Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

Passenger smoked in lav

Passenger smoked in lav

Reply

Old Feb 6, 19, 7:46 pm
  #46  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Often1 View Post
I can't think of a UA nonstop to SFO where serving anyone six drinks, even presuming that they were stone cold sober on boarding, is acceptable.
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.
YOUR_FAVORITE_AUDITOR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 19, 8:32 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 504
"Cause everbody knows that smoking ain't allowed in school."
iapetus and chavala like this.
dilanesp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 19, 8:41 pm
  #48  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 504
Originally Posted by joe_miami View Post
No, you haven’t.
Originally Posted by YOUR_FAVORITE_AUDITOR View Post
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.
That's an overstatement. It's generally not a hard limit, but number of drinks is a consideration.

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.
Franky16 likes this.
dilanesp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 19, 9:02 pm
  #49  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Miami, Florida
Programs: UA Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Gold, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by fezzington View Post
It depends on the length of the flight, but my pours get weaker and/or my refills take longer after the 4th drink or so. UA FAs use the stoplight system for determining when to cut someone off. It's not inconceivable that someone got to 6 J&Cs.
I’ve heard of the stoplight system for gauging one’s drinking on a weekly basis, but what is it in this context?
joe_miami is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 19, 9:38 pm
  #50  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: GEG/DEN/ATL
Programs: UA 1K, TK E+, AS MVPG, SPG&Marriott Plat, HHD, Hertz PC
Posts: 221
fezzington likes this.
mdbe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 19, 9:44 pm
  #51  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by mdbe View Post
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 i’m sure he has seen people drink that.
Didnt check out the math or anything, but dont forget that at higher altitudes, your BAC spikes faster.
jrivers010 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 19, 7:18 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: GEG/DEN/ATL
Programs: UA 1K, TK E+, AS MVPG, SPG&Marriott Plat, HHD, Hertz PC
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by jrivers010 View Post
Didnt check out the math or anything, but dont forget that at higher altitudes, your BAC spikes faster.
Scientifically it would not rise faster. You may feel the effects of a particular BAC more than you’d at sea level possibly due to relative hypoxia.
mdbe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 19, 6:10 pm
  #53  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,070
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.
hfly is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 19, 6:28 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 837
Originally Posted by hfly View Post
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.
Even better yet -- have a "fake" smoke detector in the usual spot in the ceiling, and then have not one but two real smoke detectors elsewhere recessed into the walls with a very small intake vent that would not be noticeable. The smoker covers up the fake detector, not knowing that the real detectors are reporting to both the cockpit and the galley(s)... It would be very easy to identify the perpetrators on the spot.
AndyPatterson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 19, 6:39 pm
  #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: 81,165
Originally Posted by milepig View Post
Which brings up the age-old question of why "destroyed" isn't covered under "disabled"- if you disable it in any way, including destruction, it isn't going to work - just like "what's the difference between a sign and a placard."
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?




MSPeconomist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 19, 10:40 pm
  #56  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: United Gold, BA Exec Club, Via Rail
Posts: 2,798
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
j2simpso is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 7:54 am
  #57  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,030
Originally Posted by iapetus View Post
So I presume that this happened in F?
Happened in Y on an A319, slightly less than a 4 hour flight. MSY-SFO.

Originally Posted by joe_miami View Post
Right, but “not noticing” and knowing the person has already had six, as in the case of an FA, are two very different things.
Two different flight attendants were serving drinks. IMO, the FAs were doing their job properly.

Originally Posted by raehl311 View Post
Meh, who wants do deny two grandpas sitting together having a grand old time their Jack Daniels?
Smoker was probably in his late 50s-60s. Buddy was probably in his 30s.

Originally Posted by arttravel View Post
The OP does not report that the passenger who smoked was acting intoxicated or belligerent, so I do not see any problem for blaming the FA.

It sounds as if UA handled this appropriately,
Smoker was starting to get loud, his younger buddy, not so much. Agree about it being handled appropriately.

Originally Posted by hfly View Post
I guess the OP does not regularly fly long transoceanic flights to certain Asian or Middle Eastern countries.
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, 19 at 8:07 am
FLYMSY is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 11:44 am
  #58  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: MUC
Programs: UA GS, 1MM; Marriott LTPP / Ambassador
Posts: 144
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.
LimeyFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 12:07 pm
  #59  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Programs: CX MPC Diamond, Hyatt Diamond, UAL 1K
Posts: 569
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.
Franky16 likes this.
bostonpilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 19, 4:09 pm
  #60  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,070
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.
hfly is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread