As I was flying back to California this week, a guy on my flight got caught. There was a sign saying that the penalty for breaking the smoke detector in the lavatory was $2200, but I imagine this would be quite a bit less.
We’ve already got too many people in the world. I say, open the door and throw 'em out.
The two times ive seen it happens, its been “Sir youre not allowed to smoke in the lavatory. Please dont do that again.”
But then these were international flights and so it may be different for flights wholly inside the USA
Why not just have some flights that are smoking and others that are non-smoking? That way everyone will be happy.
We have motel rooms/stores/restaurants that are smoking and rooms/stores/restaurants that are non-smoking - and the smokers go to the smoking restaurants and the non-smokers go to the non-smoking restaurants and no one complains at all.
This would be fair for everyone.
Until a few years ago inter-city trains in Australia had smoking cars. The air was so thick that even though I was a sma\oker I wasn’t willing to sit in one. They couldn’t ever be used as non-smoking because the fumes never cleared out. I’, afraid a plane full of smokers would taint the plane for weeks.
Except for the crew of the flight.
Kill 2 birds with person great idea.
On the detrimental effect of smoking in aircraft, it actually causes physical problems to certain components. For instance, nicotine in the smoke tends to clog up any small apertures in the pressurised cabin as it tries to make its way overboard. Some control cables can be stiff to operate because of this. The outflow valves which contol the aircraft’s air pressure can also be affected.
For those of you who think a part of the cabin could be set aside for smoking, or those of you who think a sneaky little smoke in the lavatories shoud be ok, there is another problem. A percentage of the cabin air is recirculated for another trip around the cabin, consequently affecting those people not in a smoking zone. Unfortunately the filters in the system doesn’t seem to be able to completely remove the effects of the smoke.
The main danger of smoking in lavatories is a possibility of fire, however. Cigarettes have been disposed of into the waste bins, and thereby causing fires.
Since I don’t think they’re bluffing, I guess this makes $2,000 the fine for smoking in an aircraft lavatory.
No, it is a $2000 fine for tampering with the smoke detector, not for smoking.
We have lots of old planes still around which used to have smoking in them. Anyways, if one airline designated itself as a smoking airline, then only those people, pilots, and stewardesses who dont mind smokers will use it, everybody else shouldnt care. You still will not be on a smoking plane if you dont use the one which has smoking alowed.
Having been on a flight where we had a fire emergency because some idiot decided to smoke in the lavatory and throw the butt in the disposal bin I believe $2000 if you are caught smoking is about right if not too lenient.
Anecdote time:
Friend of mine–a smoker–was on the long flight from London to back home to Australia. After knocking back a few free cocktails, she goes to the aeroplane bathroom to do her business. Inside, she can detect a familiar and ever-so-sweet smell lingering in the air. (Cigarettes, not poop, silly!)
Said friend looks around, can’t spot an ashtray. She looks up–and lo! there’s a sanitary pad plastered over the smoke detector! The woman before her in the bathroom queue had cunningly employed this uhh, device, to enjoy a ciggie on the sly.
We both think this would make a great premise for an advertisement by a manufacturer of pads–but you read it here first!
OK, I was wrong.
I got caught on a United flight in 1995: London -> NYC.
Prior to the flight, I was on a connecting flight from Munich to London and was in the Smoking section. I was on such a nicotine buzz from the earlier leg of my journey (if you’ve ever sat in a smoking section on a plane, you’d know what I mean) that when it wore off, I needed a smoke.
The $2000 fine warnings for tampering w/the smoke detectors were clearly posted in the can. But I took the “I don’t see a fine for smoking” route and lit up without sticking toilet paper in the detector. I blew my smoke into the sink drain (that ‘vacuums’ waste water down) put the cigarette out under the faucet, waited a minute til the smoke cleared and returned to my seat.
A minute or two later, a stewardess came over to me & quietly asked me if I had been smoking in the bathroom. I asked her if she wanted the truth or if she wanted me to lie. Without answering my question, she said, “even though we don’t have you on a survellance camera, I need to inform you it is against the law to smoke anywhere on the plane and it put passengers at risk because the blue water in the toilet is combustable.”
That’s as far as it went.
Disclaimer: Before anyone suggests I be strapped down and have have cigars extinguished in my eyes, this was almost 10 years ago when I was in my more rebellious 20s. I’m move civic minded now any obey the smoking rules (but I’ll be damned if I’ll be flying 20+ hrs to the Orient any time soon).
I find the flight attendant’s statement extremely dubious. (Just to be precise, I believe you when you say she said this to you, but I don’t believe her.) This sounds like the flight attendant’s equivalent of a parent telling a kid “don’t screw your face up like that or it might get stuck that way.” It would be insane, pathological, criminal (as in criminaly negligent), for an airline to use toilet water that was combustible.
Cite? People smoked on airplanes for DECADES and everything operated just fine.
Which part of my post has offended you? Are you querying about the damage nicotine does to certain components, or the fact that air is re-circulated, or cigarettes can cause fires. Please give me a clue.
V
As long as we’re playing the “sit back and ask for a cite” game, do you have a cite for the proposition that “everything operated just fine” when people were smoking on airplanes? Do you have evidence that increased smoking did not increase maintenance costs, etc.? Vetch’s explanation sounds plausible to me. I don’t need a cite to an aircraft repair manual to be convinced that smoke does not do great things to either a pressurized ventilation system or a precision control system.
Not only that, but lots of those same planes whilch had smoking on board, are STILL flying today, esp most of the 727’s, 707’s, and 747’s(not to mention all the DC3’s still up there and other DC’s.
I’m not taking sides on this, but I think the person who needs to provide a cite is the person who made the claim. In this case Vetch claimed that ciggarette smoke damaged the aircraft (among other things).
Doesn’t sound too far fetched to me personally, but a call for a cite is not uncalled for.
I think you’d have a hard time competing with the major lines for enough customers. Plus, the FAA has banned smoking on all domestic flights under 6 hours, which eliminates virtually all flights.