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]

Hippo

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]

ahstrays on aircraft

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.

[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
Great idea for a smokers only flight, I reckon it could be popular with PAX as well as crew. 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.