No Cruise Booze makes me happy!
Guest
Posts: n/a
No Cruise Booze makes me happy!
The recent incidents of drunken passengers and assaults on aircrew and the public (the customers), is, unfortunately, nothing new.
This leads me to question why airlines bother
to serve alcohol at all on flights. As has been pointed out on a post on the questions forum, most airlines prohibit smoking, so why not alcohol?
The exagerated effects of booze in flight are well known, and it would also impede any emergency evacuation, not to mention that carrying the stuff in the first place must impose some fuel penalty.
There are of course many other good reasons to ban it, but I just wondered:
1 - Does your airline have a good reason to serve alcohol in flight, (other than to make a lot of money when operating a pay bar).
2 - Do you, as potentially no. 1 in the firing line, think it should be banned.
I know that in a lot of cases, passengers get tanked up before boarding, but better judgement at the gate should be enforced,(IMHO)!
------------------
It wasn't me.
This leads me to question why airlines bother
to serve alcohol at all on flights. As has been pointed out on a post on the questions forum, most airlines prohibit smoking, so why not alcohol?
The exagerated effects of booze in flight are well known, and it would also impede any emergency evacuation, not to mention that carrying the stuff in the first place must impose some fuel penalty.
There are of course many other good reasons to ban it, but I just wondered:
1 - Does your airline have a good reason to serve alcohol in flight, (other than to make a lot of money when operating a pay bar).
2 - Do you, as potentially no. 1 in the firing line, think it should be banned.
I know that in a lot of cases, passengers get tanked up before boarding, but better judgement at the gate should be enforced,(IMHO)!
------------------
It wasn't me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
expedite_climb
"A very good idea, however the problem is who does it first ?"
How about KU and SV ?
"How was this problem resolved re: no smoking - anyone know ?"
The difference is that there was an anti-smoking groundswell at the time (which has now attained crusade proportions), so banning smoking was seen as a marketing plus.
Without discussing the relative merits and demerits, there is no such widespread anti-alcohol sentiment in the non-Islamic world.
It will take a smoking hole, proven to have been caused by the actions of a drunken passenger, before anything is done. Maybe not even then.
"A very good idea, however the problem is who does it first ?"
How about KU and SV ?
"How was this problem resolved re: no smoking - anyone know ?"
The difference is that there was an anti-smoking groundswell at the time (which has now attained crusade proportions), so banning smoking was seen as a marketing plus.
Without discussing the relative merits and demerits, there is no such widespread anti-alcohol sentiment in the non-Islamic world.
It will take a smoking hole, proven to have been caused by the actions of a drunken passenger, before anything is done. Maybe not even then.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've seen plenty of people go nuts for want of a cigarette with or without alcohol. The problem, IMHO, is not free booze, it's the smoking ban combined with the general stress of being SLF which causes air rage. Throw in a few free G&Ts and the problem gets worse but free booze does not, I think, cause air rage on it's own.
It would be really interesting to know how many non-smokers have been done for air rage incidents - coz I betcha the vast majority are smokers. It's the lack of nicotine that drives 'em nuts, the booze just exacerbates the problem by diminishing their inhibitions about complaining about the lack of smoking.
Allow a limited number of smoking seats on a limited number of flights and I guarantee the number of air rage incidents would plummet.
It would be really interesting to know how many non-smokers have been done for air rage incidents - coz I betcha the vast majority are smokers. It's the lack of nicotine that drives 'em nuts, the booze just exacerbates the problem by diminishing their inhibitions about complaining about the lack of smoking.
Allow a limited number of smoking seats on a limited number of flights and I guarantee the number of air rage incidents would plummet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I for one am pleased about the smoking ban, heaven forbid allowing smokers to blow their contaminated air several rows in all directions.
Just an idea, what about a cubicle or two, standing room only of course, where a smoker could go and the air could then be expelled directly out of the airplane rather than recycle it to the disgust of other passengers? It could even be fitted with a pay lock on it, say 5 quid entrance to pay for installation, cleaning and to make up loss of revenue on the seating removed to make room for the cubicle. Could even make the cubicle look like a coffin as a salutary reminder of the consequences of smoking Better go now before I get to sound like a non-smoker
Just an idea, what about a cubicle or two, standing room only of course, where a smoker could go and the air could then be expelled directly out of the airplane rather than recycle it to the disgust of other passengers? It could even be fitted with a pay lock on it, say 5 quid entrance to pay for installation, cleaning and to make up loss of revenue on the seating removed to make room for the cubicle.
Could even make the cubicle look like a coffin as a salutary reminder of the consequences of smoking Better go now before I get to sound like a non-smoker
Guest
Posts: n/a
Generally speaking, it is not fair to punish everyone for the misbehaviour of a few. While air rage continues to make the headlines it is fair to say that it is a very small proportion of travellers that commit air rage.
I hear some ask " Why should we put up with a few air rage pax while we won't put up with a few smokers?" To me the answer is obvious -- you CAN drink without upsetting other pax, you CANNOT smoke without upsetting other pax. Not to mention that fire in the air is the worst fear of most of us.
So my view is that the new hard line on air rage should be given time to bite -- if enough perpetrators are locked up in some God forsaken hole for a few weeks and then have to find a way home and then discover that they are banned from all airlines, it might just adjust a few attitudes!
I hear some ask " Why should we put up with a few air rage pax while we won't put up with a few smokers?" To me the answer is obvious -- you CAN drink without upsetting other pax, you CANNOT smoke without upsetting other pax. Not to mention that fire in the air is the worst fear of most of us.
So my view is that the new hard line on air rage should be given time to bite -- if enough perpetrators are locked up in some God forsaken hole for a few weeks and then have to find a way home and then discover that they are banned from all airlines, it might just adjust a few attitudes!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has anyone ever considered making a few flights "all smoking"?
It might sound daft and un-doable at first, but I wonder how many non-smokers would take a flight that suited their timing even if it was "smoking"?
I'm sure there's still some smoking "trolley dollys" (I know there is - my daughter and some of her friends are) and they might be happy to do a "smoking sector" as they could have a "crafty one" in the galley too
As I have just posted on another thread, I am suspicious of the "air rage syndrome" seeming to coincide with smokers no longer being able to take the option of airlines that allow smoking sections. Until fairly recently, most sectors had a "smoking airline" available for really heavily-addicted smokers.
Regarding KU & SV, SV is "smoking but non-boozing" and most other airlines operating the same routes are "non-smoking but boozing"; Some of my mates are willing to accept not being able to get a beer and will fly SV for preference because they can have a smoke on long sectors
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 20 May 2001).]
It might sound daft and un-doable at first, but I wonder how many non-smokers would take a flight that suited their timing even if it was "smoking"?
I'm sure there's still some smoking "trolley dollys" (I know there is - my daughter and some of her friends are) and they might be happy to do a "smoking sector" as they could have a "crafty one" in the galley too
As I have just posted on another thread, I am suspicious of the "air rage syndrome" seeming to coincide with smokers no longer being able to take the option of airlines that allow smoking sections. Until fairly recently, most sectors had a "smoking airline" available for really heavily-addicted smokers.
Regarding KU & SV, SV is "smoking but non-boozing" and most other airlines operating the same routes are "non-smoking but boozing"; Some of my mates are willing to accept not being able to get a beer and will fly SV for preference because they can have a smoke on long sectors
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 20 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
FastJetJock, I know a great number of people who can drink and upset other passengers, none of them are smokers.
I'd be interested to hear more about your "fire in the air..." theory, also just wondering how many accidents/emergencies/diversions were caused by passengers smoking when it was allowed, compared to hoiw many accidents/emergencies/diversions are attributable to smoking (or nicotine withdrawal), now that it has bee banned.
I reckon the statistics will speak for themselves.
As a smoker, I have no objection to going 8/10 hours without a cigarette on a long haul sector, but then again, I can control myself.
I think the idea of one all smoking flight would make a big difference, or when the super new futuristic a/c come into service maybe they'll pu a smokink room on board or maybea few people might start taking the airlines to court for breaches of human rights for them not allowing smoking!!!
------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established
[This message has been edited by form49 (edited 20 May 2001).]
I'd be interested to hear more about your "fire in the air..." theory, also just wondering how many accidents/emergencies/diversions were caused by passengers smoking when it was allowed, compared to hoiw many accidents/emergencies/diversions are attributable to smoking (or nicotine withdrawal), now that it has bee banned.
I reckon the statistics will speak for themselves.
As a smoker, I have no objection to going 8/10 hours without a cigarette on a long haul sector, but then again, I can control myself.
I think the idea of one all smoking flight would make a big difference, or when the super new futuristic a/c come into service maybe they'll pu a smokink room on board or maybea few people might start taking the airlines to court for breaches of human rights for them not allowing smoking!!!
------------------
Turn left heading 230, close from the left, report established
[This message has been edited by form49 (edited 20 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Imagine the scene, first revenue flight on a new charter airline. Second hand aircraft, but totally refurbished inside at considerable cost. LGW-TFS-LGW the sectors, Friday afternoon departure, returning after midnight. On the return flight, most of the passengers asleep, cabin crew had turned the lights down, a lovely quiet, dozing atmosphere in the back. Suddenly, all hell breaks loose, cabin crew rushing about taking all the fire xtinguishers they could find. A passenger had been smoking and had dropped the butt into her handbag, which set alight a lot of the inflammables that our lovely ladies like to carry around with them.
The carpet catches light as does the side trimming. Luckily, being the first flight we were carrying a number of extra Company people on the jump seats,including the Fleet Manager, lots of extra trained people to use the extinguishers and the fire was put out, but at a lot of damage to the interior. We were in that awful spot halfway between Porto Santo and Faro, a considerable time to either. I was glad that the Company went 'No smoking' very soon afterwards, but it frightened me. I was in the left seat!!
The carpet catches light as does the side trimming. Luckily, being the first flight we were carrying a number of extra Company people on the jump seats,including the Fleet Manager, lots of extra trained people to use the extinguishers and the fire was put out, but at a lot of damage to the interior. We were in that awful spot halfway between Porto Santo and Faro, a considerable time to either. I was glad that the Company went 'No smoking' very soon afterwards, but it frightened me. I was in the left seat!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ban smoking! Ban drinking! What the hell, let's ban passengers!!!
Seriously, I believe that not all but a majority of incidents do result from the combination of alcohol consumption and nicotine withdrawal. Instead of these new "all business class" airlines allegedly springing up out of STN (and doomed to fail very quickly)I think there would be a great deal more money to be made by operating a mixed class ALL SMOKING airline across the atlantic. With good (non smoking) code sharing partners at either end for onward connections (the point being that they could smoke for the lengthiest part of their journey) I reckon such an operation could be viable. So come on Blue Fox, how about Blue Smoke?! Or BMI could consider this option in order to fill their A330s out of Manch!
P.S. Avman is a non smoker.
Seriously, I believe that not all but a majority of incidents do result from the combination of alcohol consumption and nicotine withdrawal. Instead of these new "all business class" airlines allegedly springing up out of STN (and doomed to fail very quickly)I think there would be a great deal more money to be made by operating a mixed class ALL SMOKING airline across the atlantic. With good (non smoking) code sharing partners at either end for onward connections (the point being that they could smoke for the lengthiest part of their journey) I reckon such an operation could be viable. So come on Blue Fox, how about Blue Smoke?! Or BMI could consider this option in order to fill their A330s out of Manch!
P.S. Avman is a non smoker.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Would it not be an idea to give away/sell, selling obviously having more attraction for an airline, either nicotine gum or inhalators on board? The problem is that a lot of people cannot plan ahead, personally I know i won't be able to smoke , so equip myself beforehand, but a lot of fellow SLF are a tad errrr slow. A spot of nicotine replacement at twice the market rate may help them to have an more enjoyable flight, as well as everyone else on board. May even persuade a few to give up. Although I always get a funny look at the chemists when buying the gum.
"hows it going giving up then sir?"
" err not giving up , just off to the states"
" ?????"
"hows it going giving up then sir?"
" err not giving up , just off to the states"
" ?????"
Guest
Posts: n/a
If people need nicotine on long flights, and as an ex 20 a day man I can quite see the need, there are plenty of other ways of getting it into your blood stream other than smoking it. Patches, gum and inhalors all work very well. Keep the fire in the engines were it belongs!!. There is difference between smoking and the other methods but all you really need is a nicotine hit, after chewing gum for a few minutes you just don't want a fag anymore. Don't Virgin give them out on their flights?.
[This message has been edited by Max Angle (edited 20 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Max Angle (edited 20 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
It comes down to economics. With smoking, the airlines were spending money trying to maintain the cleanliness of the aircraft with Tar and Nicotine coating windows, upholstery and not to mention the instruments up front. With Alcohol, they earn money by selling it and would lose tremendously if they were first to restrict and not followed immediately by other airlines. Yes there is the occasional diversion but these are few and banning alcohol could possibly increase the number of disturbances.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I've said elsewhere, why not just stop passengers taking their own booze onboard (including duty free - give them that at the other end) and limit the number of drinks they can have? If we can stop someone taking a bomb on board, after all, we should be able to find a litre of Stolichnaya?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with those of you who've suggested using nicotine replacements. I wouldn't suggest the gum, because it would end up on the floor or under the seats. Would there be a problem selling it, cos at the moment only chemists sell it?
Long term I think it should be offered for sale in the departure lounge, but we should carry a couple of packets of patches for use in the extreme cases, to "sedate" a hard case.
We had one the other night coming back from HER. The CS came into the flightdeck several times to tell us about a pax in row 1 who just wouldn't stop complaining about why she couldn't smoke. She (the pax) even said that since she would get a warning first, she'd go and have a smoke, then get the warning. The CS told her "This is your warning madam!"
A week earlier we had a pax smoking in the forward toilet and the alarm went off and we had the light come on in the cockpit.
Maybe we should offer these people a patch when they're starting to endanger the flight or annoy the cabin crew/other passengers.
No doubt there'd be medical/legal procedures to be looked into in our crazy world where the airline could be sued for causing an illness by offering a patch (the patches carry a warning I believe).
Everyone likes freedom - the trouble is that the whole airport scene is about herding people about like cattle. It's no wonder that the ones who lack self control get wound up, get nicotine withdrwal, get boozed-up and uninhibited, and then become our problem.
Any legal or medical experts like to comment on giving patches in extreme cases?
Long term I think it should be offered for sale in the departure lounge, but we should carry a couple of packets of patches for use in the extreme cases, to "sedate" a hard case.
We had one the other night coming back from HER. The CS came into the flightdeck several times to tell us about a pax in row 1 who just wouldn't stop complaining about why she couldn't smoke. She (the pax) even said that since she would get a warning first, she'd go and have a smoke, then get the warning. The CS told her "This is your warning madam!"
A week earlier we had a pax smoking in the forward toilet and the alarm went off and we had the light come on in the cockpit.
Maybe we should offer these people a patch when they're starting to endanger the flight or annoy the cabin crew/other passengers.
No doubt there'd be medical/legal procedures to be looked into in our crazy world where the airline could be sued for causing an illness by offering a patch (the patches carry a warning I believe).
Everyone likes freedom - the trouble is that the whole airport scene is about herding people about like cattle. It's no wonder that the ones who lack self control get wound up, get nicotine withdrwal, get boozed-up and uninhibited, and then become our problem.
Any legal or medical experts like to comment on giving patches in extreme cases?
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Ban smoking! Ban drinking! What the hell, let's ban passengers!!!</font>
As a (heavy) smoker, I can control myself for even a Trans-Pacific flight. Even with quite a gew G&Ts under my belt (or despite it?) I can behave. But if the airlines get even more "Big Brother" and stop me having a beer or a Scotch, or a G&T for quite a few hours while the InFlightEntertainment has failed across half of the economy cabin (BA, last month
) and all I have to do is to read the "company mag" because there was no bookshop at the departure lounge, I think I might just get a little upset 
Duty-frees on arrival? - Great idea - makes sense in terms of safety ( a bottle of Scotch is a darned more flight-endangering than a fag!) and economics (why haul it to 30,000 feet for no apparent reason?) But let's not get stupid and try to make the PAX life even MORE unbearable than it is now with hassle before the flight, hassle after the flight - the only time to relax is in between!
Why ban drinking (subject to limiting the PAX so that they can get out in emergency of course) when it's often the most pleasurable part of the whole travelling scenario (apart from when the nice guys up front let me join them - I always wait till after that for a G&T of course
)------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, smoking invariably affects the non-smokers with all that smoke in the cabin. When your seat mate drinks, you usually don't get any booze forced down your throat.
Besides the fact that alcohol is a drug as many others, it is a legal one. It plays a part in most of our social interactions in our lives and it is always interesting to see that grim anti-tobacco commercial followed by that elaborate beer advertising which promises us beautiful girls, great friends and social success when we drink their alcohol, while warning us to 'drink responsibly', which is not really much different than saying 'Snort your coke responsibly'. There will be a time in the future when the tide will turn against the alcohol, I'm sure, but until then we have to cope with the current situation. A ban of alcohol on flights is not possible at this time if you look at how much it is an accepted part of daily life, even though it is an addictive drug and directly and indirectly kills a lot of folks out there.
But then consider that the airlines, especially the flight attendants do a very good job in keeping any excesses under control by not letting it get to that point and if you look at the millions and millions of passengers travelling every year, then you will notice that the vast majority is very well behaved, even after a few drinks.
So what am I saying?? Until alcohol gets a bad rep the way cigarettes did,until it gets to be socially not acceptable anymore, it will be served on flights and we have to cope with it the best we can. But I don't think the situation is that bad, is it??
Besides the fact that alcohol is a drug as many others, it is a legal one. It plays a part in most of our social interactions in our lives and it is always interesting to see that grim anti-tobacco commercial followed by that elaborate beer advertising which promises us beautiful girls, great friends and social success when we drink their alcohol, while warning us to 'drink responsibly', which is not really much different than saying 'Snort your coke responsibly'. There will be a time in the future when the tide will turn against the alcohol, I'm sure, but until then we have to cope with the current situation. A ban of alcohol on flights is not possible at this time if you look at how much it is an accepted part of daily life, even though it is an addictive drug and directly and indirectly kills a lot of folks out there.
But then consider that the airlines, especially the flight attendants do a very good job in keeping any excesses under control by not letting it get to that point and if you look at the millions and millions of passengers travelling every year, then you will notice that the vast majority is very well behaved, even after a few drinks.
So what am I saying?? Until alcohol gets a bad rep the way cigarettes did,until it gets to be socially not acceptable anymore, it will be served on flights and we have to cope with it the best we can. But I don't think the situation is that bad, is it??