Smoking in cattle class.

[deepee]

Over the last 6 weeks I've flown 8 sectors with EK.Service,seat comfort etc wonderful 10 out of 10,but Oh dear the AIR.When will EK follow the rest of the aviation world and ban smoking?Really bad in and out of Singapore as the teminal is smoke free.Had an excellent clean air flight with JAL in October and they used to be the world's worst.

------------------
"I don't suffer from stress.I'm a carrier".

[gulf_slf]

Agreed regarding their smoking policy!!
EK are certainly out of step on current thinking on smoking and passenger comfort.

I consistently point to the airline that it is time that they reviewed the policy.

As a FFP of the airline I have to request non-smoking seats (why?-because their Skywards programme does not appear to communicate with the reservations computers. Thus the profile of the pax does not get picked up in the booking. So on check in you are asked if you wish smoking or non-smoking? Should be a totally redundant question.)

Apart from comfort issues the ailine needs to look at the safety aspects of having smokers on board.

When they start their US destinations they will have to ban smoking on those flights.

One last point, the airline does not advertise the fact that they are a 'smoking' airline. Thus if you are transferring from another flight (One World alliance in particular) the pax is not necessarily aware that they are joining a smoking flight.

I have had some interesting conversations with some very irate pax when they have discovered that they were on a smoking flight!!

[Bird Strike]

Some of the sectors in EK is (or at least used to be) non-smoking. If I remember correctly, it was code-shared (but it was EK aircraft), and that was probably the reason. I was rather relieved when I found out that it was non-smoking, I must say, as I really suffered on the first leg.

[ExSimGuy]

or perhaps they could crank up the airflow through the cabin?

I can manage to go for a long flight without a smoke if I have to - but I do prefer to have the option. I know of friends who were members of BA's FFQ but who now fly EK because it allows smoking. Now that GF have gone "smoke-free" since several months ago, EK is about the only option for smokers in the area.

There was a petition going around a few years ago to ask EK to go "alcohol free" - fortunately that one "laid an egg" :)

Surely with smokers put right down at the back, and decent cabin air-flow, someone who really likes to be away from cigarette smoke can put up with the "inconvenience" of having to ask for a seat right at the front :rolleyes:

I don't want to blow my fag smoke all over you, but let's have a bit of tolerance here, please!

What about the suggestion that heavy smoke-addicts might have a greater tendancy to get more "stressed out" when deprived of their habit and more likely to be involved in "air rage" incidents?

BTW - I think it's the short (under 2 hours - inter-gulf) sectors where they keep the no-smoking lights on.

------------------
What Goes Around . . . . .
. . often makes a better landing

[I'd rather]

I agree with Ex-Sim (and I'm a non-smoker!)

Last experience of a smoking flight was on Olympic - few smokers up the back, excellent airflow - the atmosphere in the plane was actually better and fresher than on non-smoking flights.

Result: happier, less-stressed passengers, no air-rage, no-one creating a fire hazard by having a crafty fag in the loo. Perfect.

[solari]

I agree.
If you don't like it, fly another carrier. There's plenty of non-smoking airlines to chose from.
Good for EK for preserving some freedom of choice.

[Biggles Flies Undone]

I'm with I'd rather on this.

I'm a life-long non-smoker so I don't suffer from the 'born again non' intolerance of those who quit. I prefer clean air but I accept that places like pubs should be open to choice - alcohol and pleasure have always been such happy bedpartners.

In the days when I flew to HKG a lot there used to be a BA flight which carried on to MNL and had smokers up the back. Never bothered me and I'd rather fly in an aircraft with the packs cranked up than one where I share everyone else's germs.

[deepee]

Biggles F U,I agree.But when the airflow is not what it should be; my future regular Middle Eastern Trips will not be with EK.Yes I too are free to make a choice. I was also wondering what the company's policy was regarding F.A.'s smoking,at least 50% do and then think a liberal spraying of some cheap perfume will do the trick. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
------------------
"I don't suffer from stress.I'm a carrier".

[This message has been edited by deepee (edited 18 January 2001).]

[Bird Strike]

I must admit it's a good thing that the smokers are given choice to be able to smoke on EK. If I were a smoker, I would like that, for sure. I hope they will continue to allow smoking (and I am a non-smoker!). I wasn't exactly complaining in my previous post, just wanted to point out they allowed smoking!

At the very least it'd be interesting to see figures on whether it makes any difference to the number of air rage incidents or not... :)

(Unfortunately on EK, I din't bother to find out that it was a smoking flight and I ended up being seated just a few rows in front of the smoking seats on my first sector, and I choked. My own fault! BTW, the services and food on EK were the best I have ever had.)

[The Sleeping Pax]

One of the reasons I don't fly EK is the smoking policy.
I find it obnoxious even to pass the smoking zone on the way to the loo for a good fart!

-------------------
wake me up when the stench has gone away

------------------
Wake me up when we get there

[BRUpax]

SLEEPING PAX you're lucky to be able to fart in the loo! I can fart to my heart's content when seated, but if I hold them and then take a trip to the loo, I can't get a squeak !!