Help required please ..

[ex_matelot]

Im helping somebody compile an essay on the non smoking policy and long haul flights.Topics I wish to focus on are..

Airline policy..is it for health or monetary reasons
Do they have the consumer (the passenger) in their best interests with this policy.

Incidences of 'air rage' attributable to the no smoking policy.

I have researched the archives already and gathered info on the air conditioning,re-circ and tar build up adding to maintenance costs etc but I would like a definitive answer from a FO/Capt please.

This is based on a university project coverin g consumer law and from a multitude of topics available-this one was chosen.

Thanks in advance.

[AirRabbit]

Ex-matelot:

I’m not sure you’re ever going to get a “definitive” answer from anyone, particularly from one of the flight crew. Those kinds of decisions are normally made at the highest level within the airline – although, sometimes word does sneak out – the question is, how reliably?

I think that there were probably lots of consideration for banning smoking on flights that included the re-circulated air and the tar build-up etc. But, I would suspect that there were other, more immediate concerns. I would think that the risk of in flight fire is probably one of them. Why this was not higher on the “radar screens” of planners and executives previously, who knows? However, the fact remains that IF a smoker were to drop his/her lighted cigarette into the seat cushions, the results could be catastrophic; particularly in that the estimates are that, once a cabin fire starts, all on board may perish within minutes (usually single digit estimates). When you consider how long it takes just to descend from today’s cruising altitudes, that isn’t much comfort. With all of these facts coming out, and their being so widely published and publicly debated, it would be extremely hard to recover if your airline was the first to suffer such a tragedy after all the hype, which the airline executives would be seen to have “flagrantly” disregarded. Another very strong candidate for this decision, I would think, would be all of the health concern questions and other complaints from the growing number of high time travelers who do not smoke. Clearly, either decision (to smoke or not to smoke) was going to alienate at least some potential passengers. It was probably not much of a gamble as to which group of people you would be more willing to risk not choosing to fly on your airline. Game. Set. Match (well, perhaps not match in this case).
_______
AirRabbit

[ex_matelot]

Thamks for that input A/R,

from what Ive gathered from the archives so far and from airliners... website etc is that it is more related to aircon and fuel.
Im only a ppl student so I know nothing on that level.
I have googled the subject and found various dept of transport webpages that also state that the W.H.O can find NO conclusive evidence/proof that smoking on flights causes the so called passive smoking effect.

Browsing my Human factors manual I can inly find that smoking at cruise altitude,and the effects of smoking can affect the thought processes of a pilot in the cockpit.

(Flew from IBZ to LEPA a couple of months ago and I was front row and 'knew' smoking was taking place somewhere 'up fwd')..Is the book just a textbook definition and unreflective of real world?..Im digressing here I see.

THe end product of the info I gather has to NOT exceed 1250 words also..very hard considering the many different aspects.

Cheers

[Paul Wilson]

I wouldn't worry too much about the fuel saving angle. This seems to be a bit of an urban myth. The arguement going like this. If there are smokers on board, we have to run the run the air con packs at a higher level or the passengers will notice the smoke smell, but if we have no smokers, we can cut back on pack use and use less fuel, and all those dippy punters in the back will never notice the "staler" air.

From what I have read on here that is total rubbish, every 6 months or so this topic comes up in one way or another, and not 1 pilot has admitted to doing it (and blimey some are more than ready to slag off their ex-companies for all sorts of things, so it's not a big cover up). Airliners.net tends to have more enthusiasts and less professionals posting, so ill informed speculation can become accepted fact merely by repetition.

If you look at how the smoking bans came about it is fairly obvious that it started as a passenger comfort idea, short haul first, then long haul. If you were doing it to save money on fuel you would do long haul first, as much more time is spent in the cruise, where these little percentages add up.

What probably happened then is that the airlines noticed the savings they were making on the cleaning/maintenance of the short haul aircraft, it then became an easier decision to make all flights non-smoking (although why they don't make a packet by selling nicotine gum on flights I have no idea)

As an aside, someone on Engineering and Tecnicians I believe mantioned that in the old (smoking) days it was easy to find leaksin the aircraft hull, because the nicotine/tar gave you a nice yellow brown stain on/around the crack.

None of this is my personal knowledge, just gleaned from reading stuff here

[OzExpat]

I can't be sure about this, of course, but as far as I'm aware most airlines have been wanting to introduce non-smoking on all flights because of the savings they'd make on cleaning environmental systems. I suspect that it took world-wide legislation to help them make it a reality.

As to the potential for an in-flight fire due to a dropped cigarette, I suspect that this possibility might have been explored for twin engined aeroplanes operating to ETOPS criteria - whether 75, 120 or 180 minutes, or whatever. Such a consideration might then have affected considerations related to 3 and 4 engine long haul operations.

Basically, anything that's likely to impact on the strategy for ETOPS or EROPS really ought to receive very active, serious consideration by airlines and regulators. Thus I feel sure that it was just a matter of time before smoking was banned on all flights.

I'm a smoker but have no problem with not smoking on a flight - whether short or long haul. I just drink more! ;)

[PaperTiger]

...the fact remains that IF a smoker were to drop his/her lighted cigarette into the seat cushions, the results could be catastrophic...Assuming the smoker and everyone else on board ignores
a) the smell and
b) the smoke
emanating well before the 'cushions' actually burst into flames :* .

The only fact is that prior to the in-flight smoking ban, not a single airline accident was definitively attributed to a discarded cigarette*.

The ban came about as a result of changes in the social acceptability of public smoking. Whether or not you believe the alleged dangers of second hand smoke, it became increasingly clear that the majority of non-smokers (ie. the majority of customers) preferred a smoke-free cabin. Fuel savings and/or mtx savings realised (if any) are a bonus - the airlines would have banned smoking regardless in response to the social pressures prevalent in most countries/cultures.

* Do a search, we've been through this countless times.

[Paul Wilson]

agree totally with PaperTiger, just look at the first airlines to ban smoking and the last/still allow it. first to ban were European and American carriers, last were (think some still allow it , not sure) Asian carriers some of which are not known for throwing money about.