Passenger smoked in lav
#46
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 23
OK, i'm being a bit cheeky, but I agree with the previous poster that the # of drinks shouldn't be used in cutting off a passenger.
#48
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
How about United 930, SFO to LHR, 10 hour flight? https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL930
OK, i'm being a bit cheeky, but I agree with the previous poster that the # of drinks shouldn't be used in cutting off a passenger.
OK, i'm being a bit cheeky, but I agree with the previous poster that the # of drinks shouldn't be used in cutting off a passenger.
I would suspect on most airlines, if you have had six AND start to act even moderately drunk, you probably aren't getting a seventh.
#49
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Miami, Florida
Programs: AA ExPlat, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Spire, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,009
Ive heard of the stoplight system for gauging ones drinking on a weekly basis, but what is it in this context?
#50
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: GEG/DEN/ATL
Programs: UA 1K, TK E+, AS MVPG, SPG&Marriott Plat, HHD, Hertz PC
Posts: 404
#51
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 12
A standard shot if absorbed immediately, which it is not, would yield to about 0.025 bac in a 150lbs man. However more realistically about 0.01 as the avg male will clear about 0.015 per hour. So 6 shots in one hour would lead to about just above the legal limit. So im sure he has seen people drink that.
#52
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: GEG/DEN/ATL
Programs: UA 1K, TK E+, AS MVPG, SPG&Marriott Plat, HHD, Hertz PC
Posts: 404
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,323
I guess the OP does not regularly fly long transoceanic flights to certain Asian or Middle Eastern countries. I would estimate that to certain countries, on one in ten flights I hear an announcement that goes something like, "We know that someone has been smoking in the Right rear lavatory, this is a Federal Offense and the perpetrator is liable to a fine up to $XXX and or Y years in prison" or some other such warning. A decade ago it was maybe one in 4 flights.
As for how they do it, When smoke detectors were external, i.e. not built unto the ceiling, most crew members that smoked had their smoking kits which consisted of a condom and a spray like FAbreze. They would cover the detector with the condom, smoke close to the drain and liberally Fabreze the lav. Because of thie two differences were instituted into the detectors, 1) Many of them would make noise if totally sealed (i.e. with a condom), and 2) the ceiling design was changed to that detectors were recessed into the ceiling making it impossible to cover them with condoms.
As for how they do it, When smoke detectors were external, i.e. not built unto the ceiling, most crew members that smoked had their smoking kits which consisted of a condom and a spray like FAbreze. They would cover the detector with the condom, smoke close to the drain and liberally Fabreze the lav. Because of thie two differences were instituted into the detectors, 1) Many of them would make noise if totally sealed (i.e. with a condom), and 2) the ceiling design was changed to that detectors were recessed into the ceiling making it impossible to cover them with condoms.
#54
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,353
I guess the OP does not regularly fly long transoceanic flights to certain Asian or Middle Eastern countries. I would estimate that to certain countries, on one in ten flights I hear an announcement that goes something like, "We know that someone has been smoking in the Right rear lavatory, this is a Federal Offense and the perpetrator is liable to a fine up to $XXX and or Y years in prison" or some other such warning. A decade ago it was maybe one in 4 flights.
As for how they do it, When smoke detectors were external, i.e. not built unto the ceiling, most crew members that smoked had their smoking kits which consisted of a condom and a spray like Febreze. They would cover the detector with the condom, smoke close to the drain and liberally Febreze the lav. Because of this two differences were instituted into the detectors, 1) Many of them would make noise if totally sealed (i.e. with a condom), and 2) the ceiling design was changed to that detectors were recessed into the ceiling making it impossible to cover them with condoms.
As for how they do it, When smoke detectors were external, i.e. not built unto the ceiling, most crew members that smoked had their smoking kits which consisted of a condom and a spray like Febreze. They would cover the detector with the condom, smoke close to the drain and liberally Febreze the lav. Because of this two differences were instituted into the detectors, 1) Many of them would make noise if totally sealed (i.e. with a condom), and 2) the ceiling design was changed to that detectors were recessed into the ceiling making it impossible to cover them with condoms.
#55
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,327
Yes, if you destroy something, it's disabled, but here the practical difference is that if the passenger merely turned off the smoke detector (I don't know whether this is possible), the FA could turn it on again. To disable a device suggests that it can be "re-enabled" fairly quickly and easily, although this might require a mechanic or some certification that it was done properly. If the airline is sending a bill for the cost of the damage to the passenger, it would be much higher if the smoke detector had been destroyed rather than just disabled.
Besides, doesn't the standard airline safety announcement say that one isn't allowed to disable or destroy the lavatory smoke detectors?
Besides, doesn't the standard airline safety announcement say that one isn't allowed to disable or destroy the lavatory smoke detectors?
#56
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
Would the lack of humidity at such high altitudes hasten dehydration in passengers and would such a dehydration make the effects of intoxication more apparent? Also, to what extent does age have on intoxication. For instance, would a 60 year old have a harder time "absorbing" alcohol, than say a 30 year old?
-James
-James
#57
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,925
Happened in Y on an A319, slightly less than a 4 hour flight. MSY-SFO.
Two different flight attendants were serving drinks. IMO, the FAs were doing their job properly.
Smoker was probably in his late 50s-60s. Buddy was probably in his 30s.
Smoker was starting to get loud, his younger buddy, not so much. Agree about it being handled appropriately.
Wrong. You know the old saying about assuming .... You need to improve your “guessing” skills. Just got back from a TPAC last night. Most of my flying is long haul.
Last edited by FLYMSY; Feb 8, 2019 at 8:07 am
#58
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: EWR
Programs: Latam Pass Black; UA 1K, 1MM; Marriott LT
Posts: 298
I don't remember in the good old days ever being on a flight, or hearing about a flight, that was brought down by the back half of the plane that was the smoking section making fires in the trash etc. Literally on a 737 it was like flying in a haze or going to a nightclub... you come out and even if you were in the "non-smoking" section, your hair and clothes reeked.
#59
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, United Global Services/1MM
Posts: 629
Must be the week for this....
I had a similar, and also first time, experience earlier this week as well on a LH Bos-muc flight. Soon after take off, the ding that sounds for the seat belt light started going off with 3 dings in a few seconds and then would repeat maybe 10 sec later. After the first few bursts the flight attendants start all moving aft with purpose but nothing was said.
There were quite a few glances going on around the C cabin trying to figure out what was going on. A few minutes later the pursuer came on the PA and gave a rather stern lecture about not smoking or vaping in the bathroom in both German and English.
Upon atrival into muc there was a group of German police waiting on the jet bridge looking very unamused.
There were quite a few glances going on around the C cabin trying to figure out what was going on. A few minutes later the pursuer came on the PA and gave a rather stern lecture about not smoking or vaping in the bathroom in both German and English.
Upon atrival into muc there was a group of German police waiting on the jet bridge looking very unamused.
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,323
Well FLYMSY, I stand by what I have said, you stated that it was your first time ever seeing something like this. If you were flying 10+ hour flights like I mentioned quite frequently and for years, you, like many FT'ers would have seen this before roughly at the averages that I stated. Many other FT'ers have attested to this over the years. But I guess we all have a different idea of what frequency is which is why I said, 1 out of X and 1 out of Y flights to these places. But what do I know, I am only basing this on my accounts average exactly 37 10+hour segments per year, every year for the last 25 years (although only about the last 20 really count, because up until the millenium there were still a decent amount of airlines that had some sort of smoking especially on very long flights), and I also would not count the time until 9/11 because there would be warnings on almost every long haul flight that I was on until after 9/11, it then did go down to nothing for a couple of years, and I would say it started going up a bit in 2009 or so.