Jq27 Smokers

[Batesy]

Howdy all,
I have been in Thailand for the last two weeks (coughet and other areas in that region so no issues with airport closures). Trip report to come

We had an interesting incident on the way there on JQ27 from SYD. Three drunk young bogans/westies/whatever your terminology were arrested by the Thai police uopn arrival at coughet.

It emerged that they had been drinking their own duty free, using vulgar language and one had been caught smoking in the mid-section toilets. One of my travel companions observed one idiot walking to the toilet with ciggie and lighter in hand. When challenged by another passenger he denied that he was going to smoke but then banged on the toilet door to warn his mate that the gig was up. His mate opened the door and the smoked wafted out!!

Upon landing all passengers were instructed to remain seated until the police had control of the likely young lads who were escorted to the rear of the plane and removed. The passenger who observed the ciggie incident filled in a report and was advised by the captain that the lads had their return tickets to SYD cancelled and would now be banned from all QF & JQ flights for LIFE!! I hope this is the case as they were absoloute muppets. The Thai police uniform has a military style so these lads would have been fairly scared.

First time I have come across this and first international flight with JQ. Very different demographic!! Made for an interesting start to our holiday.

 

[Evan]

Sounds like an entertaining flight

I am glad they made a point of it, you cant imagine how dangerous it is to smoke in a plane toilet, throw the butt in the bin and next thing you have a fire.

Look forward to your trip report

E

 

[anat0l]

I hope that the reported sentence you have described was actually put through. None of this artsy-fartsy "I've been a good boy up to now so give me a break" or "I was stressed and acting out of character" etc. legal mitigation cough that seems to go on. (I'm still very bitter at that cough that was given community service even though she imbibed so much champas on a flight and became what can only be succinctly described as a threat to national security!)

Significant fines and penalties - including jail if necessary - as a minimum should be handed to anyone who flouts rules like smoking or disorderly behaviour on a flight, especially when it is in the air. People's lives are severely at stake.

I know drinking alcohol not offered by JQ is against the conditions of carriage - I wonder what would happen if that was the only infraction? Unless it is a legal thing (well, not abiding by the rules of flying is a legal thing I guess....)....

I'm glad that someone actually had the guts to stand up and say something. A lot of people in society these days (and I'm not innocent of this) have a lot of apathy - something like this incident could have just blown over (no pun intended) and no one would care, because they do not or will not do anything.

Also, if they were bogan young males I highly doubt they'd be scared. They'd put up the same struggle and attitude as they would if they were arrested by a blue uniform in Australia. That is, until they get beaten over the head with a stick, whipped in the body with a cane, or threatened with the possibility of being executed.

On a lighter note, that was probably quite a colourful start to your trip. Hope to see the reports; have a safe and enjoyable trip.

 

[medhead]

became what can only be succinctly described as a threat to national security!)

That's a bit over the top don't you think? A drunken yuppie (is that still the right term) punches a FA and that's a threat to national security :!::shock:

In what way does that threaten to topple the lawfully government and prevent the orderly operation of our society as we know it. The Japanese in PNG during WW2 was a threat to national security. A drunken slob who has a tired and emotional moment involving a dozen people, who was easily controlled by the relevant authorities is hardly in the same league.

In any case, I sure the bogan smokers are not going to get off on community service, they might be cashed up but I doubt they can afford the same class of lawyer as a champs swilling business person.

With the drinking on board I thought that was only relevant to domestic flights and is related to licensing laws. Doesn't that all change on international flights for the same reason that duty free grog is available in the first place?

 

[Dave Noble]

I

Significant fines and penalties - including jail if necessary - as a minimum should be handed to anyone who flouts rules like smoking or disorderly behaviour on a flight, especially when it is in the air. People's lives are severely at stake.

Seems a lot of hyperbole. Smoking on a plane isn't exactly dangerous in itself and , iirc, there are no accidents attributable to smoking

All the flights I took in the 80s n 90s and even 00s where smoking was permitted must have been complete death traps

Dave

 

[oz_mark]

Seems a lot of hyperbole. Smoking on a plane isn't exactly dangerous in itself and , iirc, there are no accidents attributable to smoking

All the flights I took in the 80s n 90s and even 00s where smoking was permitted must have been complete death traps

In the 80's when smoking was allowed there was not the tendency to go into the lavs and have a quick puff and throw the butt down the disposal bin. Potentially this is a significant problem, and from all I have heard this is what the airlines are concerned about.

 

[NM]

All the flights I took in the 80s n 90s and even 00s where smoking was permitted must have been complete death traps

They possibly were for some of the smokers

 

[anat0l]

That's a bit over the top don't you think? A drunken yuppie (is that still the right term) punches a FA and that's a threat to national security :!::shock:

I think the woman was not a yuppie, but she's not middle aged. Doesn't matter.

You're probably right (retract the 'threat to national security' line) - and I have to admit you are a fair thinking and much wiser person - but when I posted this I was tired and, at the root, still very embittered about how she got off the hook so easily. I could go on about this but the language will probably become too 'colourful' and I don't want to risk being modded. In any case, that's probably O/T.

Seems a lot of hyperbole. Smoking on a plane isn't exactly dangerous in itself and , iirc, there are no accidents attributable to smoking

All the flights I took in the 80s n 90s and even 00s where smoking was permitted must have been complete death traps

Well, I should know, having travelled on planes for many years when I was much younger. My dad himself is a smoker (not a heavy one) and when smoking was not banned on flights he took advantage of moving to the back of the aircraft to light up a cigarette. But anyway...

I did not imply that jail necessarily should be a minimum for smokers, but rather summarily speaking I said that penalties should be more stringent for offences that occur on aircraft in the air rather than if the same offence were to happen on the ground. But that's also getting O/T.....


Apologies to all for the inaccurate post - it was rather hyperbolic (and yes I've had some sleep now so I'm in a better mental frame of mind)

On another note, the OP said that 'his mate opened the door and the smoke wafted out!' So the smoke alarms didn't work? Or did they manage to cover it/disable it?

 

[Moody]

Glad to see you retract some of your previous blatherings as for a while there I had lumped you in to the same bucket as the so-called bogans.

I have disliked smoking intensly since the one and only time I tried it (I was 3 at the time), and things didn't improve when it took my father's life prematurely. That said I think that cancelling the return tickets and a lifetime ban from Qantas is quite a severe penalty for an arrogant fa_ in the cabin toilet. By the sounds of it only one of them was actually caught which could also lead to some legal issues if daddy gets them a lawyer.

So keep the corporal punishment rants firmly in your pocket for the real rednecks to trot out.

 

[anat0l]

Glad to see you retract some of your previous blatherings as for a while there I had lumped you in to the same bucket as the so-called bogans.

That's a relief; I'd sooner be caught dead than be classed as such. (Literally - I would kill myself if it came to that)

 

[comint]

Smoking on a plane isn't exactly dangerous in itself...

Passive smoking kills - fact!

I accept that smokers should have the "right" to kill themselves, but not others around them.

I would imagine that air filters on a plane, have not been designed to a high enough standard, to remove the required particles from recirculation.

All the flights I took in the 80s n 90s and even 00s where smoking was permitted must have been complete death traps

Indeed, worrying thoughts!

 

[Dave Noble]

Passive smoking kills - fact!

I accept that smokers should have the "right" to kill themselves, but not others around them.

I would imagine that air filters on a plane, have not been designed to a high enough standard, to remove the required particles from recirculation.
Indeed, worrying thoughts!

Actually, there is research that shows that air quality on planes now is worse than before since when smoking was allowed, they could not recycle nearly as much of it

Dave

 

[medhead]

- and I have to admit you are a fair thinking and much wiser person - but when I posted this I was tired and, at the root, still very embittered about how she got off the hook so easily. I could go on about this but the language will probably become too 'colourful' and I don't want to risk being modded.

fair thinking and much wiser? moi! :shock:
Have you read some of the rubbish I sprout?

I'm sure I share many of your concerns about the case of the drunk lady, but I also have similar concerns about how terms like "national security" have been grossly misused recently.

 

[NSWhere]

Actually, there is research that shows that air quality on planes now is worse than before since when smoking was allowed, they could not recycle nearly as much of it

Dave

Perhaps, but how is "air quality" defined? I would prefer a few more ppm of dust or other non-carcinogetic particles than to put up with someone else's second hand smoke!

 

[Happy Dude]

That said I think that cancelling the return tickets and a lifetime ban from Qantas is quite a severe penalty for an arrogant fa_ in the cabin toilet. By the sounds of it only one of them was actually caught which could also lead to some legal issues if daddy gets them a lawyer.

I read it as the bogans not caught smoking were cancelled/banned because of vulgar language and drinking their own duty free, which might seem harsh. But assuming that swearing and drinking your own duty free are in breach of JQ carriage policy, then I applaud the airline for this small attempt to maintain some level of decorum in the air and ensuring that the bogans can't inflict their cough on their passengers again.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if the airline decided to make an example of these idiots who clearly thought the safety warnings were for the other passengers.

 

[codash1099]

I read it as the bogans not caught smoking were cancelled/banned because of vulgar language and drinking their own duty free, which might seem harsh. But assuming that swearing and drinking your own duty free are in breach of JQ carriage policy, then I applaud the airline for this small attempt to maintain some level of decorum in the air and ensuring that the bogans can't inflict their cough on their passengers again.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if the airline decided to make an example of these idiots who clearly thought the safety warnings were for the other passengers.

IIRC some duty free I purchased in SFO was bagged and sealed with the message "Not to be opened until at your destination" or words to that effect.

I wonder if there is some legality in play here :?:

 

[NM]

Perhaps, but how is "air quality" defined? I would prefer a few more ppm of dust or other non-carcinogetic particles than to put up with someone else's second hand smoke!

As airlines realised that stopping smoking on aircraft allowed them to use a higher proportion of recycled air rather than fresh air, the load on the cabin air conditioning system is reduced and hence (slightly) less fuel burn.

Fresh air from high altitude needs to be compressed significantly to be pumped into the cabin, and that compression process raises the temperature of the air. So even though the outside air temp may be -50C, the processes of compressing it raises it to the point where it needs to be cooled by the air conditioning packs. Recycled cabin air not require as much cooling and hence reduced power loss by the AC system.

So the airlines realised that without the need to flush the cabin of cigarette smoke, they did not need to replenish the cabin air so quickly. The result is that the inflow and outflow of air is less now than it used to be. So the air remains in the cabin for longer.

The downside of more recycled air and a reduced rate of in/out flow is that we are re-breathing other people's exhaled breath, including any bacteria, germs, diseases they may be exhaling, increasing the risk of air-born transmission of disease.

But the airlines like it because they have reduced their fuel burn!

 

[oz_mark]

As an aside, CASA recently convened an Expert Panel on Aircraft Air Quality. See here Expert Panel on Aircraft Air Quality, although they won't have got far just yet.

 

[Batesy]

Having read all of the comments here I will make a few follow ups to my orgininal post.

• Jetstar announced that it is not permissable to consume your own alcohol several times during the flight. Including the initial safety briefing.
• I think that the penalties handed down by the captain were appropriate. I understood that their behaviour had been particularly bad, possibly threatening other passengers including the young lady who caught the lad with the cigarette and that their language was vulgar. Any bloke that chooses to use the C word in close quarters with others around them deserves what he gets.
• My concern about the cigarette is the same as others. A drunken fool could easily put his smoke in the bin if in a hurry, causing a fire on board. I know that smoking was permitted on planes previously, however they had ashtrays for a reason.

Cheers
Batesy.

 

[medhead]

Perhaps, but how is "air quality" defined? I would prefer a few more ppm of dust or other non-carcinogetic particles than to put up with someone else's second hand smoke!

Firstly, ppm of dust is a meaningless term. dust is measured in mg/m3 in air. However, if we assume you mean ppm in terms of mass then a few ppm is actually a rather decent dust concentration. 3 ppm is approximately 4 mg/m3. This is typical of the dust concentrations in a dusty industrial process or underground mine.

More importantly, there is evidence to suggest that fine particles are carcinogenic as a property of being a particle regardless of being carcinogenic or not.