564 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10974 times:

It would make absolutely no sense. Why should airlines spend money for such a thing and more important waste space and have more weight on board for a few addicts? I think they rather lose more non smokers than they win smoking passengers. If a smoke addict wants to fly it is/her problem, probably he/she needs nicotine chewin-gum.

User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 868 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10715 times:

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 7):

And how would the smokers smell/stench on clothing, hair, etc. be handled, removed....???

Pardon, it I've struck a nerve... but....

  
If a smoker who just emerged from the smoking box sat down next to me I would be upset. Even though all aircraft and most terminals are non-smoking these days I can still smell the odor of a smoker sitting near me.

I've always wondered why airlines who have no trouble selling or giving away alcohol couldn't also add a range of nicotine patches. Anyone see a problem with that?


User currently offlinejoelyboy911 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2009, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10707 times:

The logistics of installing a totally isolated air conditioning system and an entry to the "box" that allows no smoke to enter the main cabin would be very difficult and add significant weight to the aircraft.

If someone is desperate to smoke on a plane they should buy their own plane.

  



Flown: NZ, NY, SJ, QF, UA, AC, EI, BE, TP, AF
User currently offlinebrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10672 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 11):
Anyone see a problem with that?

Yes, I can see a potentially large problem with that: Allergies.

A surprising number of people is allergic to the nicotine patches (either the latex in the substrate, the adhesive or other ingredients).

If an airline dishes out patches to someone who then goes into anaphylactic shock because of a previously unknown allergy it will be a huge mess.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineElevated From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 295 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10650 times:

I could just imagine the crack pots of today with cigarettes/cigars and open flames in the sky. I can picture someone falling asleep in one of the private suites some airlines have and go up in flames. It just takes one time, one incident and one person to ignore some magic box and bring a plane down because they had to get their fix. Yeah, I see no problem with this.

As a Crew member myself, this would be as comforting as taking away airport security entirely. I don't even want to think about it.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9902 times:

Quoting joelyboy911 (Reply 12):

The logistics of installing a totally isolated air conditioning system and an entry to the "box" that allows no smoke to enter the main cabin would be very difficult and add significant weight to the aircraft.

True, although that's probably not how you'd implement it. The simpler way would be to have a very small outflow valve for the "box" that keeps the box at a slightly negative pressure relative to the cabin (but higher than the outside, obviously). That way all flows go into the box then out of the fuselage...air supply is just the cabin air. No isolated airconditioning system, no fancy airlock.

Tom.


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9838 times:

I think the non-smoking pax you'd lose are worth more than the smoking pax you'd gain who are flying with you anyways!

Furthermore it has (in the meantime) also become a security risk if I am not mistaken.

Even if it was a sealed box, imagine the stench coming out this box everytime the door was opened! Yuck   



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4757 posts, RR: 43
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9697 times:

Quoting brenintw (Reply 3):
(I believe AC had one on a DC-9).

The cause of that fire was never determined.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12409 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What I notice being ignored is the crew's right to work in a carcinogen free environment. (That is why smoking is banned from all California restaurants and bars.) There is no way to impliment a box without requiring a crew member to enter the box.

I've seen the 'smoke fog' drifting out from airport 'smoking lounges.' Ugh... I remember the smoke cloud at the back of the aircraft (that went everywhere, it just was thick back there) back in the 'golden age' of flying.

Anyone notice the cigarettes in the new TV series 'Pan Am' do not have smoke trails? I suspect that is because the sensitivities of todays premium customer is anti-smoking.

Quoting brenintw (Reply 13):
A surprising number of people is allergic to the nicotine patches (either the latex in the substrate, the adhesive or other ingredients).

If an airline dishes out patches to someone who then goes into anaphylactic shock because of a previously unknown allergy it will be a huge mess.

   Airlines shouldn't be in the business of handing out something with as many known potential side effects.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 15):
The simpler way would be to have a very small outflow valve for the "box" that keeps the box at a slightly negative pressure relative to the cabin (but higher than the outside, obviously).

Oh... that would put interesting stresses on the airframe if the valve failed... it would have to be very small and that means a very restricted portal into the box. Air intering the box would have to flow quickly enough, or though a small enough path, to have a significant pressure drop (more than 0.1 psid or 5 torr) to make that work.

Lots of work for something not required. If it that big of a deal, the flyer may either charter their own jet or plan an itenerary with many smoking breaks.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2646 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9666 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

They could always switch to chewing tobacco. Sure you would need a spatoon, but just grab a gatorade bottle. I'd rather not deal with the smell onboard. Plus I'm sure less and less people would utilize it over time as people quit.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Air France had a "cheap" variation of the concept before banning in-flight smoking outright. They set up a smoke evacuation system by one of the galleys, and curtains all around here. The idea was for passengers to smoke within the curtains, but either out of claustrophobia or lack of space, some customers would instead stand outside the curtains and open it long enough to pop their head in for a long drag.


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4757 posts, RR: 43
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9628 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
Airlines shouldn't be in the business of handing out something with as many known potential side effects.

You mean like alcohol?  
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):

Oh... that would put interesting stresses on the airframe if the valve failed... it would have to be very small and that means a very restricted portal into the box.

The pressure differential required isn't as much as you would think. In fact there are many aircraft already that maintain a slight negative pressure in the lavatories to keep the airflow going in certain directions. (also for noxious gases),

If the valve failed closed, then the effect would be canceled and cigarette smoke would be allowed to escape into the cabin. If the valve failed open, then that just means the main outflow valve would be doing less work, that's all. The air has to go somewhere.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinerdh3e From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1457 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9255 times:

Quoting brenintw (Reply 13):
If an airline dishes out patches to someone who then goes into anaphylactic shock because of a previously unknown allergy it will be a huge mess.

This is not really a concern. People are allergic to a lot of things. Including the oft handed out Peanuts. I would be that a peanut allergy is more common than a latex allergy. I would say that selling Nicorette would probably be an interesting business case.


User currently offlineWNwatcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8716 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 19):
They could always switch to chewing tobacco. Sure you would need a spatoon, but just grab a gatorade bottle.

I tried this last time I flew, I got several rather uncomfortable looks from the other Pax and Crew. Not exactly something the person next to you wants to see, so I took it out and didn't bother. There's always going to be people that take offense to everything you do, so it's better for the Airlines if they just go with what the majority of people want. They cannot afford to sacrifice the profits from the non-smoking Pax to please the Smoking Pax, and here in the U.S., as has been said before, it's a moot point as FAR's prohibit it.



meepmeep
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7387 times:

Quoting WNwatcher (Reply 23):
There's always going to be people that take offense to everything you do

I think there is a difference between taking offense for something minor and having to sit next to someone smoking or dipping, in many people's eyes, a vile, unsanitary, the disgusting process. I don't really mind, but I can see why other people would. Just take a quick dip in the bathroom!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
25 GBLKD : Actually the solution is quite simple, allow people to use e-cigarettes on board. Despite the fact that they only produce a vapour that is exhaled, mo
26 RadicalDudeJOM : How about a section of the plane to accommodate every vice. Somewhere to dispose of needles, somewhere to "pleasure" yourself, maybe even a shoe store
27 Post contains images Centre : I'm a casual smoker myself. Have you ever walked into one of the smoking lounges/rooms in ATL? You can hardly see your finger in those fogy rooms. An
28 United787 : I wasn't recently at DUS and MUC and noticed that smoke can't even be contained inside those airport smoking lounges. I could smell them before I got
29 aerorobnz : The short answer beyond FAA regulation is that it takes up space that can be used for making a profit...
30 Tinosky : When im travelling in Japan, they have smoking lounges at the gates in the terminals. This allows me to get that last "puff" before my flight. I think
31 BC77008 : There are those e-cigarettes that emit a vapor instead of smoke. I know many airlines have banned their use in the cabin even though they are marketed
32 Centre : That's what I use right now....
33 Post contains images JAAlbert : I remember the days when smoking was allowed at the rear of the plane. The smell was not contained to the rear of the aircraft - rather, you could sm
34 HiFlyerAS : Exactly. People that smoke smell disgusting. They don't KNOW they smell disgusting because they're used to living in their own toxic-soup of filth.
35 usair330 : I disagree with you 100%! It depends on how you carry yourself. I smoke and have gum and lotion with me everywhere I go.... Every girl I've been with
36 redtag501 : It is an interesting notion to have a completely isolated smoking closet and not without the most extreme precedent: The Hindenburg had one.
37 ssublyme : Not to sound insensitive, but connecting flight is as an option if 16hrs is too long to go without a drag.
38 Post contains images PanAm788 : As stated earlier, there is no business case for it. But that being said, I believe dipping tobacco and e-cigarettes should be allowed as safe (in reg
39 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : It is exaggerating for 95% of people. But you've got that 5%... and you know what those 5% are capable of with dip spit. See where I'm going with tha
40 tonystan : Im a smoker but also crew but I admit...I would hate this idea. I know myself what its like to sneek out for a quick one and then come back in from wh
41 Post contains links and images WestJet747 : http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19821224-0
42 CPHFF : I'm a smoker myself, but I've coped on long-haul flights since there is a thing called "the nicotine patch". It actually works. During the late 90's I
43 Post contains images solnabo : Eeeeeeeewwwwww!! I´m a smoker but I would never ever stand in a "smoking box". I´d chew nicogums and suck plastic ciggs and avoid alcohol even for
44 delta2ual : The one in T is not bad. When I was a FA, I would walk over to T if I had the time. It was rarely used, well lit and ventilated, and had huge windows
45 Post contains images airbazar : I would think that for flights departing AMS this would be a feature in high demand but it would require extra catering
46 mandala499 : Well, I'm a smoker... under normal circumstances, I can barely pass 12 hrs without a ciggie... Would I like to have Smoking boxes on ULH flights? NO!
47 Post contains images Centre : This is my favorite: Outdoor lounges at TPA
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Wide Body For Short Haul? posted Fri Aug 27 2010 14:11:17 by eugegall
Why No Fokker 50s In North America? posted Tue Jun 8 2010 09:00:49 by ljungdahl
Why No DL Code On AM's Canada Flights? posted Fri Nov 13 2009 10:35:20 by EddieDude
Why No Indian Carrier In Manila? posted Sat Aug 29 2009 19:46:42 by JetBlue777
Why No DL 764 In The Latest Livery? posted Mon May 18 2009 15:02:16 by American 767
Why No FedEx 757's In IND Lately? posted Sat May 9 2009 07:25:44 by RampGuy
Why No SQ A380 In SYD Today? posted Mon Mar 24 2008 21:29:26 by NZ99
Why No ARJ Orders In America? posted Tue Jan 22 2008 16:32:02 by Super80DFW
Why No Business Class On US Domestic Flights? posted Sat Jan 27 2007 18:22:26 by 8herveg
Why No Glass Jetways In US Airports? posted Thu Jun 22 2006 16:52:26 by Ilyag