Smoking on Bizjets
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoking on Bizjets
We've long taken the position of not allowing smoking on flights on the grounds that it is a workplace for the crews. Is this unusual? Had a couple of brokers feigning shock that we won't let their clients smoke onboard?
Would be interested to find out what the consensus is and how you would get around the whole "smoking in the workplace thing"?
Would be interested to find out what the consensus is and how you would get around the whole "smoking in the workplace thing"?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: at the whim of people I've never met
Age: 46
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HSE Viewpoint
Here is a response I got from the HSE back in April which wasn't particularly useful although was relating to aircraft (exempted workplace) registered outside the UK (outside their remit)
The following information regarding the application of health and safety legislation abroad, has been provided by the HSE's Enforcement Policy Unit:
Great Britain's health and safety at work legislation (eg the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974) imposes duties on employers and others within Great Britain, and within territorial waters in specified circumstances.
Great Britain's health and safety at work legislation does not apply to employees working abroad. Therefore we would be unable to advise on requirements when working in other countries.
CIS centres within that country may be able to assist you further. The CIS centre is the abbreviation used for the International Occupational Health and Safety Information Centre. CIS collects and disseminates world literature that can contribute to the prevention of occupational hazards.
The link to the CIS National and International Collaborating Centres is as follows:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_116383.pdf
However the following will apply to work within the U.K.
Under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 employers have to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees.
The ban on smoking in public places was not introduced by HSE but by the Department for Health under Public Health legislation. However, the following information regarding the ban has been taken from the HSE's website:
HSE and smoke free legislation
HSE is not responsible for enforcing the legislation but will fully support Local Authority officers both in raising employers’ awareness of their responsibilities and in encouraging employers and employees to comply with the new legislation above. HSE inspectors will bring matters of concern to the attention of the employer, particularly if it involves a number of smokers or if there is a failure to display warning notices. Should the employer resist acting on this advice, the inspector will then bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate local authority. Any complaints received by HSE about the smoking ban will be referred to the appropriate local authority.
HSE will also support the new legislation by sending out flyers, and work in partnership with local authorities on health promotional matters as appropriate.
Premises exempt from smoke free legislation
Health and Safety legislation will continue to require employers, in premises permitted exemptions under the smoke-free law, to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoking to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. The publication Smoke-free Scotland - Guidance on smoking policies for the NHS, local authorities and care service providers contains helpful advice on how to do this. It can also be obtained from the Scottish Government at the above address.
In exempted premises, HSE will continue to promote a sensible, proportionate management of second hand smoking to as low a level as is reasonably practicable and to encourage employers to adopt smoking policies in the workplace which give precedence to the wishes of non-smokers not to be exposed to second hand smoking.
Even with new smoke-free legislation, HSE’s advice on protecting employees from the effects of second hand smoke remains unchanged in that:
1. Employers should have a specific policy on smoking in the workplace.
2. Employers should take action to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoke to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.
3. Smoking policy should give priority to the needs of non-smokers who do not wish to breathe tobacco smoke.
4. Employers should consult their employees and their representatives on the appropriate smoking policy to suit their particular workplace.
If you would like further information about smoking, please contact the Department of Health’s Customer Service Centre on 020 7210 4850, or visit the Department of Health's tobacco website. Further information about smoking can also be found on the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) website.
Reference: Advice on smoking at work
I hope this helps, but if you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this address again or telephone HSE Infoline on 08453 450055.
Yours sincerely
Great Britain's health and safety at work legislation (eg the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974) imposes duties on employers and others within Great Britain, and within territorial waters in specified circumstances.
Great Britain's health and safety at work legislation does not apply to employees working abroad. Therefore we would be unable to advise on requirements when working in other countries.
CIS centres within that country may be able to assist you further. The CIS centre is the abbreviation used for the International Occupational Health and Safety Information Centre. CIS collects and disseminates world literature that can contribute to the prevention of occupational hazards.
The link to the CIS National and International Collaborating Centres is as follows:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_116383.pdf
However the following will apply to work within the U.K.
Under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 employers have to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees.
The ban on smoking in public places was not introduced by HSE but by the Department for Health under Public Health legislation. However, the following information regarding the ban has been taken from the HSE's website:
HSE and smoke free legislation
HSE is not responsible for enforcing the legislation but will fully support Local Authority officers both in raising employers’ awareness of their responsibilities and in encouraging employers and employees to comply with the new legislation above. HSE inspectors will bring matters of concern to the attention of the employer, particularly if it involves a number of smokers or if there is a failure to display warning notices. Should the employer resist acting on this advice, the inspector will then bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate local authority. Any complaints received by HSE about the smoking ban will be referred to the appropriate local authority.
HSE will also support the new legislation by sending out flyers, and work in partnership with local authorities on health promotional matters as appropriate.
Premises exempt from smoke free legislation
Health and Safety legislation will continue to require employers, in premises permitted exemptions under the smoke-free law, to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoking to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. The publication Smoke-free Scotland - Guidance on smoking policies for the NHS, local authorities and care service providers contains helpful advice on how to do this. It can also be obtained from the Scottish Government at the above address.
In exempted premises, HSE will continue to promote a sensible, proportionate management of second hand smoking to as low a level as is reasonably practicable and to encourage employers to adopt smoking policies in the workplace which give precedence to the wishes of non-smokers not to be exposed to second hand smoking.
Even with new smoke-free legislation, HSE’s advice on protecting employees from the effects of second hand smoke remains unchanged in that:
1. Employers should have a specific policy on smoking in the workplace.
2. Employers should take action to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoke to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.
3. Smoking policy should give priority to the needs of non-smokers who do not wish to breathe tobacco smoke.
4. Employers should consult their employees and their representatives on the appropriate smoking policy to suit their particular workplace.
If you would like further information about smoking, please contact the Department of Health’s Customer Service Centre on 020 7210 4850, or visit the Department of Health's tobacco website. Further information about smoking can also be found on the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) website.
Reference: Advice on smoking at work
I hope this helps, but if you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this address again or telephone HSE Infoline on 08453 450055.
Yours sincerely
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil
maybe in your game you can dictate more than in a privately owned Jet where the owner can determine what he does in the back!!!
Personally it is disgusting, makes the aircraft smell and does no end of damage to sensitive parts (aircraft and humans)
Years back I flew an owner in a Seneca and was checking out a relief pilot (female) The owner puffed away until the potential relief pilot donned her oxygen mask for the duration of the flight. Sadly she never got the position as the owner was not amused.
Pace
maybe in your game you can dictate more than in a privately owned Jet where the owner can determine what he does in the back!!!
Personally it is disgusting, makes the aircraft smell and does no end of damage to sensitive parts (aircraft and humans)
Years back I flew an owner in a Seneca and was checking out a relief pilot (female) The owner puffed away until the potential relief pilot donned her oxygen mask for the duration of the flight. Sadly she never got the position as the owner was not amused.
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did airtaxi from 1990 to 2007, and my first boss (1990-2004) then was a solid non-smoker and hated having to sit in an ashtray, as he called it.
So we were a non smoking airline early on - which helped me dramatically since I just gave up when joining this company - and yes we lost revenue due to that. But that became less and less an issue and even turned around in the last few years, having a lot of pax that were non smokers.
Last airtaxi company I was with targeted the russian market and there it was an issue, the boss being non smoking as well and clients not willing to stay nicotine free for hours. So we (the crew) allowed some smoking, always asking politely not to smoke or keep it to a minimum and explaining that our job is on the line otherwise mostly did the trick though.
So we were a non smoking airline early on - which helped me dramatically since I just gave up when joining this company - and yes we lost revenue due to that. But that became less and less an issue and even turned around in the last few years, having a lot of pax that were non smokers.
Last airtaxi company I was with targeted the russian market and there it was an issue, the boss being non smoking as well and clients not willing to stay nicotine free for hours. So we (the crew) allowed some smoking, always asking politely not to smoke or keep it to a minimum and explaining that our job is on the line otherwise mostly did the trick though.
Last edited by His dudeness; 1st Oct 2010 at 08:41.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's fairly well acccepted that smoking is now an outdoor sport. Even the most addicted smoker will go outside to smoke, even at home.
I think Suitcaseman makes a valid point. The aircraft will ulimately suffer both technically and aesthetically. Go get on old C500 for the smoking customers!
The broker has probably been asked to find a "smoking" operator, but also wants the right price and aircraft. Offer a "tech stop" en route for a fag break!
I think Suitcaseman makes a valid point. The aircraft will ulimately suffer both technically and aesthetically. Go get on old C500 for the smoking customers!
The broker has probably been asked to find a "smoking" operator, but also wants the right price and aircraft. Offer a "tech stop" en route for a fag break!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schmokin
I notice that everyone here seems to be wholly against smoking on an aircraft and in fact I am of the same view.
However, as a broker, we have a number of clients who specifically request smoking aircraft so therefore have to provide even if the cost is vastly higher. That said, whilst some clients specifically request a "smoker" there are actually less clients who specifically request a "non-smoker".
It is very rare that a client complains about a stale smoke smell in the cabin environment, I can recall only two times in nearly 20 years. These days when air freshners and cleaning products are so good and effective, the crew/ground staff should take care to make sure the cabin is cleansed to the best of their ability - that doesn't mean popping to the local Texaco to pick up a magic tree or Laura Ashley for a a packet of Pot Pouri enroute to report !
SB
However, as a broker, we have a number of clients who specifically request smoking aircraft so therefore have to provide even if the cost is vastly higher. That said, whilst some clients specifically request a "smoker" there are actually less clients who specifically request a "non-smoker".
It is very rare that a client complains about a stale smoke smell in the cabin environment, I can recall only two times in nearly 20 years. These days when air freshners and cleaning products are so good and effective, the crew/ground staff should take care to make sure the cabin is cleansed to the best of their ability - that doesn't mean popping to the local Texaco to pick up a magic tree or Laura Ashley for a a packet of Pot Pouri enroute to report !
SB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, yes, I get that some people want to smoke and are willing to pay for it, but how do you get around the legal implications of allowing people to smoke in your employees workplace.
Is it not a matter of time before a disgruntled employee starts procedings when they get a nasty sniffle.
SB - I would disagree about the smell, I smoke quite heavilly and still hate the smell on an aircraft no matter how Ambi-Pure it is.
Incidentally, I'm not going to start allowing smoking on our aircraft, legal or not, but it is an interesting question how people are getting away with it.
Is it not a matter of time before a disgruntled employee starts procedings when they get a nasty sniffle.
SB - I would disagree about the smell, I smoke quite heavilly and still hate the smell on an aircraft no matter how Ambi-Pure it is.
Incidentally, I'm not going to start allowing smoking on our aircraft, legal or not, but it is an interesting question how people are getting away with it.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil
I agree with what you say about Ambi-Pur but that was my point about something that is a little more effective than a Glade Plug-In. I am also a smoker but provided it is in moderation in the cabin, I have personally never noted any major problems on smoking aircraft - anyway, I guess we agree to disagree on the point.
I misunderstood your point about disgruntled employees when I posted, apologies... I suppose the only way is to employ smokers
Except I recall one passenger, a few years ago, complained because he (as a non-smoker) was a very annoyed that the crew (French) were smoking on the aircraft during a long range flight !!!
Is there no legal clause that can absolve the operator within the pilots contract from any health effects caused by smoking in the cabin ? I guess the crew would have no comeback on the company if they contracted some other airborne (no pun intended) illness.
Surely the crew can appreciate that allowing smoking will potentially provide more work for them ?
I'm not being argumentative, just playing devils advocate.
SB
I agree with what you say about Ambi-Pur but that was my point about something that is a little more effective than a Glade Plug-In. I am also a smoker but provided it is in moderation in the cabin, I have personally never noted any major problems on smoking aircraft - anyway, I guess we agree to disagree on the point.
I misunderstood your point about disgruntled employees when I posted, apologies... I suppose the only way is to employ smokers
Except I recall one passenger, a few years ago, complained because he (as a non-smoker) was a very annoyed that the crew (French) were smoking on the aircraft during a long range flight !!!Is there no legal clause that can absolve the operator within the pilots contract from any health effects caused by smoking in the cabin ? I guess the crew would have no comeback on the company if they contracted some other airborne (no pun intended) illness.
Surely the crew can appreciate that allowing smoking will potentially provide more work for them ?
I'm not being argumentative, just playing devils advocate.
SB
Last edited by SussexBroker; 4th Oct 2010 at 08:22.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....as a smoker myself i say this, i see no reason whatsoever to allow smoking in the cabin (or flightdeck) at all regardless due to the fact that your fellow colleagues may well not smoke and therefore not wish to endure the smell or suffer the effects of passive smoking.
No, your just being an ass sussexbroker - why not allow drug taking, prostitution, violence and sheer bloody-mindedness - as long as it's not in your "back garden" and makes you a few quid eh sussex ??!
Surely the crew can appreciate that allowing smoking will potentially provide more work for them ?
I'm not being arguementative, just playing devils advocate.
I'm not being arguementative, just playing devils advocate.
No, your just being an ass sussexbroker - why not allow drug taking, prostitution, violence and sheer bloody-mindedness - as long as it's not in your "back garden" and makes you a few quid eh sussex ??!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB,
It's of little matter re the smell,
You get me wrong - I am not looking for a discussion of right and wrong - I am asking what the law is.
My understanding is that it is ilegal to smoke in a workplace - an aircraft is the workplace of the crew (whether they smoke or not). If it were ok as long as the staff were smokers, the breweries would simply employ smoking bar staff to get around the smoking ban in pubs.
The crews would fully appreciate it, but that's not what I'm asking -
You cannot contract against statutary law - it would be voided in any court.
As I said, I'm not after a discussion over the moral position etc etc. There is a EC Law that governs smoking in the workplace - what is it's interpretation of an aircraft cabin.
Phil
It's of little matter re the smell,
You get me wrong - I am not looking for a discussion of right and wrong - I am asking what the law is.
My understanding is that it is ilegal to smoke in a workplace - an aircraft is the workplace of the crew (whether they smoke or not). If it were ok as long as the staff were smokers, the breweries would simply employ smoking bar staff to get around the smoking ban in pubs.
The crews would fully appreciate it, but that's not what I'm asking -
You cannot contract against statutary law - it would be voided in any court.
As I said, I'm not after a discussion over the moral position etc etc. There is a EC Law that governs smoking in the workplace - what is it's interpretation of an aircraft cabin.
Phil
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about there is effectively no law once off the ground Phil and thus the stress on 'policy?'
I know from my airline days that the Health bods run a mile from all their legislation as far as flight is concerned. The best known example is that is is legally impossible to serve food on a jet simply due to the location of the vast majority of lavs and galleys and the law on intermediate doors.
Rob
I know from my airline days that the Health bods run a mile from all their legislation as far as flight is concerned. The best known example is that is is legally impossible to serve food on a jet simply due to the location of the vast majority of lavs and galleys and the law on intermediate doors.
Rob
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no employment law once off the ground?? no constructive dismissal, no discrimination? - no sexual harassment? assault? rape?
Surely this cannot be true.
Rob, as delicately as I can phrase it, is this a legal fact from a position of knowledge, or an educated hunch with a reasonable percentage chance of being right.
I can be pretty sure that my responsibilities as an employer carry on throughout the duration of my team performing their duties at the companies request no matter how far above sea level they are.
My turn to be devils advocate! Please don't take it as argumentative.
Surely this cannot be true.
Rob, as delicately as I can phrase it, is this a legal fact from a position of knowledge, or an educated hunch with a reasonable percentage chance of being right.
I can be pretty sure that my responsibilities as an employer carry on throughout the duration of my team performing their duties at the companies request no matter how far above sea level they are.
My turn to be devils advocate! Please don't take it as argumentative.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not allow drug taking, prostitution, violence and sheer bloody-mindedness
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legally an employee has the right of a smoke-free working environment. So the operator or owner can decide what is tolerated in their aircraft and it lies with them to choose a crew that wouldn't mind the smoke.
In some countries (e.g.South Africa) it is fobidden to smoke on any aircraft on their register - so basically part of their airlaw, which makes things quite clear and easy.
I have had collegues craving for a smoke on ferryflights and have noticed some becoming extremly irritable and agro, pushing up the throttles to Max cont. to get on the ground a few minutes faster - or lighting up a cigarette anyway without really caring if I like it or not - not a good habit and a demonstration of personal weakness, lack of respect and poor willpower.
In my personal observation, smoking is a stress factor and should simply be banned inside aircraft.
In some countries (e.g.South Africa) it is fobidden to smoke on any aircraft on their register - so basically part of their airlaw, which makes things quite clear and easy.
I have had collegues craving for a smoke on ferryflights and have noticed some becoming extremly irritable and agro, pushing up the throttles to Max cont. to get on the ground a few minutes faster - or lighting up a cigarette anyway without really caring if I like it or not - not a good habit and a demonstration of personal weakness, lack of respect and poor willpower.
In my personal observation, smoking is a stress factor and should simply be banned inside aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quote from a clever bonce about this stuff.
All company vehicles are affected by the legislation if they are used by more than one person. In effect pool cars or vans that are used by a number of employees will be required to be smoke-free.
If a car is provided to an employee for work purposes, and is solely for that employee?s own use, and the employee does not transport others it would not be covered by the legislation. But if the employee uses the vehicle to transport clients or colleagues, even if only occasionally, then the vehicle will have to be smoke-free as it will be considered a work vehicle.
Consequently, in the majority of cases company cars and vans will need to display the appropriate signage.
How can this differ on aircraft?
Phil
All company vehicles are affected by the legislation if they are used by more than one person. In effect pool cars or vans that are used by a number of employees will be required to be smoke-free.
If a car is provided to an employee for work purposes, and is solely for that employee?s own use, and the employee does not transport others it would not be covered by the legislation. But if the employee uses the vehicle to transport clients or colleagues, even if only occasionally, then the vehicle will have to be smoke-free as it will be considered a work vehicle.
Consequently, in the majority of cases company cars and vans will need to display the appropriate signage.
How can this differ on aircraft?
Phil
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again Phil,
I know from direct experience. The law, not policy or intent demanded from you, is absolutely clear on food preparation areas, hygene and proximity to lavs. However, you know and I know that lavs are used in huge swathes of the industry as a scullery and rinse facility. Even when they aren't they dont comply with the proximity aspects of the legislation.
It is utterly impossible, whether on an airliner or bizjet, to enforce these all encompassing laws due to aircraft layout and the economic imperative of maintaining these configurations. Thus the Health suits weasel out with stating an aircraft is airborne and out of their purview - please call Port Health while I wait for my MBE.
Due to that wriggle in the road it makes it very difficult indeed for them to demand other aspects of their legislation be followed. Therefore, while publishing 'policies' to follow their guidance, I would suggest the pragmatist might well sidestep them altogether and perhaps look to the ANO and responsibilities of an AOC holder to actually produce something on paper, within your manuals, which achieves your aim and is binding.
Regards
Rob
I know from direct experience. The law, not policy or intent demanded from you, is absolutely clear on food preparation areas, hygene and proximity to lavs. However, you know and I know that lavs are used in huge swathes of the industry as a scullery and rinse facility. Even when they aren't they dont comply with the proximity aspects of the legislation.
It is utterly impossible, whether on an airliner or bizjet, to enforce these all encompassing laws due to aircraft layout and the economic imperative of maintaining these configurations. Thus the Health suits weasel out with stating an aircraft is airborne and out of their purview - please call Port Health while I wait for my MBE.
Due to that wriggle in the road it makes it very difficult indeed for them to demand other aspects of their legislation be followed. Therefore, while publishing 'policies' to follow their guidance, I would suggest the pragmatist might well sidestep them altogether and perhaps look to the ANO and responsibilities of an AOC holder to actually produce something on paper, within your manuals, which achieves your aim and is binding.
Regards
Rob
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I suppose we await a test case of the Cabin Attendant who was "forced" to work in a smokey environment.
Do many operators allow smoking? No names needed.
Do many operators allow smoking? No names needed.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoking
Phil, sorry for jumping on the thread again after being chastised by OutsideCAS. I can confirm there are a few British carriers whom allow smoking, however it is a fair statement that in Europe there are many more – I guess as it has been said it is about interpretation of the law…
As for OutsideCAS – gooood, well done. I thought I was offering constructive advice on my thoughts in the industry as someone who deals with many airlines, not just my own fleet, I thought I had a valid point – it is a shame that your intelligence clearly doesn’t facilitate you to articulately insult me and brokers and bring in the word “ass” – you may also wish to look up the correct use of the word “your”. In the context in which you used it, it should be written as “you are” or “you’re” – so if you’re going to insult me, may I suggest that you do it with a grade of intelligence… I appreciate that your one brain-cell was clearly being utilised to make your hands type, “you’re clearly the ass”.
And also OutsideCAS since when on earth did smoking on an aircraft have anything to do with the other vices that you mention for goodness sake; perhaps you (as a confessed smoker) may indulge but don’t tar others with your sordid wish-list – grow up and shut up and if you wish to continue this discussion further then perhaps we should not do it on Phil’s thread so feel free to PM me !!!
SB
As for OutsideCAS – gooood, well done. I thought I was offering constructive advice on my thoughts in the industry as someone who deals with many airlines, not just my own fleet, I thought I had a valid point – it is a shame that your intelligence clearly doesn’t facilitate you to articulately insult me and brokers and bring in the word “ass” – you may also wish to look up the correct use of the word “your”. In the context in which you used it, it should be written as “you are” or “you’re” – so if you’re going to insult me, may I suggest that you do it with a grade of intelligence… I appreciate that your one brain-cell was clearly being utilised to make your hands type, “you’re clearly the ass”.
And also OutsideCAS since when on earth did smoking on an aircraft have anything to do with the other vices that you mention for goodness sake; perhaps you (as a confessed smoker) may indulge but don’t tar others with your sordid wish-list – grow up and shut up and if you wish to continue this discussion further then perhaps we should not do it on Phil’s thread so feel free to PM me !!!
SB
Last edited by SussexBroker; 1st Oct 2010 at 15:09. Reason: Font
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly i apologise to SB for my incorrect use of the word "your".......this schoolboy error means you have me completely worked out, i indeed only have the one brain cell as you imply - frankly if that is your response to my (admittedly slightly up on my high horse) reply to one of your earlier postings, then heaven forbid i ever post on here again for fear of making a grammatical error - i wouldn't normally mention it, but seeing as you like accuracy........i refer you to an earlier post today at 12:43.....
- should this not of been "airborne" ?? or is it perhaps a new film you've (note, thats "you have" SB - better for you ?) seen with Matt Damon in the lead role ??
- should this be "argumentative" ?? oh dear, not so good on the intelligence front thus far are we SB ??
- given your obvious self-importance, i have no doubt you really can smoke an aircraft - but please refrain as it's a terrible habit old boy and tends to upset the owners of the aircraft if you render his airframe to a smouldering heap to satisfy your (note this "your") needs....mind you, eh, if there is money in it eh ??! ;-)
Now with the above i've written - petty on my part ?? - yes, i believe so but i think you need a little eye-opener my sussex based charter monkey friend, and i wouldn't ordinarily bite, but you've boiled my urine a little.
Apologies for thread drift to Phil, in conclusion i will say i dis-agree with smoking on an aircraft as per my reasoning previously, legal or not (i believe legally it to be a 'grey' area).
Oh, and feel free SB to pick the bones out of this post for errors, after all that's how you "smoked" me before.....lol
END
Code:
airbourne
Code:
arguementative
Code:
I have personally never noted any major problems on smoking aircraft
Now with the above i've written - petty on my part ?? - yes, i believe so but i think you need a little eye-opener my sussex based charter monkey friend, and i wouldn't ordinarily bite, but you've boiled my urine a little.
Apologies for thread drift to Phil, in conclusion i will say i dis-agree with smoking on an aircraft as per my reasoning previously, legal or not (i believe legally it to be a 'grey' area).
Oh, and feel free SB to pick the bones out of this post for errors, after all that's how you "smoked" me before.....lol
END
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone, despite being none-the-wiser (to hyphenate or not to hyphenate, that's (that is) the question (?) (is that a question or a statement about a question?) (bugger...can't remember, brackets then question mark or question mark then brackets) as to the legality of pax / owners smoking on the aircraft I am fully versed in higher levels of grammar and apostrophe (or should that be suppository).
A more ignorant man than myself may believe that the threads would flow more readilly if less attention was made to grammar and more to content.
have a great weekend everyone.
PB
A more ignorant man than myself may believe that the threads would flow more readilly if less attention was made to grammar and more to content.
have a great weekend everyone.
PB