Smoking flights

[Mr_Hippo]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but if it isn't, I'm sure the mods will move it.
People have often asked me why don't airlines put on a few long haul, smoking flights a week - I don't know but it has got me thinking. There are no direct BKK-MAN flights or even BKK-LPL (Better for us, we stay at my daughter's which is only about 10 minutes away!)
Would it be possible to lease a fully crewed wide-body for the smoking flight? I am sure that it will be over-subscribed, cabin crew that smoke would be permitted to smoke on 'my flight'!

[boredcounter]

Saw something in Airliner World in the last couple of months. SMINT out of Fankfurt I think to Tokyo with B744s leased from SAA.

[MUFC_fan]

I don't know why long haul airlines or even short hauls airlines havnt cottoned on to selling Nicarete packs. They would make a bomb!

P.S.

Hippo - get an ATOL and your away!;)

[outofsynch]

Smoking on flights is not only bad for the pax/crew... but causes significant damage to the airframe/systems (Aircon & ventilation filters, outflow valves etc) so not many airframe owners would be willing allow the filthy habit! Thats even without the fire risk.

[wawkrk]

In the good old days,cough cough, non smokers filled from the front, smokers from the back. Smokers often taking space beyond the half way point.During the flight, if you looked towards the back of the aircraft,it was difficult to see the end for smoke.Visibility was severely restricted. Charter flights were the worst with lots nervous passengers chain smoking.
I flew on an Air France 319 last week, so quite new but, why did it have ash trays?

[tezzer]

Last smoking flight I was on was a macedonian flight ! It seemed that the plan was to smoke an enitre 200 carton, within the 2 hour flight, each.

My eyes have never (not even in pubs / clubs) been so sore as after that flight, and of course my clothes / skin / hair reeked when I got onto my connecting (non smoking) flight.

And I don't even smoke, apart from passively !

[CallBell]

wawkrk, the AF 319 would have had ashtrays as it is a requirement to have them on board, primarily i presume so that the crew would have some where to extinguish a cigarette if a passenger was found to be smoking. Generally you will find them on the exterior walls of the toilets as thats there most people will try to sneak a smoke onboard.

[ADC2604]

I think it is terrible that an airline could encourage smoking.....I read the same article in Airliner World and all I can say is if smoking causes you to look like the bloke behind the grand scheme, then I am glad I have never been near a fag!

[frostbite]

No-one is suggesting that an airline encourage smoking, simply allow it.

[ADC2604]

frostbite - any airline that allows it onboard in my book is encouraging it. :rolleyes:

[warkman]

Would any UK airline operating in and out of a UK airport be subjected to UK laws regarding smoking in confined spaces??

I remember one horrific flight to Orlando from BHX.
It was a charter flight that started at Glasgow before coming to BHX (I know, what a routing!) and all the non smoking seats were taken by the sweaties in Glasgow.
We ended up in these 29" pitch seats surrounded by smokers, who, would smoke as soon as allowed and try to get as much crap into their (and our) lungs for 8 hours, as possible.

Nightmare!

[Mr_Hippo]

Thanks for your replies - the question was not about your views on smoking. My views on alcohol are perhaps somewhat stronger than the anti-smoking brigade views on smoking but that is a different topic. However, I did find wawkrk's post educational, "During the flight, if you looked towards the back of the aircraft, it was difficult to see the end for smoke. Visibility was severely restricted.". I never realised that modern aircraft had rear view mirrors!

[BOFH]

Smoking aside, it had the advantage of partitioning the cabin into children/non-children - although that might not have been the case on charter flights!

BOFH

[Avman]

I think that a smokers' airline should be allowed. However, it should also be crewed by smokers. Whilst as a non-smoker I enjoy my rights not to be forcibly subjected to the hazzards of passive smoke, I also believe that smokers still have the right to smoke and I see no reason for not providing them facilities to do so, including special flights for instance.

[ladyflyby]

Can't survive a few hours without a cigarette? Sad really isn't it.
I remember before the ban came in, I would run to the back of the plane with my brother and have a sneaky cigarette; I was 14. You will find it difficult to source crew willing to work on a stinking aircraft, with yellowing ceilings and fetid upholstery. I really hope the initial premise was a joke.

[MuttleyJ]

Someone said that it should be crewed by smokers....

you have great faith in airline crewing systems! They can't even get the right amount of first class trained crew on every flight! There's absolutely no way non-smoking crew would put up with working on a smoking flight these days and imagine the litigation regarding being forced to work and passively smoke, without anywhere to go with fresh air. Dream on smokers!

[PAXboy]

Airlines make money by standardising. Any airframe used for smoking flights would immediately become non standard. Certainly, if I were to board an a/c that stank of smoke and was told that this was a 'smoking permitted a/c' that was now operating a non-smoking flight, they would have to find my bag in the hold as I would refuse to travel. So, to make my life simpler, if I found that a carrier was having some smoking permitted flights - I would never book with them.

The restrictions on long haul smoking have been around for 15? 20? years. When they started making them non-smoking, things like nicotine patches and chewing gum were not readily available and now they are.

[kkbuk]

When smoking was allowed, the air was changed more frequently, it seems to me. Even on three or four-hour flights I seem to suffer from a degree of breathlessness that I didn't get in the smoking days (I am now a non-smoker) Having been involved in atmosphere control in submarines, I would love to know if the CO2 levels in aircraft are now higher than the maximum allowed in a submarine where civilian personnel are working.

[CHIVILCOY]

Amazing how the anti-smoking brigade jump on to a thread so they can express their disgust at us smokers :hmm:
Great idea for a smokers only flight, I reckon it could be popular with PAX as well as crew.:ok: For you non smokers out there it would surprise you how many crew actually still smoke on longhaul flights without you knowing.;) Perfume is not just used to give one a nice smell you know.

[SXB]

There are still many airlines that turn a blind eye to smoking. In the last 12 months the following airlines have blatently allowed smoking in various parts of the aircraft; Georgian Airlines, JAT, Azerbaijan Airlines, Turkish Airlines and Aeroflot. On the Turkish flight passengers and the one cabin crew member went to the baggage hold to smoke, I don't know the aircraft type but it was a small prop aircraft where the hold was inbetween the cabin and the cockpit.

Do I care ? no. Should an airline be allowed to operate a smoking flight ? Of course they should, it's a choice. Personally, I would not book a flight with an airline that allowed smoking but I wouldn't argue with their right to operate such a service. I suspect it would be a legal minefield in the EU though, for example, I believe there is quite restrictive legislation regarding minors and smoking on an aircraft. There's also the laws regarding smoking in public places in some countries.

[PAXboy]

CHIVILCOYAmazing how the anti-smoking brigade jump on to a thread so they can express their disgust at us smokers.You are entitled to do what you want with your body, as I am entitled to distance myself from you!

The reason I do not like smoking is simple. If I am in a smokey room it makes me physically ill (nausea). Unsurprisingly, I try to prevent that from happening. It may well be that there are some things I do/eat/drink that would disgust you and you are perfectly entitled to protect yourself against me. But I know smokers who did not like sitting in the smoking compartment of a train (when we had them) as it smelt so bad. But it was not sufficiently bad to break what is a very powerful addiction. Again, no criticism, you can be addicted to whatever you want and I can choose to keep out of your way.

Back on thread, I stated that airlines save money by standardising and that there is probably not enough money to be made from running a smoker's airline, or even one with a few a/c made over to this.

[PaperTiger]

Thats even without the fire risk.Fire risk ? What fire risk ?
Hint: Air Canada @ CVG and Air France @ ORY do not qualify.

[Middle Seat]

I know I'd not take a smoking flight, but I'm als not sure I'd want to be on a plane that has just taken a planeload of smokers somewhere.

As for the perfume over smoking, don't think pax don't notice. Just makes one smell like a perfumed Marlboro.

[emil900]

Why you are telling lies my friend??? Never,NEVER was allowed at Macedonian flights for smoking!

[Phileas Fogg]

Love it when all the 'anti smoking' lobby come out without actually answering the question,

My last airline that I worked for flew into Afganistan, at the height of the troubles, to bring some British troops out, 3 rotations as I recall at approx 300 troops per time. The airline was non smoking but the senior hostie, who also happened to be the cabin services manager, had a word with the commanding officer and a 'free for all' ensued, 'smoke as much as you like boys', they'd been under such pressures for a number of months so why prolong their agony, ''if you want a fag then have it'' :)

This business about causing damage to aircraft is nonsense, it's all about what is morally right, did aircraft crash for the 50 ish years that, and due to, smoking was allowed?

There can be exceptions to the rule if we, you, didn't live in such a black and white world.

[Rush2112]

I don't see why the smoking pariahs can't have their own flights in principle but in practice with all the laws on smoking in the workplace / confined spaces etc etc I cannot see it happening.

Unless you had your own airline and only employed smoking crew, smoking cleaners, smoking maintenance crews - yes, I know they don't spark up when they are working but would non-smokers want to work in an aircraft where 300 pax had been chaining it? - it's never going to happen. Even with all this, how many routes could it sustain?

[WHBM]

For those who think there is a "gold mine" to be made with smoking flights, shortly after smoking was prohibited on US flights but before the FAA banned it legally (there was an interval between) a US entrepreneur, a smoker inevitably, started up an operation called, if I recall correctly, American Freedom Airlines, with flights out of Chicago MDW to Los Angeles and New York. The aircraft was chartered from and operated by American Trans Air.

Despite getting onto much of the media in the various cities loads were zilch, most of what pax there were seemed to be journalists sent to cover the operation. Of course, after a few money-pouring-out weeks it was given up.

And for those who think no airframe damage was done, you only have to speak to long-time engineers to find the opposite. Saw a recent account of a pressurisation failure which, when it was all torn apart afterwards, was found caused by a large plug of nicotine which had slowly built up and jammed an outflow valve. Such engineers will also tell you that nicotine staining was always a good witness guide to inexplicable pressurisation leaks.

[Mini fan]

The restrictions on long haul smoking have been around for 15? 20? years.

I remember PIA flights where literally half the pax were at the back of the plane smoking only 10 years ago, so not sure where you're pulling figures out from?

[christep]

My one and only long haul on Air France (HKG-CDG) allowed smoking only 7 or 8 years ago.

[BelArgUSA]

I fly for a South American airline...
xxx
We are a "non-smoking airline" now, since a few years ago...
Yet, I would say, 75% of our pilots smoke... maybe more then 75%...
Our cabin staff does not smoke in the cabin, so, they come for a smoke in the flight deck.
xxx
Let me voice our opinion...
I am from a "third world country", where a lot of people still smoke tobacco.
All our bars and restaurants are "smoking"...
Many of you in "first world nations" do not smoke tobacco...
Yet indulge in cannabis-marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
At least, tar and nicotine does not affect the brains.
Try it with me around... I will happily report you to police for arrest.
xxx
When you, disgusting human beings users/traffickers of marijuana-cocaine-heroine, stop "doing it"...
I shall stop puffing my Marlboros too...
I am proud to say that I am a drug addict (like you) = caffeine, nicotine, wine/beer alcohols...
Wine drinking is recommended by my doctor (digestion), as well as beer to regain weight.
Occasionally on liquors (a few times a year, will enjoy a cognac or equivalent).
I never did all your "funny stuff" even "not inhaling" such as a famous US president...
xxx
I gladly volunteer to fly a Y499 B-747 seating airplane with tobacco smokers.
:)
Happy contrails, with dirty outflow valves (easy to clean).

[PAXboy]

As I understand it, outflow valves, filters and other components are gummed up by 'tar' from the tobacco, not nicotine, which is a very small component of the weed but has an effect upon humans when it enters the blood stream.

Select Pedant Mode off

[419]

At least, tar and nicotine does not affect the brains

Oh really.
Why then do some smokers get so irritable when they can't get their nicotine fix?.
If smoking doesn't affect the brain, why is it addictive?

When you, disgusting human beings users/traffickers of marijuana-cocaine-heroine, stop "doing it"...
I shall stop puffing my Marlboros too
I fly for a South American airline...

Would that be the same South America that is the worldwide hub of both drug manufacture and distribution?

[candoo]

BelArgUSA

You have one half of my available sympathy