The Real Reason For Airlines' No Smoking Policy

[Larry Dighera]

U.S. regulators proposed that airlines replace or modify
insulation on 1,600 BOEING CO. planes worldwide because the
material does not meet fire-proofing standards. Half the planes
covered by the Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness
directive are flown by domestic passenger and cargo airlines.
International aviation authorities usually adopt FAA
directives. The plan would require changes over six years on
727 and older model 737, 747, 757 and 767 aircraft. The
government's cost estimate ranges from $200 million to $330
million, depending on whether the material is removed and
replaced or simply treated with a chemical fire retardant spray
proposed by Boeing. It is unclear how many of the affected
planes, especially those owned by U.S. airlines, will even be
flying several years from now.
(Reuters 01:51 PM ET 04/01/2005)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1072639&m=10062424ddac800014454a&s=rb050401

----------------------------------------------------------------

[jfaignant]

No, the real reason airlines have embraced no smoking policies is that it
saves money. The tar from tobacco products was very hard on the air
conditioning systems and outflow valves. Once they had a reason to ban
smoking, they jumped on it.
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> U.S. regulators proposed that airlines replace or modify
> insulation on 1,600 BOEING CO. planes worldwide because the
> material does not meet fire-proofing standards. Half the planes
> covered by the Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness
> directive are flown by domestic passenger and cargo airlines.
> International aviation authorities usually adopt FAA
> directives. The plan would require changes over six years on
> 727 and older model 737, 747, 757 and 767 aircraft. The
> government's cost estimate ranges from $200 million to $330
> million, depending on whether the material is removed and
> replaced or simply treated with a chemical fire retardant spray
> proposed by Boeing. It is unclear how many of the affected
> planes, especially those owned by U.S. airlines, will even be
> flying several years from now.
> (Reuters 01:51 PM ET 04/01/2005)
>
> More:
>
> http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1072639&m=10062424ddac800014454a&s=rb050401
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

[Matt Whiting]

jfaignant wrote:

> No, the real reason airlines have embraced no smoking policies is that it
> saves money. The tar from tobacco products was very hard on the air
> conditioning systems and outflow valves. Once they had a reason to ban
> smoking, they jumped on it.

The best reason of all is to spare other passengers having to breath the
smoke. Airliner air quality is poor enough just from the human
pollution that we don't need to add extra pollution to the mix.


Matt

[C J Campbell]

The airlines do not have a "No Smoking" policy. The Federal government has
one that was imposed on the airlines over their extreme objections. It was
imposed for the same reason that there are "No Smoking" policies in
virtually every other public place in the United States>