|
Interestingly these items got a mention very recently at a certain West London training centre and the party line was indeed:
BA policy has been to play safe and not allow them. Simples! |
faffod, for the reasons mentioned by Cornish and vctenderness, few airlines if any will allow the use of electronic cigarettes on board. ******************************************************* PaperTiger, just because this is the SLF forum doesn´t make it ok for you to spout complete bovine excrement. When a passenger claims that flight attendants make up a rule, 999 times out of a 1000 this reflects that passenger´s lack of knowledge. No shame or surprise in a lack of knowledge; knowing the myriad rules is our job, not yours. But the fact that you as a passenger are not aware of a rule means nothing. Aviation is a very highly regulated business. Cabin crew have to enforce rules set by the regulatory authorities under which their airline falls, the regulatory authorities of the country the aircraft is flying into and rules set by the airline itself. Knowing and enforcing the rules is a large part of our job. A part not made any easier by people who decide that a particular rule is nonsense and therefor does not apply to them. Yes, some rules seem or even are utterly nonsensical. Makes no difference though, the cabin crew is obliged by law to enforce it, and under the same laws you are obliged to behave in accordance with it. So to come onto PPRuNe and claim that we make up rules on the spot clearly indicates how little you actually know about our business. As a frequent flyer you are an expert on seating, service aspects and maybe pricing. When it comes to knowing rules and regulations, being able to enforce them, the execution of safety procedures, crowd control, first aid, dealing with aggressive passengers etc etc; cabin crew working for a well run airline are the experts. They have to prove it twice a year to the regulatory authorities . So spare us your BS. If you want to talk nonsense, do so on any of the endless sites out there unsullied by the professionals who actually work in the air. Who knows, people there may even think you know what you're talking about. Here on PPRuNe we know you don´t. |
I am a light smoker, about 10 per week. I tried the electronic ciggies, mostly because of my fascination with gadgets. For what it's worth I think they only re-enforce the nicotine habit. There is no substantial "throat hit" with these things, (something only a smoker would understand) so you end up sucking ferociously on them and burning your lips with the hot vapour. I found myself pulling on an e-cig for half the evening where normally I would have only a single cigarette. Mine ended up in the bin.
As for substantial evidence about them being safer than real cigarettes, that would be easy considering how lethal real cigarettes actually are. But bear in mind that these things are not regulated and come from China, two facts that amount to the end user having absolutely no idea what he/she is actually inhaling. They may eventually serve a purpose as a quitting aid but only if they were to be manufactured in a regulated/controlled environment. |
AOB9,
Once I learned of e-fags, and before purchasing, I read some reviews including on Amazon. I read that many are a waste of time, some say you get what you pay for, I've gone for a refillable kit with some 24mg Marlboro liquid, if the 24mg liquid isn't enough then there is a stronger one. But anything is worth a try to give up, or cut down on, the habit. flapsforty, You show me where the CAA have regulated that e-fags are forbidden in airports and aircraft and I'll say "You know what you are talking about"! |
You show me where the CAA have regulated that e-fags are forbidden in airports and aircraft and rules set by the airline itself. It seems some folk would only be content if airlines were to publish all their internal procedures, no doubt so they can pick holes in them. Looking at a national carrier at random: - In section IX of their T&C's 1. The Carrier reserves the right to assess, in a reasonable manner, the behaviour of Passengers on board the aircraft, and to estimate according to the circumstances whether said behaviour is likely to obstruct, threaten, or endanger one or more persons, items of property or the aircraft. Passengers must not obstruct the crew from performing their duties and must comply with the crew’s instructions and recommendations in order to ensure the security and safety of the aircraft, the smooth running of the flight and the comfort of the Passengers. The Passengers must, in Carrier’s reasonably opinion, refrain from behaving in such a manner to which other Passengers may reasonably object. 4. Smoking (including conventional cigarettes, electronic- or other artificial forms of smoking) is strictly prohibited on board the aircraft. If you have an issue with an airlines rules why not write to them? |
west lakes,
So that carrier forbids nicotine patches (an artificial form of smoking), how do they enforce this one may ask? |
I would not class a patch, gum or lozenge as artificial smoking.
Any device where the user is going through the motions of smoking however. (oh and I have thought of cigarette shaped sweets - that would be silly to go there) |
west lakes
It seems that there is this underlying movement to decide that rules are not to be followed I think some are questioning wheter the rules exist in the first place. I refer you to my last post (#21) about a lack of references within one particular company's publications - it's not obvious from the sources available to the public and crew that I have checked. |
wheter the rules exist in the first place Legislation, a company procedure, a memo from a company management to staff, a decision made by a person delegated to do so by their employer (or by legislation)? All are equally valid and enforceable |
But what defines a rule? ........a decision made by a person delegated to do so by their employer? All are equally valid and enforcable |
west lakes,
Nic patches contain nicotine which is hazardous to health, e-fags do not contain nicotine or tar etc. I guess the answer is to develop an e-fag that does not emit smoke then no third parties will be any the wiser! |
IMP it would be a lawful command
lawful legal definition of lawful. lawful synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. |
Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg
Nic patches contain nicotine which is hazardous to health, e-fags do not contain nicotine or tar etc.
There's a reason health authorities in many countries have not approved them and some of them have outright banned them. Unlike the approved cessation methods like inhalers or gums or patches whose manufacturing and dosage follow certain provisions and controls, the e-cigs have none of that. Having some passengers unsettled and some others thinking it's ok and lighting up real cigarettes is a situation airlines would want to avoid. Besides, (regardless of what the e-cigarette marketeers claim) until someone can prove that part of the nicotine vapours inhaled will not be exhaled (for others next to you to breathe in turn), I'm not convinced that passive smoking can be ruled out. The rule makes sense. |
The Tokyo Convention applies to crew and passengers on board an aircraft.
It is a sensible document and if more passengers were aware of its ramifications and the extended powers of a captain and his/her crew to ensure good order and discipline on board, there would be a lot less day to day trouble and aggravation for both crews and passengers. Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, Tokyo, 14 September 1963 (*) The Convention applies to offences and other acts prejudicial to good order and discipline on board an aircraft, committed while the aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas or of any other area outside the territory of any State. It does not apply to State aircraft, for example, aircraft used in military, customs and police services. The purpose of the Tokyo Convention is to protect the safety of the aircraft and of the persons or property thereon and to maintain good order and discipline on board. The aircraft commander, members of the crew and, in specific circumstances, even passengers on board, are empowered to prevent the commission of such acts and to disembark the person concerned. The aircraft commander may also disembark the offender or, if the offence is serious, deliver him to the competent authorities of a Contracting State when the aircraft lands. The Convention protects the aircraft commander and any crew member or passenger assisting him in imposing the measures he finds necessary from any proceedings in respect of actions taken by them. |
Having received my 'personal atomizer' today, and having tested it, and whilst it may take some getting accustomed to I am pleased with the result and, because nothing is burning, one may cup it in one's hand whilst swallowing the smoke and nobody in the vicinity would be subject to any discomfort nor be any the wiser that one is receiving one's nicotine intake!
|
Phileas, I have no objections at all when you enjoy your vapouriser in the privacy of your home (or the home of consenting friends.) If it helps you to get rid of your tobacco addiction, even better!
But with my condition of my lungs, I would appreciate if you would refrain from using your vapouriser in a plane when I'm seated next to you... for my health and comfort during the flight. I know they are better than cigarettes, but please give me clean (as clean as possible) air on a plane. |
Both I and my wife use e-cigs ... as a part-solution to the assorted non-smoking rules that now exist.
At our age, any health risk has long been overtaken by decades of 'the real thing' :uhoh: What they do allow us is to have a quick nicotine fix [usually 2 or 3 puffs] when needed. We're perfectly comfortable with the BA "No Use" rule ... if we used our e-cigs on an aircraft it would cause substantial confusion, and a full runway-lighting set of call bells! We don't care how excited people choose to get over the subject; if anyone objects, we won't have a puff. If they're not allowed, we won't use them. BUT ... in some places, and in some circumstances, they are damned useful for the addicts. [PS ... MathFox ... all you are seeing is water vapour. Don't panic! ;) ] |
MPN11, do they have any type of odour? I'm wondering whether they would be of use in hotels. Anything that saves the other guests from the sight of me wandering through the hotel lobby with my coat over my pyjamas and slippers when I can't sleep, has got to be a good thing!
|
@ JSL ... to the best of our experience they are effectively odourless. I'll put it another way, the T5 Sofitel didn't bill us £250 for cleaning the room after using them last month!! ;)
It's that 'prisoner' factor that actually got us started on them. We can do the TATL, but being stuck in the hotel from 1400-0900 without 'skipping behind the bike sheds' was just unacceptable to us. A couple of puffs to get the nicotine level back [no need to smoke a complete ciggie, costing £0.25+] and you're sorted. [PS .. feel free to PM for a lot of detail. The others won't want to know about us dirty people.] |
I noticed yesterday that there is an e-cig 'stealth liquid' on the market that emits little, if any, smoke!
I always recall an ex work colleague, he had never learned to drive nor held a licence, if someone complained regarding his smoking polluting their atmosphere he'd hit straight back complaining that their driving of a car was polluting his atmosphere. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:04. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.