I am sorry that I didn't realise the e-cig topic has been done to death here, I'm new around here and apologise for not using the search function sufficiently before posting (I will in future!).
I do indeed understand the rule and the supposed reson... and I am happy to follow it as I stated. I certainly don't want to make CC jobs any harder... I would not want to do this job, for which you must have the patience of a saint.
However, you seem to have completely missed why I believe that the reasoning behind the rule is flawed and unfair.
The rule punishes the sensible, intelligent (well semi-intelligent perhaps) person using a vapouriser just in case a stupid person suddenly thinks they can smoke a real cigarette.
As I said this is akin to saying "we are not going to let you drink (even though you might be ensible about it) because someone else might think its ok to get drunk (which happens obviously)... I don't see a ban on all alcohol coming in anytime soon.
Surely better to allow the thing that is legal and (arguably) harmless and punish the person that does the illegal and definitely harmful thing?
You make exactly my point in your last paragraph...
"a very small number of idiots get drunk and cause problems on aircraft but the majority enjoy their glass of wine or G&T and harm no one"
...if the rules for e-cigs were applied in the same way as for alcohol your sentence would then read...
"a very small number of idiots light up a real cigarette and cause problems on aircraft but the majority enjoy their e-cigs/vapouriser and harm no one".
We don't ban alcohol totally on planes exactly for the reason you give.... most people do it to a snesible level and harm no-one..... so why can't this same level of reasoning be applied to the vapouriser/e-cig point? Most smokers/vapers know they can't light up a real cigarette and take a different option that harms no-one.
I realise I am slightly playing devil's advocate here since I am ok with the ban, but I just hate being trated as a stupid person by being given a reason for a rule that is simply logically flawed.
Same applies to the USB charging issue... anything you plug in there is going to generate heat.. so this should not be used as the reason for selecting which devices may or may not be charged.
I would much rather simply be told "I'm very sorry sir, they are the rules that the airline (or CAA etc) imposes and since you are on their airplane, its the choice you make when choosing to fly with us".
Happy flying and continue doing a great job of policing the SLF!
Subnote; It will be interesting to see what happens if vapourisers/e-cigs become regulated as medicines as has been proposed... as then the airline would effectively be enforcing a rule stopping someone taking their "medicine".... possible Human Rights issues all over that one methinks
