Simviation Forums

I was browsing the US Supreme Court's web site and I came across this.  Personally, I agree the airline was culpable.  I know I won't find to many people to agree with me, but I think that sometimes air crews get a bit callous with what they think is an inconvenience, and what is necessary...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 2-1348.pdf

On every flight I've been on, the offer has been made that passengers sitting in an exit row can be moved if they are not able to open the door and give directions to others to get out, or do not want the responsibility.  So, if this provision can be made, why not allow someone who doesnt want to choke on cigarette smoke move?

I'm guessing in this situation they didnt notice that the plane wasn't full or they could have moved without asking.  I know whenever I've been on a flight that isn't full the crew didnt mind me moving around.

I can see where it would lead to problems, as the old saying goes if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, and people will want to be moved just so they can get a better view, etc.  But in this case the guy had a doctor's excuse that he shouldn't be around smoke, so I think yes definatly if you have a medical issue the airline should make every effort to accomodate you.  

On a side note... I've never been on a smoking airline, are there any US airlines that allow smoking?  Whenever I have connecting flights I have to run around the airport like mad looking for the smoking area before my next flight... In Chicago-Midway (MDW) there is no smoking area and you have to go outside to the parking garage to smoke, and go thru the security checkpoint again before you can board your next flight.  

I remember a long time ago I was on a 737 (I think) that had ashtrays in the armrests.  Seemed weird at the time since they announced that all their flights were non-smoking.  Also, I don't know why there is a 'No Smoking' warning light if smoking is never allowed.. wouldn't it make more sense and be more economical to turn the light off and have a permanent sign at the door or something?

Note the date of the incident - December 1997. I think that smoking has been banned on all international flights since then which makes the ruling irrelevant. This just goes to demonstrate how long these cases take to pass though the legal system.

I remember a long time ago I was on a 737 (I think) that had ashtrays in the armrests.  Seemed weird at the time since they announced that all their flights were non-smoking.  Also, I don't know why there is a 'No Smoking' warning light if smoking is never allowed.. wouldn't it make more sense and be more economical to turn the light off and have a permanent sign at the door or something?

Many seats still have ashtrays in the armrests. This doesn't mean that you are allowed to smoke. The "No Smoking" sign will be permanently lit.

As a confirmed smoker of many years I can't think why smoking was ever allowed on an aircraft in the first place.

I'd much rather be on a plane full of smoke than a plane full of fidgety passengers.

Remember Scott, ciggies and avgas do not a happy mixture make

I'd much rather be on a plane full of smoke than a plane full of fidgety passengers.

I'm not talking about the nuisance or health risks (real or not) to cabin crew or other passengers. That is another issue on which I have my own views. There can be no doubt that smoking is a fire hazard & an aircraft is the worst place I can think of to be trapped in the case of a fire. It would bad enough on the ground but fire in the air doesn't bear thinking about. It always seemed hypocritical to me that while smoking is now banned by most airlines they are still happy to sell you cigarettes. For someone lacking will-power & desperate for a smoke the temptation of that pack of ciggies in their hand baggage might just be too great.

I'm a smoker myself and I agree that it should not be allowed on airplanes.  I dont particularly like the idea of being in a crowded airplane full of smoke either, not to mention the risk of fire.  They make gum and patches and things for those looooong flights that you just cant wait to smoke after.  Personally I've never flown for more than a couple hours at a time so it isn't a big deal to wait until we land for my nicotine.  However, my only gripe is hunting down the smoking area (usually a small room off to the side of the concourse with a few benches and ashtrays) if there even is one at the airport.  When you have to actually leave the airport, then go thru the screening process again before your next flight it really becomes a bother.  If you only have 30 min or so between flights then there really isn't time to go outside, back in, thru security, and still make your boarding call.  Would it really be so hard to designate a room to the side for smokers?  Or even give us a small balcony or something where we can go outside without having to re-enter the aiport?  Maybe let us line up outside the jetway while the other pax are boarding?  Some aiports get it right; KATL in Atlanta, KCLE in Cleveland, and KCVG in Cincinnatti all have smoking areas indoors where you can smoke, sip your starbucks and have a phone call or chat with someone else waiting on a plane.  Therefore, whenever I have to connect, I try to find a connection at one of those ports.  The non-smoking airports are losing business!  

An excellent observation Meyekul. I'm a non-smoker, but my father-in-law is part chimney! Maybe they should consider that some people want to gas themselves up on smokes before a flight, afterall they let people gas themselves up on scotch and all-sorts. Maybe there should be some consideration for nervous fliers who don't drink but puff...

Ozzy

But aren't we forgetting (ignoring) the fact that engines work on combustion?

Surely that process would be more likely to bring down a plane than a tiny little cigarette.  Besides, there are gobs of fire extinguishers in the cabin, if you know where to look.  

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's incredibly unlikely that smoking on an airplane would cause an accident.  Has it happened?  Sure.  But compare it to the number of times everything else has happened (individually or as a group) and it's going to make up a small percentage.

[quote]But aren't we forgetting (ignoring) the fact that engines work on combustion?

Surely that process would be more likely to bring down a plane than a tiny little cigarette.

Right, but Hagar on an aircraft you've got the added security of 300 passengers and crewmembers around you to let someone know if they suddenly see smoke rising from your lap.  Not necessarily the case at home.

[quote]Right, but Hagar on an aircraft you've got the added security of 300 passengers and crewmembers around you to let someone know if they suddenly see smoke rising from your lap.

Yes the world is against us smokers...  I've been thinking about quitting anyway, and I most likely will since I'm planning to move to NYC soon and cigarettes are around $8 a pack there...  :-/

Hagar, I'm not trying to sound like a  know it all, I'm just debating this with everyone else.  My personal opinion is that people ultimately have another option...

You're of course entitled to yours.

Sorry Scott. I didn't intend to be overbearing & make out I know it all. Like you, I'm simply giving my opinion. You have worked as cabin crew so know far more on this subject than me. However, this is something I feel passionately about. As a heavy smoker for more years than I care to remember I reckon to know more about smoking than most people here. I'm not proud of it but neither am I ashamed. I like to think that I'm a considerate person & can see the non-smokers point of view. I also resent being discriminated against for my habit. The whole thing seems to have turned into a witch-hunt now with the smokers as the witches.

As an aircraft engineer for almost 40 years I've always believed strongly that smoking should never be allowed on an aircraft. Nobody working on or inside an aircraft was ever allowed to smoke- purely because of the fire risk involved. Anyone with any sense at all should have no problems accepting that. I can't understand how the people inside it when it's flying at possibly 1,000s of feet with no possible means of escape would ever think they have this right.