Jq27 Smokers

[bravoecho1]

I think being a bogan is reason enough to have your ticket cancelled and being banned for life

 

[codash1099]

Almost exactly the same incident reported here:

Two unruly Russian sailors arrested after flight - News- msnbc.com

 

[JohnK]

It sounds like they have been given the appropriate punishment. I do not understand the point in defending this type of behaviour....

 

[one9]

It sounds like they have been given the appropriate punishment. I do not understand the point in defending this type of behaviour....

There actions were stupid and inconsiderate. But I think a 10 year ban would be more appropriate than a lifetime ban. They may grow up, get some life experience and change.

 

[JohnK]

There actions were stupid and inconsiderate. But I think a 10 year ban would be more appropriate than a lifetime ban. They may grow up, get some life experience and change.

I partly agree with you but if they did the same thing in a shop, club etc they would get the same punishment. Let's hope they learn their lesson and grow up and if the worst to come out of all of this is they cannot fly QF and JQ again that is a small price to pay. The bigger question has got to be will they ever grow up?

 

[NSWhere]

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

Fascinating insight about the fuel burn benefit, I am always learning something here!

 

[NSWhere]

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.

Wow, someone seems to have got their knickers in a knot for no good reason!? But I'll play along:

1) I think everyone here except you got the point that I was making. That is, that most people prefer to be inhaling dust to cigarette smoke, ceteris paribus;
2) Sure, when referring to particulate matter in the air, mg/m^3 should be used (and if my undergrads made a similar error I wouldn't award marks), but this is frequent flyer forum, not the BIPM!;
3) The evidence to which you refer in your more important (?) point is actually about as close as you can get to irrefutable proof.

 

[medhead]

Wow, someone seems to have got their knickers in a knot for no good reason!? But I'll play along:

1) I think everyone here except you got the point that I was making. That is, that most people prefer to be inhaling dust to cigarette smoke, ceteris paribus;
2) Sure, when referring to particulate matter in the air, mg/m^3 should be used (and if my undergrads made a similar error I wouldn't award marks), but this is frequent flyer forum, not the BIPM!;
3) The evidence to which you refer in your more important (?) point is actually about as close as you can get to irrefutable proof.

I don't have any knickers in a knot.

I think I understood clearly that your point was to dismiss the suggestion of reduced air quality with a throw away comment about a few more ppm of dust. I just applied the first test I was taught in undergrad physics - does the answer make sense. A few ppm when converting into a mass concentration is considered medium to high pollution. It is about 1/3 of the dust limit in NSW coal mines :!: I'm sorry but IME very few people would prefer to inhale a few more ppm of dust over passive cigarette smoke.

My more important point is based on my time as a postgrad in a air quality research center. I left them some time ago and I can only refer to the state of knowledge when I was there. However, I'm sure that their knowledge has vastly expanded since then and a google search would find the most up to date references.

Of course, since this is only the frequent flyer forum and it is acceptable to erroronously refer to ppm of dust, it must also be perfectly acceptable to not provide the most up to date references to peer reviewed papers.

Maybe my language was not clear, but the point is that fine particles of a non-carcinogenic substances are likely to still have a carcinogenic effect depending on a number of factors.

Edit: perhaps, you missed my point that inhaling dust is not necessarily harmless compared to passive smoking, ceteris paribus.

 

[anat0l]

mg/m3 is probably the correct unit, as ppm more refers to a mass-on-mass basis, not practical for air.

In any case, the phrase "a few ppm" was probably used colloquially/liberally without much heed to the actual meaning or correct context, so we all pretty much got what was intended.

Yes, non-carcinogenic particles in suitably high concentrations will have damaging effects quite similar to carcinogenic particle inhalation (e.g. smoking), but the former is more fluid in meaning (no pun intended) and harder to simulate in an aircraft (unless someone brought some bags of flour on board and put them carelessly in the overhead lockers, or if the inflight meal in WHY happened to be baked beans with sausage sided with sauerkraut).

In short, many people don't want to smell and/or inhale certain things. Cigarette smoke is certainly one of them.

 

[simongr]

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.
  

Cheers
Batesy.

This really tells a story about JQ - I have never been on a flight where the safety briefing includes warnings not to consume your own alcomohol... :shock:

 

[serfty]

... I have never been on a flight where the safety briefing includes warnings not to consume your own alcomohol... :shock:

I have; most recent memory was on QF3 last year ...

 

[medhead]

In any case, the phrase "a few ppm" was probably used colloquially/liberally without much heed to the actual meaning or correct context, so we all pretty much got what was intended.

Yes, maybe I am being a bit too literal. But so what if you all got what was intended. News flash So did I [/shock horror]

My point is I don't agree with what was intended, because a preference to inhale dust over smoke does not make inhaling dust safer.

Also because an unrealistic number was pulled out of the air.

That's is my opinion based on my experience in measuring these things and getting paid lots of money to do so. So do please stop trying to explan what I already understand

 

[JohnK]

This really tells a story about JQ - I have never been on a flight where the safety briefing includes warnings not to consume your own alcomohol... :shock:

Over the top and definitely misleading but unfortunately JQ is a LCC and one of the ways they make money is to sell alcohol with a 100%+ markup. I agree with the rule of no BYO alcohol on board which is no different to clubs, pubs etc.

 

[straitman]

JQ have a no alcohol of your own clause on the back of one the seat pocket leaflets. This was on a MEL-AKL flight so I'm not sure about domestic.

 

[docjames]

Over the top and definitely misleading but unfortunately JQ is a LCC and one of the ways they make money is to sell alcohol with a 100%+ markup. I agree with the rule of no BYO alcohol on board which is no different to clubs, pubs etc.

I think it has more to do with stopping people getting totally wasted and becoming unmanageable in the a/c than profit (although no doubt it helps). eg. This rule applies on QF which doesnt charge for alcohol internationally. Pubs clubs have the same issue - they're responsible under their liquor licence so at least if you purchase on site they can stop serving you. Profit no doubt is one component too, but it'd be totally unmanageable if it was open slather (have a look at the members carpark at the Melbourne Cup!)

 

[Dave Noble]

Over the top and definitely misleading but unfortunately JQ is a LCC and one of the ways they make money is to sell alcohol with a 100%+ markup. I agree with the rule of no BYO alcohol on board which is no different to clubs, pubs etc.

It is no different a rule than most airlines have ; the only difference is that they are making it absolutely clear; it appkies on QF iirc and is a legal requirement in the USA that you can only drink alcohol served by the crew.

Dave