FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Were The Early 80's Really That Much Better On UA Than Now?
Old Nov 28, 2019 | 11:07 am
  #78  
STS-134
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA MileagePlus (Premier Gold); Hilton HHonors (Gold); Chase Ultimate Rewards; Amex Plat
Posts: 7,282
Originally Posted by Kurt


Believe it! From the March 2, 1983 UA timetable.
Wow that's absolutely pathetic. I wouldn't take any airline seriously that didn't at least fly to PEK, PVG, ICN, LHR, and FRA from the US. It's shocking that as late as 1983, UA flew to none of the above.

Originally Posted by Long Zhiren
What nostalgia. What about the smoking signs that turned on? And the hazy smoke-filled cabins? The best were the European airlines whose two sections were effectively smoking and chain-smoking. You could look down the aisle of a 747 and see not even half way down the length of the plane because of the smoke.

Ah the tulip livery emblazoned complimentary cigarette packs.

And the movie screens that the FA's would deploy.
When smoking was allowed, were the no smoking signs turned on and people told to extinguish their cigarettes before takeoff and landing?

I still don't think I could survive a 1980s flight though. Going onto an airplane with a full N95 or better particulate respirator mask and not being able to take it off even to eat doesn't sound like a good experience. If I had to go back in time and fly in the 1980s, I'd probably have a friend stand at the gate with N95 masks and pass them out to anyone who wants them and encourage everyone to use them, to make a point to the smokers about how selfish they're being. We've known about the link between smoking and cancer since what, the 1960s? And of course it's even worse when the airline is encouraging it by giving out complimentary cigarettes and literally killing their own customers. Plus it's much worse than being in a smoky bar or casino because at least you can leave the bar or casino at any time.
STS-134 is offline