Ryanair bans smoking passengers

[rumflier]

Ryanair bans eight passengers for life for compromising safety by smoking on board

Ryanair, Europe's largest low fares airline, today (Wednesday 10 March 2004) announced it has banned eight passengers for life from flying with Ryanair for compromising passenger and crew safety by smoking on board.

Ryanair's Head of Communications Paul Fitzsimmons said: "Passenger and crew safety is our number one priority. Smoking during a flight compromises the safety of everyone on board an aircraft and is strictly prohibited.

"There remains a tiny minority of passengers who stupidly and recklessly persist in endangering the safety of others by smoking on board. Ryanair will immediately ban anyone found smoking on board any Ryanair flight and pass the offenders over to the Police for prosecution."

[Artificial Horizon]

Sounds fair to me, it is not as though people are unaware of the rules these days. Serves them right.

[ghost-rider]

Agree completely on the ban ... but ....

How do you enforce it ?

We've had the same problems here with smoking pax. You could put some sort of 'blocker' or 'alert' if a certain name pops up on the res system, but what if they pay at the sales desk, or use a different address etc etc ? :confused:

[achtung]

A bit strong though "for life".... but at last someone is doing something.... on the last flight I was on, they repeatedly stated "please no smoking... "and still they did it..... it generally seems to be a case of..."do it again.... and I'll tell you again not to do it"!!!... that told'em!!....

So good news, I hope the rest follow!

[DSR10]

Odd that this story should appear on UK's "no smoking day"

As previously discussed at great length "what danger etc" apart from 75% of the other passengers bumming a fag and looking for an ashtray.

[Freeway]

Certainly interesting and why not..... they broke the rules of the carrier period.
Would be interesting to see some black and white statistics on aircraft fires directly attributed to smoking. ie. 1950-2002 - total number of fires reported on aircraft that had smoking sections versus number of fires reported on aircraft that did not permit smoking on board. Just for curiosity.
Personally, I am not a smoker, but have no objections to people who wish to smoke responsibly, however, if there are no smoking regulations in force then they should be observed at all times.

[bealine]

Certainly interesting and why not..... they broke the rules of the carrier period

I agree. If they broke Ryanair's rules (and, from what I understand, repeatedly), Ryanair quite rightly considered they might not obey further lawful commands and would put other pax at risk! Also, smoking in toilets is potentially hazardous.

On a recent Continental flight between London and Newark, the flight attendants locked all the toilets "out of use" because of the repeated abuses of smokers - putting all the passengers to great inconvenience.

I have nothing against a smoker wishing to pursue the "hobby" in the fresh air or in the privacy of his/her home where their "enjoyment" does not interfere with others. There are airlines out there who still permit smoking, albeit not many short-haul ones (but if you can't go without a fag for a couple of hours, there's something wrong!)

[angels]

As a smoker I completely agree with the bans.

But I'm amazed by this --

On a recent Continental flight between London and Newark, the flight attendants locked all the toilets "out of use" because of the repeated abuses of smokers - putting all the passengers to great inconvenience.

Can this really be done? At it's best this would have caused severe discomfort to many pax and it's worst utter humiliation and a hefty dry-cleaning bill!

Surely CC can't close every toilet?

[Final 3 Greens]

however, if there are no smoking regulations in force then they should be observed at all times.

Isn't the above an oxymoron? ;)

Perhaps you mean "if regulations forbid smoking....."

Strangely enough, I'm just taking a break from writing an article about Human Factors and the above is a demo of just how easy it is to produce a statement that is crystal clear when read in the full article, yet highly ambiguous, if read out of context.

[etrang]

However, if there are "no smoking" regulations in force, it becomes crystal clear.



I also wonder how this type of ban can be enforced when people can easily change address, passport.

[silverhawk]

Does this mean that the Ryanair 737-200 flight deck CREW are now also forbidden to smoke on a flight? My guess is - not.

[PAXboy]

I think that you will find that RyanAir did sort out the flight deck smoking problem. The thread that was running in PPRuNe seemed to have an effect - about two weeks after the thread started, it was reported that a bulletin had gone round to remind people that it was not allowed.

[Boss Raptor]

For once I support Ryanair and yes they should inforce that ban...anyone with an opportunity should see the AC filters or pressure outflow valves after being fitted about 4 months on an aircraft...it is shocking...coated in thick tar...for those who dont have the opportunity go and look at your offices air condition filters if u allow smoking...

As for smoking in the cockpit...inconsiderate for those less senior crew members that dont...and leaves the cockpit in a filthy state and stinking..again the tar residue builds up on wiring and electrical connectors over time...a big no...and again should be ruthlessly enforced :*

[Freeway]

Thank you 3 Greens. I did indeed mean what you have written and I shall attempt in future to post grammatically correct articles that are clear, unambiguous and in the Queens English.:ok: !!