Why No "Smoking Boxes" In UltraLong Haul Flights?

Checo77 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:25 am

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

Type-Rated · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:36 am

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.

Viscount724 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:38 am

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.

BreninTW · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:44 am

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!

tdscanuck · Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:52 am

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.

bahadir · Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:57 am

It's called cockpit in Turkish airlines flights..

rduguy · Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:01 am

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

cf6ppe · Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:07 am

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

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

lightsaber · Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:16 am

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

DeltaMD90 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:57 am

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

ZRH · Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:17 am

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.

aklrno · Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:53 am

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?

joelyboy911 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:54 am

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.

BreninTW · Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:00 am

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.

Elevated · Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:05 am

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.

tdscanuck · Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:57 pm

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.

flyAUA · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:12 pm

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

longhauler · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:35 pm

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

The cause of that fire was never determined.

lightsaber · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:37 pm

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

jetblueguy22 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:39 pm

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

blueflyer · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:43 pm

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.

longhauler · Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:45 pm

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.

Rdh3e · Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:10 pm

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.

WNwatcher · Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:56 pm

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.

DeltaMD90 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:20 pm

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!

GBLKD · Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:50 pm

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, most airlines say no to use on board. I don't get why this is, there is no fire risk and no offensive smell. If some people still have an irrational fear the e-cigs are forcing pollutants on them the simple solution is a few rows at the back seperated by a lightweight curtain where those who wish to use these devices are free to do so.

radicaldudejom · Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:57 pm

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 for women to spend all their husband's money. Maybe not.

Let's keep the smoking of cigarettes off the planes and on the ramp, next to the fuel trucks where it belongs. Maybe not.

Centre · Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:08 pm

Quoting Checo77 (Thread starter):
why there are no smoking boxes in UltraLong Haul flights?

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.
And those are relatively big rooms. I opened the door trying to get in, and it just hit me in the face... I went two days with no smoking after that

So, even if it's allowed, how big will this box be? and how much smoke will come out of it into the cabin when you open the door.

United787 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:16 pm

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 anywhere close to one. If they can't figure out to keep them totally contained on the ground, not sure they would be able to do it in the air with much more complicated restrictions...

Quoting Centre (Reply 27):
Have you ever walked into one of the smoking lounges/rooms in ATL? You can hardly see your finger in those fogy rooms.

Those lounges are so bizarre, I can't believe anyone would want to be inside one...illustrates how addictive those things must be...

aerorobnz · Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:36 pm

The short answer beyond FAA regulation is that it takes up space that can be used for making a profit...

tinosky · Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:48 pm

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 this would be a better solution in other airports.

I bellieve airlines have thought about this idea, but yet again, it all comes down to saftey and comfort of the passengers. Non-smokers wouldn't like it too much (even if they couldn't smell it)

Tinosky,

BC77008 · Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:48 pm

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 as harmless by the manufacturer. I would imagine someone severely addicted to nicotine can easily take this into the laboratory and have a few puffs and it won't set off the smoke alarm. As a matter of fact I saw someone the other day in the produce section of the grocery store puffing on one.

[Edited 2011-10-05 15:49:47]

Centre · Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:58 pm

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 31):
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 as harmless by the manufacturer. I would imagine someone severely addicted to nicotine can easily take this into the laboratory and have a few puffs and it won't set off the smoke alarm. As a matter of fact I saw someone the other day in the produce section of the grocery store puffing on one.

That's what I use right now....

JAAlbert · Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:25 am

Quoting rduguy (Reply 6):
I'd rather a smoker light one up, than risk traveling with an idiot that doesn't know how to control his liquor

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 smell it throughout the cabin, depending on who was smoking. And the trek to the lav through the smoking section was awful. I don't know how it affects others, but for me cigarette smoke is pretty unbearable, especially (but not exclusively) in a closed space.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):
Air France had a "cheap" variation of the concept

Why does it not surprise me that the French would try and retain smoking on planes???

hiflyeras · Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:32 am

Quoting aklrno (Reply 11):
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.

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.

usair330 · Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:54 am

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 34):
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.

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 since I've been smoking didn't know I smoked until I sparked a cig in front of them. There are people that live in disgusting conditions but yet manage to smell very good. Than you have those that live in those same conditions and stink horribly. So again it depends on how you carry yourself.

redtag501 · Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:58 am

It is an interesting notion to have a completely isolated smoking closet and not without the most extreme precedent: The Hindenburg had one.

ssublyme · Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:22 am

Not to sound insensitive, but connecting flight is as an option if 16hrs is too long to go without a drag.

PanAm788 · Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:28 am

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 regards to the flight) alternatives.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
smoking or dipping, in many people's eyes, a vile, unsanitary, the disgusting process.

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 34):
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.

It's not the cleanest habit, but these descriptions are exaggerating it a little bit. I'd rather sit next to someone smelling of cigarettes than someone who smells like body odor. As for dipping, the spit is a little gross, but there is snus which doesn't require spitting.

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 31):

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 as harmless by the manufacturer.

E-cigarettes make so much sense on every level. It's funny that they are facing so many regulatory issues as they don't harm anyone at all. While I'm not a smoker (except for the occasional cigar), I think the anti-smoking campaign goes a little too far, enough so that it imposes on people's personal freedom.

Quoting Elevated (Reply 14):

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.

The AC DC-9 case is the only accident I can think of where a cigarette might have caused an accident. And that was never conclusively proven, plus the smoking would've taken place sneakily in the bathroom, something that could still happen today. If you know of another case where smoking has brought down an a/c please let me know.

So in conclusion, smoking boxes don't make any sense because they are added weight and there is such an anti-smoking stigma in society (as seen by the above posts). I'd personally have no problem with it. I do however hope, that e-cigarettes become legalized/mainstream enough so that my smoker friends who struggle on long flights, get their fix. Thanks for reading and sorry I got slightly off topic

DeltaMD90 · Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:47 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 38):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
smoking or dipping, in many people's eyes, a vile, unsanitary, the disgusting process.
Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 34):
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.

It's not the cleanest habit, but these descriptions are exaggerating it a little bit. I

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 that? The world would be a much better place if you didn't have "that guy"

tonystan · Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:17 am

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 wherever with the smell stuck to my clothes and I assure you it would be no different, infact it would be worse in the confines of an aircraft. Just last night I boarded a plane and as I was doing my security checks one of the lavs reeked of stale cigarette smoke. When I mentioned it to the number one we low and behold discovered that a report had been made 2 days previous of a smoking offence inside said lav and the smell was still there.

Thats what makes me laugh about such offenders on planes. They actually think they can sit there and deny that they were the ones having a smoke in the toilet when they totally stink of cigarette smoke for ages after the offence is commited!

WestJet747 · Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:21 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 38):
E-cigarettes make so much sense on every level

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 38):
If you know of another case where smoking has brought down an a/c please let me know

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19821224-0

CPHFF · Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:53 am

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 was flying once or twice a Month with KLM (ASIA) AMS-KIX, and they allowed smoking on the upper deck in Business Class. I thought this was great and booked it. The problem is, that when you're trying to catch some sleep on an Eastbound leg, and your fellow pax were chain smoking..........

Back then, both the Dutch and the Asian crew would come up and take an empty seat for a smoke. Don't know if that was actually permitted by the Airline, but nether the less, it created a nice social situation between pax and crew, and I actually got to know a few of them quite well.

solnabo · Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:48 am

Quoting Checo77 (Thread starter):

Why No "Smoking Boxes" In UltraLong Haul Flights?

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 a 18 hour flight..

//Mike

delta2ual · Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:59 am

Quoting Centre (Reply 27):
Have you ever walked into one of the smoking lounges/rooms in ATL? You can hardly see your finger in those fogy rooms.

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 so you could look outside. I think it's near T8-if it's still there. As much as I miss those days sometimes, I've given up both (smoking and being a FA) LOL

airbazar · Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:30 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 29):
The short answer beyond FAA regulation is that it takes up space that can be used for making a profit...

I would think that for flights departing AMS this would be a feature in high demand but it would require extra catering

mandala499 · Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:41 pm

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!
1. I do not want to pay for an extra cost for it.
2. I do not want non-smokers to pay a share of the extra cost for it.
3. I just bring some sweets to keep my mouth occupied rather than smoke.
4. Before I smoked, I hated people who stank of ciggie smoke... I still do... (and I'm a heavy smoker). I don't want to "impose" my habit on others!

I guess a lot of the other smokers who posted above agree with this!
So, even from the smokers quarter, there is opposition to this idea!

The real safety issue with these smoking boxes are not the smoking boxes... but, the lavatories... smoking in airplane lavatories, is illegal, and has been the highest starter of ciggie-caused in-flight fires in the past when smoking was still allowed in the cabin! So now, it's easy to catch the inflight lav smokers... with these inflight smoking boxes?????? Don't bother saying it'll reduce the risk of people going to the lav to smoke baloney...

Keep ciggies off the aircraft! Want to smoke inside an aircraft? Hire one, or become a cockpit crew in an airline still allowing the pilots to puff away, otherwise... keep the airplane nicotine free and keep costs low thanks!

Mandala499

Centre · Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Quoting delta2ual (Reply 44):
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 so you could look outside. I think it's near T8-if it's still there. As much as I miss those days sometimes, I've given up both (smoking and being a FA) LOL

This is my favorite:
Outdoor lounges at TPA

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net