Airlines that permit smoking
ru...@interlog.com
NoS...@cryogen.com wrote:
>
> Are there any airlines that allow smoking on their planes?
Singapore Airlines does. I am sure others (particularly
airlines from Asian countries) also do.
Domestic airlines . . . I don't think there are any.
Bob Webbink
dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU (Man on the Edge) writes:
>NoS...@cryogen.com (NoS...@cryogen.com) wisely said:
>>And one more thing. Atlanta and Washington Dulles makes you "walk a
>>mile for a camel" to a designated smoking area. I thought about firing
>>one up in the hallway. Bunch of cretains.
>Please do fire one up in the hallway. Perhaps you won't learn until
>you get fined and/or arrested.
Personally, the worst I have experienced lately was Richmond, VA. People
there would blatantly ignore the "no smoking" signs and light up just about
anywhere. The entire airport reeked of cigarette smoke. The 2 best places
I have been recently have been LAX and STL. The Terminal TWA is in at LAX
has an outdoor lounge which smokers are allowed into, so you don't get anyone
smoking anywhere inside the building. And STL has smoking booths installed now
where smokers are enclosed in a separately ventilated glass cage within the
normal terminal, so they are put on display breathing their toxins and looking
like a bunch of caged rats. I have a hard time not laughing every time I pass
it, with all those people acting so stupidly.
>--
>All the busy little creatures
>Chasing out their destinies
>Living in their pools
>They soon forget about the sea...
> Neil Peart, 1980
--
******************************************************************************
Bob Webbink bweb...@cco.caltech.edu
California Institute of Technology bweb...@ugcs.caltech.edu
*****************************************************************************
Bob Parsons
> Airlines) , I think I should at least have a designated smoking area.
>
> I can respect the other passengers who might be non-smokers for not
> wanting to breath smoke but why can't they build a room for smokers.
> Apparantley they don't want to accomodate "minorities".
>
> I don't want my money going to an airline that won't allow me to smoke
> on their plane.
>
> And one more thing. Atlanta and Washington Dulles makes you "walk a
> mile for a camel" to a designated smoking area. I thought about firing
> one up in the hallway. Bunch of cretains.
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Due to overwhelming junkmail I recieve from
> posting to the UseNet, substitute NoSpam
> with james102 when replying via E-mail
> ****************************************************
I think a point has been missed here. It's not up to the airlines
whether or not it is a smoking, or non-smoking flight, in the US.
Smoking on all US domestic flights is banned by Federal Law.
--
Bob Parsons
Remember...keep smiling, that way they'll never know what you're up to!
Man on the Edge
el...@central.cis.upenn.edu.nospam wisely said:
>In article <5sagr6$s...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
>Man on the Edge <dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>NoS...@cryogen.com (NoS...@cryogen.com) wisely said:
>>>Are there any airlines that allow smoking on their planes?
>>
>>
>>>If I am going to pay a huge sum of money to fly on an airplane (United
>>>Airlines) , I think I should at least have a designated smoking area.
>>
>>think I should be free from having to breathe cigarette smoke.
>
>But then you should have no problem with some flights being designated
>'smoking' and some 'non-smoking', right?
>
>Or does that not satisfy your need for a power fix? If that's the
>problem, maybe there's some power-fix-substitute gum you could chew?
No power fix here. The problem which you fail to realize is that many
people, especially ones who travel for business, do not have a choice
as to which flight they have to take. Those are the people that
airlines cater to. Hence, the correct decision by United and others
to ban smoking on all flights.
Max
Gustav Akk
In article <33f64ba7...@news.pacific.net.sg>, Craig Welch <-@-.-> wrote:
>"ru...@interlog.com" <ru...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>airlines from Asian countries) also do.
>
>terminate in Japan. So the flight that goes Singapore - Tokyo - Los
>Angeles, for example, doesn't allow smoking on the Singapore - Tokyo
>leg.
SAS used to have a smoking section in flights from Copenhagen
and Stockholm to NYC. I'm not sure if they do any more..
Gustav
zamy karimjee
Man on the Edge (dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: NoS...@cryogen.com (NoS...@cryogen.com) wisely said:
: Plenty. Air France and Olympic are two of the worst offenders.
: >If I am going to pay a huge sum of money to fly on an airplane (United
: >Airlines) , I think I should at least have a designated smoking area.
: If I am going to pay a huge sum of money to fly on an airplane, I
: think I should be free from having to breathe cigarette smoke.
: > I can respect the other passengers who might be non-smokers for not
: >wanting to breath smoke but why can't they build a room for smokers.
: >Apparantley they don't want to accomodate "minorities".
: No, it's the smokers who refuse to accomodate everyone else. You see,
: I don't want my money to go to the expense of building a separate room
: for smokers. If you refuse to give up that nasty habit, well, perhaps
: you shouldn't fly.
: >I don't want my money going to an airline that won't allow me to smoke
: >on their plane.
: Likewise, except I refuse to fly on a smoking flight.
: >And one more thing. Atlanta and Washington Dulles makes you "walk a
: >mile for a camel" to a designated smoking area. I thought about firing
: >one up in the hallway. Bunch of cretains.
: Please do fire one up in the hallway. Perhaps you won't learn until
: you get fined and/or arrested.
: Max
You sanctimonious prick - because the smokers are in a minority it does
not give the rest of you the right to be so bloody arrogant -
homosexuality is harmful and has caused chaos with AIDS and we have to be
sympathetic and caring to the perverts.... Leave the smokers alone wait
till we all die off then you can have your perfect world!!!!!!
: --
: All the busy little creatures
: Chasing out their destinies
: Living in their pools
: They soon forget about the sea...
: Neil Peart, 1980
--
Man on the Edge
jame...@cryogen.com wisely said:
> In article <19970806214...@ladder01.news.aol.com> FejjNos
><fej...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >I don't want my money going to an airline that won't allow me to smoke
>> > >on their plane.
>> >
>
>Most the the time I do. It's just hard to drive across the Atlantic ocean.
Take a ship. Maybe they'll have a special room for you on board. Or
how about this idea: don't smoke for the 6-10 hours your plane is in
the air! I mean, if it's non-addictive and all like the cigarette
companies claim...
Max
patan...@worldnet.att.net
Dan Peduzzi wrote:
>
> Bob Webbink wrote:
> >
> > The 2 best places
> > I have been recently have been LAX and STL. The Terminal TWA is in at LAX
> > has an outdoor lounge which smokers are allowed into, so you don't get anyone
> > smoking anywhere inside the building. And STL has smoking booths installed now
> > where smokers are enclosed in a separately ventilated glass cage within the
> > normal terminal, so they are put on display breathing their toxins and looking
> > like a bunch of caged rats. I have a hard time not laughing every time I pass
> > it, with all those people acting so stupidly.
> >
>
>
> What a comical, visible display of social Darwinism.
>
> ================================================================
> Daniel C. Peduzzi
>
> (work) (personal)
> MIT Lincoln Laboratory ped...@ma.ultranet.com
> ped...@ll.mit.edu http://www.ultranet.com/~peduzzi
> ================================================================
...
Hi Dan,
If you ever get to San Jose International Airport, in San Jose,
California, go to the International terminal (North end).
There is a glassed-in, under-ventilated, smokers "lounge" where smokers
cannot escape their own toxic by-products (by their usual technique of
sniffing out the airflow and letting the unfiltered smoke drift over to
the non-smokers).
I have written to this ng many times, describing this smoker's
hell-hole.
That unfiltered smoke from the lit "cherry" is very highly concentrated,
and all the smokers in this "lounge" light up, smoke very rapidly, and
get the hell out ASAP. Even they somehow recognize--at some primal
level, I guess--the latent toxicity of this lethal second-hand stuff,
and vacate this place in rapid fashion.
(I have been there, stuck between flights on many occasions, and
observed smoker behavior through the acrylic windows--which run floor to
ceiling.)
Say, that reminds me. What about your toxicologist friend? There is
REAL data, REAL research value, to be discovered in the actual high
levels of toxicity in the unfiltered smoke from a lit cigarette cherry.
I am sure that the plaintiffs in both Florida cases, plus Mississippi,
could use some measurements, if you know what i mean!!! ;)
well, see ya online. i, likewise, enjoy your posts.
pat anderson.
PAUL G MAYER
: dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU (Man on the Edge) writes:
:
: <snip> And STL has smoking booths installed now
: where smokers are enclosed in a separately ventilated glass cage within the
: normal terminal, so they are put on display breathing their toxins and
: looking like a bunch of caged rats. I have a hard time not laughing every
: time I pass it, with all those people acting so stupidly.
We have a similar setup here at LAS (Las Vegas, NV)--a glass booth next to
the slot machines in the old terminal rotunda. HP has their own smoker's
room in the B concourse. I've always wanted to put up a small sign saying
"Terminal Human Exhibit" but the county would probably take my badge...
Paul Mayer may...@nevada.edu
Bob Christofferson
jame...@cryogen.com wrote:
> Somebody smack me for voting for those guys in 92. I didn't make the same
> mistake twice this past election.
How come you get to vote twice in elections?
Kim
>> Smoking on all US domestic flights is banned by Federal Law.
>Sounds like another Clinton/Gore tactic.
Except I think it's a Reagan Administration era law.
Kim
>It's people like you who I have no respect for. The whiners of this
>world.
This from the person complaining because they can't control their
nicotine addiction for a few hours. It seems YOU are the one doing
the whining. What you can't stand is people who take offense at you
doing whatever you want, whenever, no matter what. You'll probably
complain when they won't let you smoke in your oxygen tent.
-- Kim
Michael Wright
slw...@netcom.com (Steve Work) wrote:
>Bob Christofferson (rech...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
Come on, folks...he meant that he made the mistake in '92. He didn't repeat that mistake
in '96.
Sheesh.
Michael
VoiceX / Nashville Telecom
AT&T/Lucent Phone Systems w/o the AT&T/Lucent price
1-888-2-VOICE-X
Henry H Hansteen
Kim (2132...@msu.edu) wrote:
: >> Smoking on all US domestic flights is banned by Federal Law.
: >I should have know that the government would have their hands in it.
: >Sounds like another Clinton/Gore tactic.
: Except I think it's a Reagan Administration era law.
about him.
Henry
Steve Richardson
jame...@cryogen.com wrote:
: > Smoking on all US domestic flights is banned by Federal Law.
: I should have know that the government would have their hands in it.
: Sounds like another Clinton/Gore tactic.
: Somebody smack me for voting for those guys in 92. I didn't make the same
: mistake twice this past election.
Hate to break it to you, but smoking was banned on all US domestic flights
before slick willy and billary got elected.
Regards,
Steve Richardson
Indiana University
Steve Richardson
Bob Christofferson (rech...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Bob Parsons wrote:
: > I think a point has been missed here. It's not up to the airlines
: > whether or not it is a smoking, or non-smoking flight, in the US.
: >
: > Smoking on all US domestic flights is banned by Federal Law.
: You could get around that by taking two international flights, though.
Only an idiot would do that, and most international flights are going
non-smoking anyways. The only way you could smoke on a flight within the
US is if it is a charter or a private operation allowing smoking.
I'll also admit that I am a smoker working on quitting -- and hopefully
this time it will be for good. I'll even be the first to admit it is a
nasty addiction, and I was stupid for starting in the first place. Once
you're hooked, it's hard to stop. I for one am in favor of all flights
being non-smoking - air quality is bad enough as it is on aircraft.
If any other smokers are out there reading this .. next time you light up,
find something that is clean and white such as a paper towel, napkin, or
some kind of fabric. When you exhale, exhale through the white fabric,
look at the color and see how nasty it is.
ed hooks
> Airlines) , I think I should at least have a designated smoking area.
Slowly, smoking is being banned on all flights everywhere. The
problem is, of course, that smoking sections on airplanes are a joke.
The air is recycled right through the non-smoking areas, especially in
the rear of the airplane. You get fresher air in First Class. The
airlines could put in more powerful air-scrubbers, but I have read
that they don't want to spend the money. Smokers will still have to
fly, even if they can't smoke. If smokers actually boycotted the
airlines, you might get some help. But, as I say, all the airlines
are the same. This is not a good time in history to be a smoker.
Ed Hooks
Lesley
In article <5sdhop$d...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>, dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU
says...
>P.S. I ommitted to mention that I am an asthmatic (like thousands of
others).
traveler-1
Lesley <les...@powerup.com.au> wrote in article
<5sot8t$927$2...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
> True story coming up, it happened to me. I paid for a first class seat to
> Stockholm and return and asked for a non-smoking flight. On the return
> trip two pilots who were paxing smoked all the way from Stockholm to
> Sydney. I requested the purser ask they stop; They didn't. My lung
> capacity went from normal to 12% doctor's respiratory
> test revealed an hour after landing. Felt very ill when disembarking
> from plane. Took lots of medication and time to fix up. Please folks, if
> it's a smoking aircraft fine, but not on a non smoking aircraft, be
> considerate.
>
>
No smoking restrictions DO NOT apply to pilots. For safety reason they can
smok even on non smoking fligths legally. That keeps them awake. After all
it is better to go a doctor, then be a host of your own funeral.
Bogdan.
bdi...@usa.net
On 12 Aug 1997 14:12:37 GMT "traveler-1" <trave...@MCIONE.com> wrote:
[ snipped ]
:>No smoking restrictions DO NOT apply to pilots. For safety reason they can
:>smok even on non smoking fligths legally. That keeps them awake. After all
:>it is better to go a doctor, then be a host of your own funeral.
Do the no amphetamines / no cocaine / no crack rules also not apply to pilots?
After all these will keep them awake as well!
:>Bogdan.
--
Binyami...@theoffice.net
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Malcolm Weir
On 12 Aug 1997 14:12:37 GMT, "traveler-1" <trave...@MCIONE.com> caused to
appear as if it was written:
>Lesley <les...@powerup.com.au> wrote in article
><5sot8t$927$2...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
>> True story coming up, it happened to me. I paid for a first class seat to
>
>> Stockholm and return and asked for a non-smoking flight. On the return
>> trip two pilots who were paxing smoked all the way from Stockholm to
>> Sydney. I requested the purser ask they stop; They didn't. My lung
>> capacity went from normal to 12% doctor's respiratory
>> test revealed an hour after landing. Felt very ill when disembarking
>> from plane. Took lots of medication and time to fix up. Please folks, if
>
>> it's a smoking aircraft fine, but not on a non smoking aircraft, be
>> considerate.
>No smoking restrictions DO NOT apply to pilots. For safety reason they can
>smok even on non smoking fligths legally. That keeps them awake. After all
>it is better to go a doctor, then be a host of your own funeral.
This is untrue. Smoking is not prohibited by law on the flight deck, but
elsewhere on the plane the normal rules (are supposed to) apply.
However, many airlines have their own policies regarding smoking on the
flight deck. Usually, these may be summarised as... "Don't".
>Bogdan.
Malc.
Steve Work
traveler-1 (trave...@MCIONE.com) wrote:
: >
: No smoking restrictions DO NOT apply to pilots. For safety reason they can
: smok even on non smoking fligths legally. That keeps them awake. After all
: it is better to go a doctor, then be a host of your own funeral.
Certainly they aren't allowed to smoke unless the plane is above a
certain altitide. I think for safety's sake they'd need both their hands
fully available for the controls during takeoffs and landings. Is this
altitude the same one (i.e. 10,000 feet or thereabouts) where "sterile
cockpit" rules apply?
Lesley
True story coming up, it happened to me. I paid for a first class seat to
Phil Witt
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:29:53 GMT, cli...@netcom.com (Cliff Roberson)
wrote:
> Give one example of such an instrument. Just name the instrument.
That would be the dim-bulb Nicometer, Cliff.
Cliff Roberson
Richard B Dervan (REMOVE-M...@abraxis.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:56:32 GMT, ma...@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) wrote:
: >On 12 Aug 1997 14:12:37 GMT, "traveler-1" <trave...@MCIONE.com> caused to
: >appear as if it was written:
: >
: >This is untrue. Smoking is not prohibited by law on the flight deck, but
: >elsewhere on the plane the normal rules (are supposed to) apply.
: >
: >However, many airlines have their own policies regarding smoking on the
: >flight deck. Usually, these may be summarised as... "Don't".
: As a private pilot, I can tell you of numerous articles I have read that
: particles exhaled by a smoker as long as a HOUR after smoking can have a
: detrimental effect on sensitive equipment in the cockpit. While this may not
: be as critical on modern airliners with CRT displays as primary instruments,
: it is food for thought....
: -Richard
Give one example of such an instrument. Just name the instrument.
--
Politically correct signature that does not rouse the
anti-whatever hysterics to spit-bubble-blowing frenzy.
cli...@netcom.com
John B. Aponte
Well im sure you will happy to learn that RIC will shortly have
designated smoking area with enforcecment.
Now if we could only get the aiport to ban all the food and drinks in
the terminals we would be set.
Bob Webbink wrote:
>
> dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU (Man on the Edge) writes:
>
> >NoS...@cryogen.com (NoS...@cryogen.com) wisely said:
> >>And one more thing. Atlanta and Washington Dulles makes you "walk a
> >>mile for a camel" to a designated smoking area. I thought about firing
> >>one up in the hallway. Bunch of cretains.
>
> >Please do fire one up in the hallway. Perhaps you won't learn until
> >you get fined and/or arrested.
>
> Personally, the worst I have experienced lately was Richmond, VA. People
> there would blatantly ignore the "no smoking" signs and light up just about
> anywhere. The entire airport reeked of cigarette smoke. The 2 best places
> I have been recently have been LAX and STL. The Terminal TWA is in at LAX
> has an outdoor lounge which smokers are allowed into, so you don't get anyone
> smoking anywhere inside the building. And STL has smoking booths installed now
> where smokers are enclosed in a separately ventilated glass cage within the
> normal terminal, so they are put on display breathing their toxins and looking
> like a bunch of caged rats. I have a hard time not laughing every time I pass
> it, with all those people acting so stupidly.
>
> >--
> >All the busy little creatures
> >Chasing out their destinies
> >Living in their pools
> >They soon forget about the sea...
> > Neil Peart, 1980
> --
> ******************************************************************************
> Bob Webbink bweb...@cco.caltech.edu
> California Institute of Technology bweb...@ugcs.caltech.edu
> *****************************************************************************
--
John Sion on IRC Tenerezu on AOL
For me there is only the travelling on paths that have heart,
on any path that may have heart. There I travel, and the only
worthwhile challenge is to traverse its full length. And there
I travel looking, looking, breathlessly.
Juan Matus
Man on the Edge
"John B. Aponte" <cyn...@earthlink.net> wisely said:
>Well im sure you will happy to learn that RIC will shortly have
>designated smoking area with enforcecment.
>
>Now if we could only get the aiport to ban all the food and drinks in
>the terminals we would be set.
ALL humans need food and drink in order to survive. And I have yet to
meet a single person who considers eating by itself to be a disgusting
and unhealthy habit. Hardly compares to smoking.
Max
Cliff Roberson
Richard D. (REMOVE-M...@abraxis.com) wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: Hash: SHA1
: On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:29:53 GMT, cli...@netcom.com (Cliff Roberson) wrote:
: >Richard B Dervan (REMOVE-M...@abraxis.com) wrote:
: >: On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:56:32 GMT, ma...@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) wrote:
: >
: >: >On 12 Aug 1997 14:12:37 GMT, "traveler-1" <trave...@MCIONE.com> caused
: to
: >: >appear as if it was written:
: >: >
: >: >This is untrue. Smoking is not prohibited by law on the flight deck, but
: >: >elsewhere on the plane the normal rules (are supposed to) apply.
: >: >
: >: >However, many airlines have their own policies regarding smoking on the
: >: >flight deck. Usually, these may be summarised as... "Don't".
: >
: >: As a private pilot, I can tell you of numerous articles I have read that
: >: particles exhaled by a smoker as long as a HOUR after smoking can have a
: >: detrimental effect on sensitive equipment in the cockpit.
: >
: >: -Richard
: >
: > Give one example of such an instrument. Just name the instrument.
: If I remember correctly, one that was mentioned was the heading indicator,
: which uses a gyro. The rate of turn indicator may have been another. The
: last article I read on it was about a year ago in either "Flying" or "Private
: Pilot."
: In any event, people flying with me will not smoke. The cabin of a Cessna is
: a little too small for comfort.
: - -Richard
Thanks for the polite reply.
Actually, I was sort of tired when I asked my question and it came
out both more combative than it should have been and didn't get at my
real point.
Let me say right away that what you want in your own plane is your
business and no one else's and that's the way it should be.
But as to instruments being very delicate I have my doubts. After
over thirty years of seeing warnings in computer rooms and installations
large and small I have never seen nor heard of one credible case of
equipment or matrials being damaged by incidental smoke -- even in
the places where nobody gave a damn about no smoking.
I've seen many a sign showing things like the relative size of
a particle of cigarette ash and a track on a tape or disk but never
a case of damage. Nor any damage to delicate bearings nor any
pther moving parts from tar in the air.
I have seen some funny cases of damage. An expensive plastic disk
pack burned clean thru with an individual-cup coffee-heating coil.
Thr frequent cola or coffe in the keyboard. Even a ham sandwich
fallen into an unprotected air conditioning intake, jamming the
compressor. Or a screwdriver dropped into a rotating drum and
sent flying to embed itself an inch deep into a wall.
You say maybe a gyro-dependent indicator, but these days and
for a long time since those things have been completely sealed. No
ouside air can get in at all into one that has not been broken
or otherwise damaged, so far as I know.
And as to something that a person could exhale or have slough
off their skin or clothing more than an hour after smoking, that
simply seems damned near inconceivable. Wouldn't damage from a
sneeze or a flake of dandruff or even hair tonic with its aromatic
oils be just as likely to damage something?
Only if a cockpit were as cleanliness-critical as a semiconductor
wafer fab clean room would damage in such a case be likely. And if
that were the case I would think that airline pilots should be
dressed up in funny little bunny outfits just as workers are in
clean rooms.
The above is what I should have said the first time in support
of asking you just what instrument can be so extremely sensitive.
Best regards, thanks for the reply, tell me more if you can,
and I think I will out of curiosity pursue the references you
gave if I can. I'm truly curious about it. The thing is that what I
suspect is that the idea is just a myth, with no more basis than
the widely accepted belief that one can get AIDs from shaking hands
or syphilis from a toilet seat.
Did you hear that smoking attracts gremlins even hours after
smoking? It is rumored that the true cause of the crash of flight
800 was that one of the pilots had smoked during the year before
the crash. But I don't believe it.
Steve George
In article <cliffrEE...@netcom.com>, cli...@netcom.com (Cliff
Roberson) wrote:
(snip, see orig)
>
> I've seen many a sign showing things like the relative size of
> a particle of cigarette ash and a track on a tape or disk but never
> a case of damage. Nor any damage to delicate bearings nor any
> other moving parts from tar in the air.
>
The watchword for critical applications (like planes) is that anything
"vulnerable" to smoke is LIKEWISE vulnerable to air, including both
humidity and dust, which includes magnetic particles that can accumulate
more quickly, etc. So hard disks are sealed from outside air,
"environmental-grade" boards are dipped, and the like. Someone who used
"substandard" equipment when better was availible could easily be in for a
raft of suits.
The computer warnings so often used really are funny, as many of us
"engineers and programmers" smoked by the machines all the time in
Aerospace work (where we added hardware for special systems ourselves, and
wrote the code, etc). My own "home" system now has been through nearly a
decade with me puffing right beside it, a small fan venting towards the
door, with most the original hardware still working well. I did have
problems with a more recently added DAT (tape) unit, so I keep it put away
except when I briefly use it for larger-scale (secondary) backups. I
would NEVER rely on it solely, NOR even leave it hooked up continually
now, given these *various* air-vulnerability problems it appears possibly
susceptible to. For example, I have to windex the fine dust and "black
magnetics" off the monitors and TV about every couple or few days or so.
Yeah, I don't like problems like this, but they're pretty rare. I'd HARDY
imagine flying people on 'em, etc, etc(!).
Steve G
John B. Aponte
Man on the Edge wrote:
>
> "John B. Aponte" <cyn...@earthlink.net> wisely said:
> >Well im sure you will happy to learn that RIC will shortly have
> >designated smoking area with enforcecment.
> >
> >Now if we could only get the aiport to ban all the food and drinks in
> >the terminals we would be set.
>
> ALL humans need food and drink in order to survive. And I have yet to
> meet a single person who considers eating by itself to be a disgusting
> and unhealthy habit. Hardly compares to smoking.
>
> Max
Keith Lynch
In article <cliffrEE...@netcom.com>,
Cliff Roberson <cli...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Let me say right away that what you want in your own plane is your
> business and no one else's and that's the way it should be.
I agree, so long as any adult passengers have given informed consent,
no children are on board, and there's no risk to those on the ground.
> But as to instruments being very delicate I have my doubts.
> After over thirty years of seeing warnings in computer rooms and
> installations large and small I have never seen nor heard of one
> credible case of equipment or matrials being damaged by incidental
> smoke ...
I have. I've seen numerous removable disk packs and their disk drives
crashed. After we discovered that the night operator was smoking on
the job, and fired him, the problem ended. But not until well over
$100,000 damage was done.
> I have seen some funny cases of damage. An expensive plastic disk
> pack burned clean thru with an individual-cup coffee-heating coil. ...
Yes, things can be damaged from causes unrelated to smoking. So?
> You say maybe a gyro-dependent indicator, but these days and
> for a long time since those things have been completely sealed.
Wrong. They need air holes to equalize the inside and outside
pressure as the plane ascends or descends. There are filters on the
air holes, but smoke particles are small enough to get through the
filters.
> Wouldn't damage from a sneeze or a flake of dandruff or even hair
> tonic with its aromatic oils be just as likely to damage something?
Sneeze and dandruff particles are much too large to fit through the
filters. Aromatic oil vapors are not particles. (Or rather, the
particles are single molecules, too small to do damage).
> Only if a cockpit were as cleanliness-critical as a semiconductor
> wafer fab clean room would damage in such a case be likely.
No. A semiconductor can be ruined by *one* smoke particle. But a
small poorly ventilated place where people routinely smoke is exposed
to literally *quadrillions* of particles. Even if each one does
negligible damage, it adds up. I've seen electric motors in house
fans and vacuum cleaners that were jammed by cigarette smoke. I've
seen TV sets and computer keyboards that were shorted out by cigarette
smoke.
It's not just delicate high-tech equipment that's at risk. It's just
that nobody much cares if a TV set or vacuum cleaner breaks. Not so
with life-critical avionics.
> Did you hear that smoking attracts gremlins even hours after
> smoking? It is rumored that the true cause of the crash of flight
> 800 was that one of the pilots had smoked during the year before the
> crash. But I don't believe it.
I'm sure everyone will be so convinced by that paragraph, that that
obviously absurd idea is what non-smokers really believe, that the
cause of non-smoking will be set back by 40 years, and children will
all be required to start smoking in kindergarten. Congratulations
for this brilliant ploy. One which nobody in all history has ever
thought of trying before. Perhaps it will be named after you. Your
name isn't "straw man" by any chance, is it?
--
Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I boycott all spammers.
Bruce Watson
In article <33EA1EFA...@osu.edu>,
Warren Baltimore <balti...@osu.edu> wrote:
>jame...@cryogen.com wrote:
>
>> I should have know that the government would have their hands in it.
>> Sounds like another Clinton/Gore tactic.
>>
>> Somebody smack me for voting for those guys in 92. I didn't make the
>> same mistake twice this past election.
>
>edge with this stupid argument.
>
>I have been reading this with amusement since the first post, but now I
>feel I need to jump in with both feet. Smoking was banned on domestic
>flights in the US some time ago, in fact I think that it was a law that
>was rather intelligently enacted under the Reagan/Bush administration.
1987: Congress bans smoking on domestic flights of less than two hours.
Takes effect in 1988.
1990-01-01: Smoking is banned on all domestic flights of less than 6
hours, except to Alaska or Hawaii.
Clinton took office on Jan 20, 1993.
Cliff Roberson
Steve George (stge...@amug.org) wrote:
: In article <cliffrEE...@netcom.com>, cli...@netcom.com (Cliff
: Roberson) wrote:
: Steve G
Yes. I know. Me, too.
John Moran
Distribution:
I will not fly on an airline tht permits smoking. I like to make sure smokers stay in their zone. I don't smoke and am allergic to smoke..when I get near it, my eyes and stomach get really irritated. If you read any TOXICOLOGY books you find that there's lots of bad stuff in cigarettes and cigarette smoke.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN/PHX (jam...@analon.com) Unix, Computing and making good Chemistry
vi..my favorite text editor (:
>Don't send junk/spam mail, I get that stuff in duplicate. When I see<
>two or more messages from the same, They go straight to bit bucket! <
if responding to a usenet post send e-mail also so I will check the group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Parsons
Cliff Roberson wrote:
> July, 1997. It was announced that the number of medical incidents
> on flights of U. S. airlines (not any other country's) had increased
> tenfold in the last ten years.
>
> A medical incident is one that requires a doctor's ministrations
> during or immediately after a flight.
>
> Marvelous coincidence? Or just another illustration of the wisdom
> of the great folks in Washington?
>
> Thanks, big Ron! Thanks, macho George!
>
> All those extra sick people thank you. Their families thank you.
> Medical emergency stations thank you and the AMA thanks you for the
> business. Everything is much better now.
>
> With the protection of government like that, all medical problems
> in the United States will soon be solved. Everyone will be dead!
> --
> Politically correct signature that does not rouse the
> anti-whatever hysterics to spit-bubble-blowing frenzy.
> cli...@netcom.com
Please cite your source. Who *announced* it? RJR?
--
Bob Parsons
walvrus
In article <5t4580$5ug$1...@news.goodnet.com>, jam...@mail.goodnet.com (John
Moran) wrote:
> Distribution:
> I will not fly on an airline tht permits smoking. I like to make sure
smokers stay in their zone. I don't smoke and am allergic to smoke..when I
get near it, my eyes and stomach get really irritated. If you read any
TOXICOLOGY books you find that there's lots of bad stuff in cigarettes and
cigarette smoke.
>
>
Stop lying, there is no bad stuff only good stuff, you are a fool
Cliff Roberson
Bruce Watson (anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <33EA1EFA...@osu.edu>,
July, 1997. It was announced that the number of medical incidents
Cliff Roberson
Keith Lynch,
YOU CAREFULLY SNIPPED OUT THE FOLLOWING FROM MY POST:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >: As a private pilot, I can tell you of numerous articles I have read that
: >: particles exhaled by a smoker as long as a HOUR after smoking can have a
: >: detrimental effect on sensitive equipment in the cockpit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was that statement that I said I found incredible!
Now as for your other stuff:
Keith Lynch (k...@clark.net) wrote:
: In article <cliffrEE...@netcom.com>,
: Cliff Roberson <cli...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I agree, so long as any adult passengers have given informed consent,
>no children are on board, and there's no risk to those on the ground.
>
Children are of no concern. Their lungs are much more resilient
and resistant than those of adults. Cigarette smoke is no danger to
either adults or children if it is not thick enough to hold a spoon
upright.
I'm not talking about any plane of mine, anyway.
>I have. I've seen numerous removable disk packs and their disk drives
>crashed. After we discovered that the night operator was smoking on
>the job, and fired him, the problem ended. But not until well over
>$100,000 damage was done.
>
You may have seen some disk crashes. Who did the microscopic
analysis to determine that cigarette smoke caused any crashes? Did
any ever crash for non-smoking related causes?
Perhaps smoking against the rules was not the man's only fault.
Perhaps he did not follow some other rules. Do you terminate
employee's for a single transgression of your rules? Have
you ever broken a rule? Or do you just like to exercise power?
The last time I saw a removable disk pack was 1986. It was not in
a sealed case. It was functioning. Smoking was allowed.
>> I have seen some funny cases of damage. An expensive plastic disk
>> pack burned clean thru with an individual-cup coffee-heating coil. ...
>
>Yes, things can be damaged from causes unrelated to smoking. So?
>
So I have seen lots of damage from non-smoking causes and none
from smoking that I know of.
Why does such damage seem to be reported only by places that have
no-smoking? Why is there so much damage from smoking at places with
non-smoking? Is it just coincidence, or is it sometimes a convenient
way to get rid of an unwanted employee?
>> You say maybe a gyro-dependent indicator, but these days and
>> for a long time since those things have been completely sealed.
>
>Wrong. They need air holes to equalize the inside and outside
>pressure as the plane ascends or descends. There are filters on the
>air holes, but smoke particles are small enough to get through the
>filters.
>
Now look at the first part of this post!
Who said we were talking about smoke? The smoking occurred at
least an hour before the flight outside the air craft. Or didn't you
see that?
>> Wouldn't damage from a sneeze or a flake of dandruff or even hair
>> tonic with its aromatic oils be just as likely to damage something?
>
>Sneeze and dandruff particles are much too large to fit through the
>filters. Aromatic oil vapors are not particles. (Or rather, the
>particles are single molecules, too small to do damage).
>
I take it that it is your theory that cigarette smoke and only
cigarette smoke contains particles that are just the precise size
needed to damage these incredible instruments you speak of. Burned
airliner fuel could never affect anything.
Oil is a contaminant. Look at your comb. Look down your greasy
nose, which should be easy for you. Look at your snake.
Perhaps random oil is not a contaminant in a gyroscope? Perhaps
airborne oil will not settle on a gyroscope. Do gyroscopes have
"sealed bearings", just like disks? What is the part of a gyroscope
that gunks up enough to throw it off if it is not the bearings?
>> Only if a cockpit were as cleanliness-critical as a semiconductor
>> wafer fab clean room would damage in such a case be likely.
>
>No. A semiconductor can be ruined by *one* smoke particle. But a
>small poorly ventilated place where people routinely smoke is exposed
>to literally *quadrillions* of particles. Even if each one does
No. No. No. Only those exhaled by a person who smoked an hour
before the flight, who we can presume is not aiming his breath at
the gyros, which are behind solid panels. No one said anything about
a place where people routinely smoke.
Or maybe those particles leap off a person as O. J. Simpson's blood
leapt the length of a twenty-foot table in a police lab. Which
leapers then sneak through whatever holes there are in the protective
panels covering the instruments.
>negligible damage, it adds up. I've seen electric motors in house
>fans and vacuum cleaners that were jammed by cigarette smoke. I've
>seen TV sets and computer keyboards that were shorted out by cigarette
>smoke.
>
That's laughable. Where would YOU see that? I'm sure it has never
happened in YOUR pristine house. Do you inspect your friends' fans,
vacuum cleaners, TV sets, and computer keyboards for a little extra
income, or just for fun?
Are vacuum cleaners damaged by cigarette smoke and not fine dust,
such as the talcum powder on all the youngsters round your place?
How much would you pay to have a computer keyboard examined to
see why it expired?
I have a 17-year-old MGA doing just fine. My wife and I are
pack-and-a-half-a-day-or-more smokers. There is no air conditioning.
What is wrong with the set that it hasn't shorted out yet? How
come none of the 9 or so computers I've had at home since 1984
has ever had a hard disk of any type expire? Nor any floppy disk
drive? And all board failures were burned-out chips?
(Floppy disks themselves don't count. They often don't work
fresh from the box.)
>It's not just delicate high-tech equipment that's at risk. It's just
>that nobody much cares if a TV set or vacuum cleaner breaks. Not so
>with life-critical avionics.
>
I do. But if no one that you know cares about it, how do you know
that smoke has ever done any of them in?
>> Did you hear that smoking attracts gremlins even hours after
>> smoking? It is rumored that the true cause of the crash of flight
>> 800 was that one of the pilots had smoked during the year before the
>> crash. But I don't believe it.
>
>I'm sure everyone will be so convinced by that paragraph, that that
>obviously absurd idea is what non-smokers really believe, that the
Sadly, many anti-s will accept it as gospel, just as you say.
>cause of non-smoking will be set back by 40 years, and children will
>all be required to start smoking in kindergarten. Congratulations
There would be no reason for that, unless you wanted gremlins in
school with the children.
>for this brilliant ploy. One which nobody in all history has ever
Thank you, but it is not a ploy. it is a joy.
>thought of trying before. Perhaps it will be named after you. Your
>name isn't "straw man" by any chance, is it?
"My name is Legion: for we are many." We make swine mad.
Your arguments have not convinced me that smoke particles float
around in the free air space in a smoker's lungs for hours after smoking.
They are not so persistent as the bats in your belfry, nor is there
so much air space.
Nor have you convinced me that there is any instrument on earth
or in the sky that will be damaged by exhalations from a person who
smoked a cigarette an hour or more previously.
Cliff Roberson
Bob Parsons (re...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Cliff Roberson wrote:
: > July, 1997. It was announced that the number of medical incidents
: > on flights of U. S. airlines (not any other country's) had increased
: > tenfold in the last ten years.
: >
: > A medical incident is one that requires a doctor's ministrations
: > during or immediately after a flight.
: >
: > Marvelous coincidence? Or just another illustration of the wisdom
: > of the great folks in Washington?
: >
: > Thanks, big Ron! Thanks, macho George!
: >
: > All those extra sick people thank you. Their families thank you.
: > Medical emergency stations thank you and the AMA thanks you for the
: > business. Everything is much better now.
: >
: > With the protection of government like that, all medical problems
: > in the United States will soon be solved. Everyone will be dead!
: > --
: > Politically correct signature that does not rouse the
: > anti-whatever hysterics to spit-bubble-blowing frenzy.
: > cli...@netcom.com
: Please cite your source. Who *announced* it? RJR?
: --
: Bob Parsons
Actually, the ultimate source was the FAA. I first saw it in
Newsweek Magazine, which does not have a web site. I also saw it
in the San Jose Mercury News. I recalled the figure as being tenfold,
but perhaps it should only have been five.
It took some time to find the following pieces on the internet.
Do not ask me for more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Chicago Tribune, SURVIVAL IN THE SKY FAA: In-flight medical
emergencies increasing>, By John Crewdson, Saturday, May 10, 1997
(date posted on web):
.... omission
"From 1990 through 1993, the nine U.S. airlines participating in the
FAA study, which carried 65 percent of domestic air travelers,
recorded more than 14,000 medical emergencies, or an average of about
10 a day.
"If the experience of the non-participating airlines carrying the
remaining 35 percent of passengers was similar, there would have been
at least 15 such emergencies a day nationwide during those years --
nearly one an hour between 6 a.m. and midnight, when most airlines are
flying.
"The new figures are several times higher than the two to three
emergencies a day reported in a decade-old FAA study, conducted
between 1986 and 1988, that is still widely cited by the airline
industry.
"It was not possible to calculate from the data provided by the
participating airlines how often such emergencies resulted in death,
according to Dr. Jerry Hordinsky of the FAA's Civil Aeromedical
Institute, the senior researcher in the study.
"Nor does the study indicate the rate of increase for specific types of
medical emergencies studied, which ranged from diarrhea and vomiting
to heart attacks and cardiac arrest.
"However, data from five of the nine airlines suggested that, in
addition to increasing in frequency, in-flight illnesses are also
becoming more serious. While 73 percent of sick passengers were
admitted to hospitals following an emergency landing in 1992, in 1993
the figure rose to 88 percent.
"The nine participating airlines include United, American, Delta,
Continental and US Airways, formerly known as USAir. The only major
carriers not participating were TWA and Northwest Airlines.
... omission
The study's most surprising finding -- that airline passengers carried
by eight of the nine participating airlines got sick in flight twice
as often in 1993 as in 1990 -- was independent of any increase in the
number of passengers those airlines carried.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In NEW SCIENTIST, 7 June 1997, we have "The real reason to fear
flying", by Wilson da Silva:
"More airline passengers are dying from heart attacks and other medical
emergencies than in plane crashes. The latest figures from the US Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) suggest that the number of in-flight medical
emergencies has doubled in the past decade.
The FAA's data show that there are 14 000 medical emergencies each year
on the nine major US airlines, which carry 65 per cent of all passengers
flown by American carriers. Applied across all airlines in the US, this is
equivalent to 15 emergencies a day--at least five times the number found
in the last FAA study, between 1986 and 1988, which revealed an average of
two to three emergencies a day on US airlines."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New York Times, June 11, 1997, BUSINESS TRAVEL:MAGAZINE ON
AIRLINE HEALTH EMERGENCIES, By EDWIN McDOWELL, states
"London's New Scientist magazine has kicked up a stir in its
current issue with an article declaring that on United States
carriers, "More <*airline*> passengers are dying from heart
attacks and other <*medical*> emergencies than in plane crashes."
"According to the magazine, using data that the Federal
Aviation Administration released in February, there are about
14,000 <*medical*> emergencies each year on the major U.S. <
airlines*> -- an average, when applied to all U.S. <*airlines*>,
equivalent to 15 in-flight emergencies a day. This is at least
five times the number found in the previous FAA study, between
1986 and 1987.
"Over all, the magazine reported, an estimated 350 passengers
die each year aboard U.S. carriers, compared with an average
of 118 passengers a year who have died in air crashes in this
country since 1978."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New York Times, July 6, 1997, PRACTICAL TRAVELER / By BETSY WADE,
states under subtitle "In-Flight Emergencies Are Up",
"A study by the Civil Aeromedical Institute in February
compared two sets of figures, based on incomplete and
disparate data. On United States <*airlines*>' domestic flights
over two years in the late 80's, there were 2,322 in-flight
emergencies, or about three a day. The diversion rate in the
emergencies was put at 9 percent. A study from 1990 to 1993,
three years, showed 14,334 emergencies aboard nine <*airlines*>,
which was extrapolated to show a rate of 15 in-flight
emergencies a day and a diversion rate of 8 percent. This
indicates a roughly fivefold rise in emergencies, and a
relatively steady rate of diversions in relationship to the
emergencies."
Anton Johnson
traveler-1 wrote:
>
> Lesley <les...@powerup.com.au> wrote in article
> <5sot8t$927$2...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
>
> > trip two pilots who were paxing smoked all the way from Stockholm to
> > Sydney. I requested the purser ask they stop; They didn't. My lung
> > capacity went from normal to 12% doctor's respiratory
> > test revealed an hour after landing. Felt very ill when disembarking
> > from plane. Took lots of medication and time to fix up. Please folks, if
>
> > it's a smoking aircraft fine, but not on a non smoking aircraft, be
> > considerate.
> >
> >
> it is better to go a doctor, then be a host of your own funeral.
Greetings,
Since when are pilots allowed to smoke? Can you provide the regulation
that allows them to smoke in the cockpit of the aircraft??
I have never heard of such a statement in all the years that I was a
pilot. There are much better ways for one to remain awake over tobacco
--
Have a great day! Anton Johnson, Communications Consultant
Visit Our Web Page http://www.faststep.com
You can earn an income giving away free web pages.
Full details available at http://www.freeyellow.com/members/johnson
Anton Johnson
Steve Work wrote:
>
> traveler-1 (trave...@MCIONE.com) wrote:
> : >
> : No smoking restrictions DO NOT apply to pilots. For safety reason they can
> : it is better to go a doctor, then be a host of your own funeral.
>
> certain altitide. I think for safety's sake they'd need both their hands
> fully available for the controls during takeoffs and landings. Is this
> altitude the same one (i.e. 10,000 feet or thereabouts) where "sterile
> cockpit" rules apply?
a new term to me. I can tell you this is that any smoking rules or
regulations will be governed by the individual airlines that are above
and beyond those allowed by individual governments. Any flight (may be
a few exceptions) in the United States are a no smoking flight if they
are over 6 hours duration. What does altitude have to do with a
pilot/crew smoking or not smoking? When I was in flight training one
had to be in a pressurized cabin or on oxygen when flying. At that time
even with a pressurized cabin a crew member had to be on oxygen if the
other crew members were not seated and ready to take control of the
aircraft.
Chris Nevins
Steve Work <slw...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<slworkEE...@netcom.com>...
> traveler-1 (trave...@MCIONE.com) wrote:
> : >
> : No smoking restrictions DO NOT apply to pilots. For safety reason they
can
> : smok even on non smoking fligths legally. That keeps them awake. After
all
> : it is better to go a doctor, then be a host of your own funeral.
>
What in the world are you smoking???!!!??? I have to admit, you did give me
a good laugh. I can just imagine the look on my captain's face if I pulled
out a pack of butts and offered him one.
While there are no FAR's specific to smoking on the flight deck common
sence does dictate (not to mention at my company that would be grounds for
termination).
traveler-1
Chris Nevins <nev...@pop.southeast.net> wrote in article
<01bcacf1$2331e6e0$f2c8...@nevins.southeast.net>...
> What in the world are you smoking???!!!??? I have to admit, you did give
me
> a good laugh. I can just imagine the look on my captain's face if I
pulled
> out a pack of butts and offered him one.
>
> While there are no FAR's specific to smoking on the flight deck common
> sence does dictate (not to mention at my company that would be grounds
for
> termination).
>
>
You just answered this question. There is no restriction for a pilots by
law. Your company may do so, but this is a different story.
--
Bogdan.
trave...@mcione.com
There is only one life - so, use it or loose it.
mar...@ix.netcom.com
Ewww, who'd want to smoke in a plane anyhow? As if it isn't stuffy
enough! :P
In <01bcad72$734c79c0$693937a6@default> "traveler-1"
Steve Work
Chris Nevins (nev...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
: While there are no FAR's specific to smoking on the flight deck common
: sence does dictate (not to mention at my company that would be grounds for
: termination).
This sounds like what would be the case in the US. But what about the
rest of the world, a lot of other countries have a lot more relaxed view
about smoking.
Dennis
On 20 Aug 1997 12:31:01 -0700, dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU (Man on the
Edge) wrote:
>den...@cyberramp.net (Dennis) wisely said:
>>On 20 Aug 1997 17:34:01 GMT, mar...@ix.netcom.com
>>(mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>Ewww, who'd want to smoke in a plane anyhow? As if it isn't stuffy
>>>enough! :P
>>
>>well, smoking causes the airline to turn on the ventilaters which in
>>turn gives you fresher air. Fresher air than most of you have ever
>>experienced in a jet.
>>
>>If they kept smoking in a certain section, the non smoking section
>>would be clean than any section is now.
>
>Where did you get this insane idea? Perhaps they have some special
>ventilators for flatulent people too?
This non insane idea comes from the fact that jets do not run
ventilators at all or very little. They mostly recirculate.
Man on the Edge
den...@cyberramp.net (Dennis) wisely said:
>On 20 Aug 1997 12:31:01 -0700, dav...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU (Man on the
>Edge) wrote:
>>den...@cyberramp.net (Dennis) wisely said:
>>>
>>>well, smoking causes the airline to turn on the ventilaters which in
>>>turn gives you fresher air. Fresher air than most of you have ever
>>>experienced in a jet.
>>>
>>>If they kept smoking in a certain section, the non smoking section
>>>would be clean than any section is now.
>>
>>Where did you get this insane idea? Perhaps they have some special
>>ventilators for flatulent people too?
>
>This non insane idea comes from the fact that jets do not run
>ventilators at all or very little. They mostly recirculate.
The problem is that jets are not designed to completely ventilate the
air because it is so expensive. Recirculation is a middle ground
approach because it lets the airlines control costs while allowing the
passengers to breathe oxygen. If you were to pollute the air with
cigarette smoke, jets would have to use much more outside air, driving
the operating cost (and hence the price) of air travel up. I don't
want to pay for that.
Man on the Edge
den...@cyberramp.net (Dennis) wisely said:
>On 20 Aug 1997 17:34:01 GMT, mar...@ix.netcom.com
>(mar...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>Ewww, who'd want to smoke in a plane anyhow? As if it isn't stuffy
>>enough! :P
>
>turn gives you fresher air. Fresher air than most of you have ever
>experienced in a jet.
>
>If they kept smoking in a certain section, the non smoking section
>would be clean than any section is now.
Where did you get this insane idea? Perhaps they have some special
ventilators for flatulent people too?
Max
Steve Work
: Newer jets, taking advantage of the fact that they no longer have to
: be able to do that, may be so designed as to get by with the least
: air circulation that they possibly can.
: I am sure that there is no mechanical reason why. Jets fly no
: higher or faster today than they did then.
The reduced circulation has something to do with fuel efficiency. Apart
from smoke, recirculating most of the air invites transmission of all
sorts of airborne diseases. One advantage of older planes (i.e. 727) is
that they bring in more outside air than newer ones like the 757.
jla
Smoking also, believe it or not, helped the mechanics with regard to
safety. Many were sorry to see it go. (I said many...not all) When they
went to conditioned air, as opposed to fresh air, if there were leaks in
door or other seals, it could be spotted readily as there would be a stain
on the side of the aircraft from the tobacco! Believe it or not!
--
jla
jla
Or fly Alitalia...on an MD-80, the ENTIRE LEFT SIDE of the aircraft was
smoking, the right side non-smoking. Is it me, or does this make no sense
at all???
--
jla
Dennis <den...@cyberramp.net> wrote in article
<33fb563c...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 19:58:22 GMT, ma...@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Aug 1997 18:05:10 GMT, den...@cyberramp.net (Dennis) caused
to
> >appear as if it was written:
> >
> >>well, smoking causes the airline to turn on the ventilaters which in
> >>turn gives you fresher air. Fresher air than most of you have ever
> >>experienced in a jet.
> >
> >Maybe in theory, but in practice, not!
> >
> >I've travelled on many smoking flights, and the added fresh air does
little
> >to counterbalance the added fumes from the smokers.
> >
> >>If they kept smoking in a certain section, the non smoking section
> >>would be clean than any section is now.
> >
> >Take a typical three-class cabin: the last rows of first class were/are
> >smoking, the last rows of business, ditto, and the back of the main
cabin.
> >The *front* of business and the main cabin are thus overflow areas for
smoke
> >from the cabin ahead of them.
> >
> >
> >Malc.
> >
>
> Take a typical one class cabin and jam all the smokers in the rear.
>
>
Malcolm Weir
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:31:07 GMT, cli...@netcom.com (Cliff Roberson) caused
to appear as if it was written:
[ Snip ]
> Airline travel was much more enjoyable years ago. And not because
>smoking was allowed. The air was better. The food was better. Etc.
And the numbers on the tickets were better... if you were an airline or
travel agent.
You gets what you pays for, and people don't *want* better food, etc. Sure,
they'd *like* it, but when did you last hear someone turn down a $29 fare
because they didn't get a gourmet meal?
Malc.
Cliff Roberson
Malcolm Weir (ma...@mci2000.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:31:07 GMT, cli...@netcom.com (Cliff Roberson) caused
: [ Snip ]
: Malc.
That's a valid point. Many will not need or care for food, especially
on shorter hops.
But on the other hand my last flight on Continental netted a small
apple and a tossaway cookie sample as "breakfast". Cheap, cheap, cheap.
nit...@worldnet.att.net
Anyone have any idea how many Years we could Smoke on Airliners.. this
is strictly a political isssue. In 50+ Years of Flying I've never seen
one go down due to smoking unless it was Freighter carring volatile
Cargo. I fly over-seas a lot each Year, will only book on a Carrier that
is not intimated by the Zealots.
Donald E. Scott
The smoking ban on airplanes is not so much in consideration of the
safety of the plane but rather a concern for the health of the
passengers forced to inhale second hand smoke. I don't think one is any
more of a zealot to want uncontaminated air on planes than to want
uncontaminated food or water.
Annis Scott
Roman Sionus
Ill SHOW you a Zealot! You just light up on MY flight !
Dan Peduzzi
Very succinctly and well put.
One is no more a zealot than a Nazi or a fascist, either.
But deprive hard-core smokers of their beloved vice,
and you've earned the title forever.
================================================================
Daniel C. Peduzzi
(work) (personal)
MIT Lincoln Laboratory ped...@ma.ultranet.com
ped...@ll.mit.edu http://www.ultranet.com/~peduzzi
================================================================
Richard Bigelow
We aren't zealots in the sense of pursuing an issue regardless of fact
and reason. We just want to be allowed to spend a few hours in an
airplane without the esthetic and health impact of someone's
addiction. Both my parents died of smoking related disease. Perhaps
you should seek help in fighting your addiction, instead of keeping on
offending others and making pathetic non-sequiturs to justify your
being hooked tighter than a coke-head.
What do you fly anyway? Air Albania?
Man on the Edge
nit...@worldnet.att.net wisely said:
>Anyone have any idea how many Years we could Smoke on Airliners.. this
>is strictly a political isssue. In 50+ Years of Flying I've never seen
>one go down due to smoking unless it was Freighter carring volatile
>Cargo. I fly over-seas a lot each Year, will only book on a Carrier that
>is not intimated by the Zealots.
Well, I sure hope you're close to retirement cause you won't be able
to find a smoking airline much longer. Even many of the airlines that
currently allow smoking have stated that their eventual goal is to be
completely smoke-free. In another 50 years, I am willing to bet you
that you won't be able to fly ANYWHERE from the US on a smoking
flight. Have fun giving yourself cancer.
Mix
In article <5u6jcv$fjmATa3bsrv.nai.net> Richard Bigelow <cooncat1ATct2.nai.net> wrote:
> We aren't zealots in the sense of pursuing an issue regardless of fact
> and reason.
You're zealots in the sense that you're pursuing an
issue thousands of times more intensely then it deserves?
> We
Anti-smokers - non-irrational, emotionally driven zealots that is -
always say 'we'.
> just want to be allowed to spend a few hours in an
> airplane without the esthetic
I've always prayed for the federal government to regulate esthetic
issues...
> and health impact of someone's addiction.
Why just the other day some drunken slob punched a hostess on
a flight. Do you think it was the half Coke they gave him?
> Both my parents died of smoking related disease.
From flying or from - oh, I don't know - smoking perhaps?
> Perhaps you should seek help in fighting your addiction,
Perhaps you should seek counceling for facing your loss?
> instead of keeping on offending others
Offending others is OK for a good cause I hear.
> and making pathetic non-sequiturs to justify your
> being hooked tighter than a coke-head.
Are tight coke-heads also a violation of esthetics?
> What do you fly anyway? Air Albania?
What do you fly? Air Jesus Christ Come Again?
John Williams
are you for real?
Steve George
In article <341052...@znet.org>, John Williams <nos...@znet.org> wrote:
> are you for real?
(Anyone in particular..??)
playad...@gmail.com
> NoS...@cryogen.com wrote:
> >
> > Are there any airlines that allow smoking on their planes?
>
> Singapore Airlines does. I am sure others (particularly
> airlines from Asian countries) also do.
>
> Domestic airlines . . . I don't think there are any.
Air asia yes http://wecigarette.com