From today's Times

[I'd rather]

AN AIRLINE passenger caused panic on a transatlantic flight when he tried to smoke a cigarette but set light to his jacket, which he had pulled over his head.
Holidaymakers returning from Las Vegas to Manchester were terrified when they saw smoke rising from the seats where Mark Duckett, 37, and his girlfriend had shared two bottles of champagne. The cabin crew smothered the smouldering jacket and stood by with a jug of water and a fire extinguisher.

Duckett, of Hull, was jailed for a month yesterday after he pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to endangering the safety of an aircraft. His counsel, Brian Woolfall, told the court that Duckett's craving for a cigarette got the better of him when he smelt tobacco on Laura McDonnell, 29, now his former girlfriend, who had returned from the lavatory after an illicit smoke.

One of the 312 passengers on the Airtours International Boeing 767 told police: "I was very frightened and felt sick. It was the most horrible experience of my life. I thought I would never see my children again."

Mark Ainsworth, for the prosecution, said that three hours into the flight, Duckett pulled his jacket over his head and tried to light up. "His eyes were half closed and he appeared to be unaware of what was going on around him," he said.

"It was then that other passengers noticed a hole developing in the jacket. The hole was glowing and there was smoke coming from it. "

Passengers became so distressed that the pilot considered diverting the plane to Greenland.

The judge told Duckett, who was a time-share company director but now teaches English in Cambodia for the Red Cross: "You chose to act stupidly and selfishly."

Ms McDonnell, of London, denied endangering the safety of the plane. The charge against her was ordered to lie on the file after she agreed to be bound over for a year.

Words fail me.

[VelvetStrokes]

Several years ago, when I was based overseas, I understand that a passenger on a certain non-European based airline actually fired up his Primus so that he could have a cup of tea. In accordance with his usual habit at tiffin time.

I think the aircraft went boomb

------------------
Stroke me and I purr rrrrrr

but remember I have claws as well

[leftwingdownabit]

One month jail sentence probably only means about 14 days - and it'll be in better conditions than a Cambodian Village so it shouldn't be too hard for him. I think that the rules are there for a purpose, it only takes one cigarette to cause a problem and thats not what you need at FL330. Well you said you would be in a minority! :)
I agree with the long haul flights it can be difficult for people to go without, and this could make them more desperate and stressed enough to cause aggro or try and have a surreptitious smoke. Give them nicotine patches perhaps?

[I'd rather]

I agree with Dave about the non-smoking bit. I'm also a non-smoker, but I think making someone (who is, remember, physically addicted to cigarettes) go without one on a long-distance flight is unacceptable, particularly as they're already likely to be stressed/uncomfortable/nervous. It's not suprising if people in that position drink far more than they normally would, then start behaving like idiots as a result (that should NOT be understood as condoning their behaviour in any way at all).

I flew Olympic recently, which was a smoking flight, and it was perfectly pleasant; the aircraft was well ventilated and the smokers were confined to a few back rows. Seemed to make for a happier atmosphere all round.

[Mr Benn]

Call me Mr Cynical, but erm, this guy WAS a time-share salesman/ shark and by the time of his trial he was suddenly transformed into the ideal "mr nice guy" working for the Red Cross in Cambodia. Bet that helped his defence.
I am a non smoker but have friends who smoke. I am of mixed views. There is nothing worse than being stuck the row in front of a smoker's row. The smell of cigarette smoke in a confined environment is enough to make someone feel sick.
If you smoke heavily and cannot go for x hours without a cigarette then don't get on the flight. Or look into other options - like the patches.
Try it out before getting on the flight though!
As for the comments from other passengers - I might not see my children again - and other stupid comments, honestly, it was a minor incident. Hardly likely to cause the airplane to drop from the sky.

[I'd rather]

Mr. Benn: I have to confess the same cynical thought did occur to me too!

I agree with you that being in the row in front of the smokers isn't good (though probably a whole lot better than being in the row in front of the guy with air-rage). But "if they can't go X hours without a cigartette, don't get on the flight" - realistically, how much choice do people have? If you need to be somewhere on business, what are you going to do, take the boat?

As for "I thought I'd never see my children again", I have to agree with you. It's like my personal pet hate (I work in shipping) - people get off a ferry that's had a minor prang and the first thing they say to the waiting media is "I thought it was going to be another Titanic..."

[Tarantella]

I used to work on the smoking flights when I first started as an F/A. The logistics were terrible. Non-smokers screaming about being seated near smoking and smokers who didn't want to actually SIT in smoking, but expected us to make others vacate their seats so they could have a smoke when they wanted one.
Smoke permeated the aircraft and in reality you couldn't be a non-smoker with all the secondhand smoke you inhaled.
I feel badly for smokers as I know it is an addiction and it would be great if there was a sealed off smoking area for them. I just don't think that most companies would 'waste'the space when they could have passengers seated there. The mighty dollar is all-powerful.

[BRUpax]

I am probably wrong but are there not more cases of air rage between ex or dest UK flights than other countries?

With multiple frequencies on some of the major long haul routes these days, it beats me why the larger carriers don't consider introducing limited "smoking" flights on these routes. For example BA could introduce a single daily "smokers" flight between LHR & JFK. With their alliances/partners etc., connections (on non-smoking but relatively short sectors) would be available at both ends. All those who are desperate to smoke can hub through LHR/JFK (at the expense, of course, of a possible direct but non-smoking flight). The so-called smoking flight could also have a non-smoking section but these pax should be appropriately warned when booking.

P.S. I'm a non smoker and I am becoming alarmed and uneasy about the possibility of an air rage incident on one of my flights. I'm convinced that the underlying cause is, with the odd exception, the smoking ban on long flights.