Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2895 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
I smoke, and I am damned glad to not have smoking sections on planes.
It's arrogant to think that your addiction can rightfully make others uncomfortable. On the ground, if you're smoking around someone who either isn't keen on it (or worse, is allergic), common sense and courtesy tells you to put it out.
So, what are you going to do? Ask everyone onboard if it's OK for you to light up? Or just be rude and decide that your urge overpowers other people's comfort?
B747ca From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1898 times:
As a smoker, no I don't agree. But as a passenger who respects others, yes I agree. There is no reason why people should have to breath the poison that I chose to inhale. Why do I smoke, simply, I enjoy it.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6252 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
Another smoker checks in. While I never would consider smoking around a non smoker, even when they say it's OK, I think the owner of the aircraft should have the choice. Since 80% or so of the people in the western world do not smoke, The end result would have to be the same. However, if an airline did choose to allow smoking, what right does a government have saying this is illegal. I wouldn't fly it but I will never own an airline either. I can happily go without a cigarette as long as I am doing something more important.
BTW, no aircraft has ever caught fire as a result of legal smoking on board.
Is grammar no longer taught is schools? Saying "me and her" or some such implies illiteracy.
Iwareboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
LHR-PHL on AA was the worst flight I've ever had thanks to the smokers in back of me. (About 10 yr/ago) Thanks to the crappy seats (FF mile seats), we got to sit in the back. It's really great to fly for 8 hours in smoke, get off the plane, and smell like a dank bar.
KHI747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
With all due respect to everyone.....
I never understood why smoking has always been such a big deal on planes.
Last year i was travelled Kuwait airways sitting by choice in the smoking section. I was hesitant in lighting my first smoke only because i was concerned that the smoke may bother some people. The guy next to me, an englishmen, took out his pack and was about to light one when i told him that i had been in a delima whether i should smoke or not.....atleast i didnt want to be the first one. He said that the people a row or two behind had already been smoking for a while. My point is that ventilation system on planes, new ones specially, is so good that it just sucks up all the smoke before it gathers up. I did not even smell the smoke from the back rows. We both had plenty of cigarettes along the way and at no point did smoke really gather up. I was even looking around to see if anyone may get uncomfortable.
Similarly last year i was also travelling Emirates sitting in the smoking section. Again me and the person next to me had quite alot of cigarettes and the ventilation was soo good that im quite certain people in nearby rows were totally at ease. Travelling with Saudi Arabian last year i was'nt smoking for some reason but i hardly felt any discomfort of the smoking going on in the plane.
I think when smoking is restricted to a certain limited section of the plane, its made out to be much more of a big deal then it actually is. I think it is only fair to cater to the millions of smokers that fly. I know some of you are just going to come bashing at me just because you have something programmed in your mindset.... but guys once again with all due respect, just think ....its really not that bad...the airplanes should just have a good ventilation system and everything will be all set.......
(i really enjoy smoking on airplanes)
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
smoking sections in aircraft are not an option, as without airtight partitions between them and the rest of the cabin, combined with independent airconditioning systems the smoke still enters the rest of the cabin causing discomfort at best (and fierce alergic reactions at worst, believe me it is not nice) for the majority of people. This is more or less what is done in buildings and trains...
Doing that would be impractical in existing aircraft and most likely prohibitively expensive in new ones.
An alternative might be to have special smoking flights (and aircraft reserved for it), say one flight out of 5 if indeed 20% of passengers are smokers.
Smokers can then choose to take a special flight if they can't stand a few hours without their addiction, and non-smokers can decide whether the discomfort is worth it to take a flight at that particular time.
YKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1806 times:
Smokers will fly(and suffer..lol) regardles whether smoking is aloud on aicraft or not. So why should airlines spend money on air-proof cubicles and add extra weight while reducing the number seats for paying customers? It simply dosn't make sence...then once again neither does inhaling smoke until you die from it. I just hope someday this primitive addiction will be a thing of the past.
Alexinwa From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
Why on earth would you think it is the governments responsiblity to promote healthly living? Why are smokes legal? Why is booze legal? smoking and booze kill more people than almost all natural causes.
On another note. I am a smoker. My only fear of a blanket no smoking policy is in the future with longer range A/C I may not have an option of a stop to smoke. Hell if Im going to Hong Kong from NY there is no way in hell I sit on a CO 777 for 15 hours or so. On the flip side of that, if I want to fly CO to Hong Kong I have no other option.
When I fly to the east coast now (I live in Seattle) I make a stop en-route, just to smoke. When I fly to Germany, its tough. Thank god Copenhagen and London have smoking areas in the airport. I bolt from the plane to the smoking room.
Smoking rooms are something that I wish more US airports would have. That why we all win. Smokers can smoke and non-smokers arent upset.
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1778 times:
As an american, you probably don't know that here in Canada, our health care system is publicly funded. Every time someone has to undergo treatment for smoking-related diseases, it costs the tax payer. With that in mind, it's in the government's best interest to deter smoking any way possible (including slapping exhorbitant taxes on a pack of smokes).
Enjoy life to it's fullest Alexinwa, you'll have 10-15 years less than the rest of us!
BCal DC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1762 times:
Lymanm, don't be fooled. Governments secretly love smokers. Here in Britain, the government makes sooo much money from smokers through huge taxes that if everyone gave up smoking tomorrow, they'd have a serious problem funding the health service and have to tax something else instead to pay for it (probably booze - they don't like us having fun.... ). I digress from the point of the thread...
If you're that desperate for a fag on a plane, stick on a patch or get a nicorette inhaler (which I used to give up smoking... brill!). You'll cope for a few hours with one of those.
Timmay From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1752 times:
As I non smoker I agree with legislation as it is. However, if it could be possible to section off part of the aircraft and supply that part with really good ventilation for the smokers (also so they don't smoke the place blue) I believe a compromise may be reached and also it may reduce incidents of air rage. However, such a soltion will be costly to implement and economics would most probably be the deciding factor.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1367 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1752 times:
KHI747: My point is that ventilation system on planes, new ones specially, is so good that it just sucks up all the smoke before it gathers up.
In the interest of fuel efficiency, airliners these days bleed less air from the engines to refresh the cabin. Ventilation these days isn't "so good".
I did not even smell the smoke from the back rows.
As a smoker, your smeller is busted. Just because you can't smell it doesn't mean it isn't turning the stomachs of people far from you. They may be too polite to turn around and stare at you, but when they get where they are going, they will have to wash their hair and clothes.
im quite certain people in nearby rows were totally at ease.
Why are you so certain? Because they didn't say anything to you?