Smoking in the cabin of commercial aircraft

[jghill]

I am a non-smoker, so this is purely out of curiousity!

Firstly, a lot of aircraft have facilities for smokers, such as ashtrays... but the flights are non-smoking.

Secondly, a lot of boarding cards still have a "smoking?" box (always marked "no").

Thirdly, despite it being understood that you may not smoke on airlines, there are signs *everywhere* advising that one may not smoke.

With all this in mind, I wondered, is it allowed for passengers to smoke in the cabin of aircraft, or are the prohibitions down to licensing rules, airline choice, or what?

I just wondered, as there seems to be a lot of left-overs from the days of flights where smoking was allowed... do any airlines allow smoking onboard, in any, however far-flung, corner of the world?

[CallBell]

Crew also have to have somewhere to safely extinguish cigarettes in the event someone does start smoking. AFAIK that is why the Lavs still have "ashtrays" on the exterior wall. Some newer aircraft have replaced the traditional No Smoking sign with one saying "turn off electrical devices" or something to that effect..

[AMEandPPL]

Not on western airlines

Depends on what you mean by "western". I've been on Olympic inter-island flights ( usually ATR 42 or 72 ) when the F/D door has swung open and it was obvious that the flight crew were smoking. Many times.

Same at Athens airport : "no-smoking" signs are everywhere, but they are simply ignored ! Try to tell Police or Security - they just shrug their shoulders !

[CornishFlyer]

If you don't have any ashtrays, my understanding is that the a/c would need to go tech as like someone said previously, we need to have somewhere to extinguish any cigarettes unruly pax may decide to smoke.

As for the no smoking signs, they have to be there so as anyone that doesn't speak the language the PA's are made in cannot simply claim they didn't understand what was being said as the symbol used is universal so they airline can protect themselves by saying that they were indeed warned about it's no smoking policy. At least that's what we get told ;)

[Pax Vobiscum]

Do JAL still allow smoking? I used to know folks who routed via Tokyo to Oz simply because they couldn't face a 14hr nonsmoking flight!

[Rollingthunder]

We installed blanking plates on the armrest ashtrays immediately after the law came into effect as they would be used to deposit used chewing gum in otherwise - and that's a bugger to clean out.

The most effective way to dispose of an illegal cigarette onboard is to run it under the tap in the lav for a second and chuck it.

[denis555]

The most effective way to dispose of an illegal cigarette onboard is to run it under the tap in the lav for a second and chuck it.


Or soak a paper handtowel and fold butt into it. ( This used to be a preferred method of secret smokers in the toilets - until they all got flushed out)

[boardingpass]

Despite the signs, I usually find someone smoking in the toilets about once every three months. And that's on short haul!

[denis555]

Makes my blood boil!

I have overhead Pax in lounge discussing sparking up on board whilst in their seats and when challenged coming over all innocent. They supposed that you could not be touched for it if you pleaded ignorance and "could get at least three drags before they stopped you".

Give 'em all the handcuff treatment say I.:sad:

[AMEandPPL]

They supposed that you could not be touched for it if you pleaded ignorance and "could get at least three drags before they stopped you"

Would be interesting to know if they could even get that far. I'd doubt it ! If I saw anyone near me even open a packet of cigarettes and take one out, especially with a lighter in hand too, I'd be shouting loud and pressing the CC call button simultaneously.

Ignorance is simply NOT an acceptable excuse nowadays. To the best of my knowledge ALL pre-flight safety announcements include the message that "Smoking is not allowed anywhere on this aircraft".

[CornishFlyer]

Haha, they can try to light up but endangering the safety of an aircraft would be met with a pretty big punishment. Ignorance isn't a good enough excuse when there are lights above your head and PA's made. If pax choose to not listen then they will be punished by the courts and there plea of ignorance will fall on deaf ears (haha-get it? Made me laugh anyway). The police would escort them from the a/c and take them to the cells and they'd probably get a fairly hefty fine. If they really can't wait to have a cigarette and would rather take the risk, let them. The fag would be put out pretty quick by crew, they would then have to go thru all the police crap and waste a majority if not all of their holiday. Is it really worth the risk? Just get some patches ;)

[AMEandPPL]

Easy answer to this one . . . . . . . . just like all public buildings since 1 July 2007 . . . . . . .

"You'd like a smoke, Sir ? "

"Certainly, Sir, this way . . . . . . . . just step outside, here, Sir "

[Biggles225]

I love the comments from the non or reformed smokers! A 14 hour flog without a drag is serious purgatory for a smoker, I promise.
I digress.
The ashtrays etc are a leftover from a more tolerant age, I've heard that seat design still incorporates them but not as 'ashtrays' per se but the more PC term 'receptacles', as any private buyer could require them, most likely as ash trays.

Incidentally Cornishflyer, for years I smoked on aircraft ranging from the Bristol Freighter and Hastings which run on Avgas, up to a 747 and its had no effect on the safety of the aircraft whatever. If those captains had been smokers banned from smoking it would have made for some very interesting trips. I remember one Hastings captain who smoked 'Counter Shag' in a pipe like a bucket, and when he fired that up you couldnt see past the panel - but we lived in more tolerant times then. (Plus you could open a window!)

[GwynM]

As a non-smoker, changing the wotrd "tolerant" to "selfish" would be more like it. It was awful coming off a long haul flight with your head pounding from not being able to breath properly and having to change your clothes because they stank of other people's fags.

However, we had to be tolerant, otherwise we couldn't fly anywhere, and with the old booking systems, the non-smoking areas always filled up really quickly so if you had a connection or couldn't get to the airport really early, you had to suffer in the back with the smokers (as if the smoke knew it shouldn't go past the "no smoking" signs).

[CornishFlyer]

I know it isn't a danger to the a/c, indeed I too have flown with a few CPT's that had a crafty fag during a flight and I only do european flights-haha. However, that is how it would be perceived as a punishment by any airline that chose to take action as there is a chance it could obviously cause a fire in the cabin. For those of you that may now start thinking, "we used to be able to smoke and I didn't ever have a fire" etc etc, prevention is better than cure I'm sure you'll all agree ;)

[AMEandPPL]

I know it isn't a danger to the a/c

Smoking CAN be a danger to your mode of transport ! Just look at this bus, after a passenger smoked (illegally) in a toilet . . . . . .

20 dead as smoker sets fire to bus - | MSN News UK - news & weather (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=10675826)

Extrapolate that to a Boeing or Airbus in flight . . . . . . . . :ugh:

[PaperTiger]

I'm sure you'll all agreeOr perhaps not.

[CornishFlyer]

Huh? Your post makes no sense PaperTiger. You think that trying to put out a fire would be better than preventing it in the first place? :confused: My "I'm sure you'll agree" was referring to that not any other part. Of course fire can be dangerous but smoking used to be allowed on a/c and although there may have been, I'm not aware of many major air accidents whereby a cigarette was the cause

[denis555]

Just look at this bus, after a passenger smoked (illegally) in a toilet . . . .

Not so!

Look at this latest Associated Press story

HANNOVER, Germany (AP) — A bus fire that killed 20 people in northern Germany may have been caused by a spark from the undercarriage, prosecutors said Wednesday, discounting an initial theory that the blaze was started by a cigarette.

The Associated Press: German officials: spark may be cause of bus fire (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ik1M8tapulusbyckLOsqk9TaLlhAD948SFMG0)

The rumour that it was started by a cigarette smoker was started by the owners of the bus ( well they would wouldn't want to blame the bus itself would they )

However mud sticks- in a years time people will quote this story as a example of the dangers of cigarette smoking.

ps I disagree strongly with smoking in aircraft toilets by the way - just want to get the facts straight as they are...

[AMEandPPL]

Hmmm . . . . . interesting ! I'm still the most vehement anti-smoker in the UK, but I do agree that the facts should be correct !

may have been caused by a spark from the undercarriage

So, I wonder if it was a Boeing bus then ? Or maybe an Airbus bus ! !

[PaperTiger]

just want to get the facts straightWhere's the fun in that ? ;)

[denis555]

Here's the fun...

The well meaning people at ASH ( Action on Smoking and Health ) have reported the fire as being caused by a cigarette on thier website.

ASH Daily News for 06 November 2008 (http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_zjxeu9n3.htm#6488)

The smoking lobby have accused them of bending the facts to suit themselves ( principally about the dangers of passive smoking ).

I am not supporting smoking here but when lobby groups urge governments to change legislation on the basis of facts - then are so convinced they are right that they misrepresent those very facts so boldly - we should all be very worried...

[skydiver69]

I watched a documentary about Saudi Arabia on the BBC on 8/11. One segment was filmed on an internal flight on which a number of passengers were shown smoking. This might have had something to do with them being part of the entourage of a member of the royal family as I haven't found any reference to smoking on the Saudi Arabian Airlines website.

[ThreadBaron]

part of the entourage of a member of the royal familyGoddit in one.

GooGoo 'wasta'.

[BelArgUSA]

Non-smokers hate smokers... Smokers refuse to socialize with people in any non-smoking area. It is almost like racism, or political foes...
xxx
I wish the efforts against drugs use and drug traffic (includes marijuana) would be equal to the "anti tobacco smoking" efforts. The day there is no more drug traffic and drug use, I will stop smoking my pipe and my cigarettes.
xxx
Tobacco kills - true - I think drug kills many as well, plus the drug war victims.
xxx
:D
Happy contrails

[C172 Hawk XP]

something to do with them being part of the entourage of a member of the royal family

just like here then. if youre rich you dictate your own rules.

[Mr Quite Happy]

I don't know but I could imagine certain 'stan type internal airlines permit or at least don't prevent smoking. Africa too possibly but again I don't know. AFAIK, no 'civilised' country allows smoking in the air for public or charter flights, or at least public.

Private of course, its all fine, but if you want to lean out of a cessna's window to do it... Or pay for your own G5..

[denis555]

I don't think BA's safety video helps here ( or most other airlines ) .

It shows a pax sitting down and lighting up followed by a smiling FA who points to the no smoking sign. The smiling pax nods and puts out his cigarette.

Should be replaced with two burly (male) FAs who in a fit of rage order pax to stand up, be searched and warned that he will be arrested once the aircraft arrives. Final shot will be pax, handcuffed and being pushed into police van.

That would get the message across:ok:

[FWOF]

As a life long non smoker, I am one of those delighted that pubs, restaurants, cinemas etc. have now become smoke free as have planes. However, I do think that smokers should be able to smoke in the street, as much as I dislike walking into a cloud of spewed out fag smoke, unlike my other half who often remonstrates with the offenders!

What has always bemused me about cigarettes is that tobacco is a drug, made freely available to everyone and accepted by society (less so these days). Would we feel the same if people were openly snorting or injecting drugs? No. It's just the money in cigarettes that keeps them on the shelves, IMO anyway.

Back to onboard non-smoking and the ashtrays, I have flown with some airlines that don't have them screwed shut and yes, they are invariably full of gum!

As for no smoking at airports, at Budapest in particular, the toilets are like the toilets at school, full of fag smoke as people puff away in the cubicles. I've had the same experience at Amsterdam, but less so. Smokers WILL push the boundaries to get their fix, they have to, they are after all addicts.

[denis555]

unlike my other half who often remonstrates with the offenders!

Fair enough FWOF - but offenders they are not - what offence have they committed?

[PaperTiger]

What has always bemused me about cigarettes is that tobacco is a drug, made freely available to everyone and accepted by society (less so these days). Would we feel the same if people were openly snorting or injecting drugs? No. It's just the money in cigarettes that keeps them on the shelves, IMO anyway.Yes, the US tobacco lobby has (so far) kept the "banners" at bay by agreeing to certain advertising restrictions and not putting up too much objection to the hounding of smokers.

Cocaine, MJ, heroin etc. are all foreign products. You can bet that if the natives had been growing the green in Virginia when Raleigh visited, then that's what would be in legal cigarettes today.

It's the money, like you say. cf alcohol, a far more dangerous legal drug.

[C172 Hawk XP]

cf alcohol, a far more dangerous legal drug

Cannot agree with that.

For the vast majority of people, who use alcohol sensibly and in moderation, it is completely harmless. It's more controversial, I'd agree, but there have even been suggestions made that some alcohol has been thought beneficial ! ( the French, regular red wine, reduced heart attacks ).

Possible beneficial effects of tobacco smoking ? . . . . ZERO - period.

[PaperTiger]

Danger to others I meant.

[FWOF]

unlike my other half who often remonstrates with the offenders!
Fair enough FWOF - but offenders they are not - what offence have they committed?

An offence to my lungs. Nothing in the law about it, I know that, but I find if offensive.

[denis555]

I don't know - I feel sorry for the poor mugs who have to puff away in the street, better that than sitting next to me inside.

[Shack37]

As an ex smoker (20 years) I regard myself as a reasonable "live and let live" kind of person but I believe the ban to be necessary and enforced by law. Where I live smokers are in the majority, the ban is left very much at the discretion of the management of each individual establishment and therefore rarely enforced for fear of losing custom. Signs at the entrance proclaiming "Smoking permitted" are the norm. Non smokers just have to do the best they can to avoid the worst of it. This, I'm afraid is how it would be in the UK without some control, whether it be pubs, clubs or aircraft.
Having said that, my wife is a smoker although never smokes at home, nothing to do with my health though, she just doesn't want the ceiling to go nicotine colour.:rolleyes:

[Manual Braking]

I worked as a dispatcher for a european cargo airline at a UK airport and was taken aback when i took the paperwork to the aircraft to find the female First Officer with the R1 door open puffing away. We were loading dangerous goods at the time!!

Its not just the pax!