Why Airplanes Still Have Ashtrays

[HiFlyer 9,343]

One of those weird things most people probably never think about until somebody finally notices and asks the question. 

 

[Groovy_Kincaid 71]

For my gum!

[Jethro 65]

Could the attendants not just put the cigarette butt out in the offending passengers drink. Then make them drink it including the butt, or face the authorities before disembarking.

Might save weight on the No Smoking signs, wiring/illumination, and ashtrays. 

[HiFlyer 9,343]

13 hours ago, Jethro said:

Could the attendants not just put the cigarette butt out in the offending passengers drink. Then make them drink it including the butt, or face the authorities before disembarking.

Might save weight on the No Smoking signs, wiring/illumination, and ashtrays

So....... basically you are saying United Airlines standard procedure? 

[CaptDennison 2]

Because the ashtray is built into the seat design/area, and because aircraft are manufactured for sale world wide. Smoking on aircraft is still done in some countries, thus the ashtrays.

[Jethro 65]

4 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

So....... basically you are saying United Airlines standard procedure? 

No not at all, HiFlyer.    But in light of UA's recent PR debacle, fire safety is paramount, where a clear and widely expected social agreement has been made law, in an effort to prioritise the safety and comfort of all onboard the aircraft and save on the damage caused by nicotine both to the aircraft, passenger's and crew. 
But if given the option of a UA authoritarian beating or an unpleasant drink, I would gladly quietly gulp that unpleasant drink and never ever do it again (as long as the authorities were kept out of the loop). I am myself a smoker, but I would never expect to subject my filthy habit upon others in a confined environment, where one cannot simply choose to move away or go outside to indulge. 

I think UA & other airlines, corporate entities, and authorities, need to re-learn the difference between voluntary and involuntary. You cant force an action upon any person if the request is unreasonable and asked on the basis of volunteering, (however much the compensationary amount may be. They may feel they have the right to cover their "bleeeeep" (doubling down) by later suggesting that the passenger was being disruptive and belligerent when asked/told to get off the plane in favour of 4 UA employees, but this is not a responsibility of a paying customer who has been legally boarded, waiting quietly for the flight to begin as any reasonable person would expect. After all, the unreasonable request later became a demand, directed impersonally toward an innocent fare paying passenger who clearly had difficulties understanding the consequences (violent enforcement of not complying with a voluntary request by UA) The travelling passenger should not expect to be summarily beaten / assaulted or otherwise manhandled on the basis of an arbitrary condition written in small print, that clever lawyers have had inscribed on the back of an airline ticket.

I fear the fine print, as it seems to exclusively favour unreasonable expectation on the part of the corporate entity removing rights that a reasonable individual might otherwise expect. We cannot live our lives subject to tricky lawyer fineprint, disclaimers and the mindset of those who say agree or be dammed or punished for simply not being able to fully understand the agreement and its later implications just to participate or purchase a good or service.  All who have been told / trained they have the badge of authority to do as they please need to rethink their humanity. Because they cant control their urge to act aggressively, where legal noncompliance exists. The badged authority simply don't possess the fundamental ability to calm themselves down once they have been rightfully / legitimately told no. (the mark of a petulant child who needs a smack and time in the naughty corner), they prefer escalation to get their own agendas met. We are not safer because they exercise their purpose driven authority.  

The unreasonable request or agreement had not been negotiated /re-negotiated to the satisfaction of the original contract, the passenger should be able to say no, and remain until the passenger's travel time constraint requirements had been satisfactorily compensated even if the airline needed to arrange a special charter at vastly increased cost. (obviously $800 was not enough incentive to change this passengers travel plans).  Bully tactics are completely unacceptable, there should be consequences and I truly hope there are, as a clear message to any future attempts at such actions.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

The good old days?

 

[Chock 17,769]

Smoking may be banned on most aeroplanes, but it is compulsory on all my simulated airliners. 

[JRBarrett 3,048]

Interestingly, there is an FAA regulation that affects all commercial aircraft of any size, that mandates that an ashtray be installed in every lavatory, even for newly-manufactured planes.

This goes back to a couple of serious incidents that took place 40+ years ago where fires broke out in lavatory trash bins due to passengers discarding smoldering cigarette butts in them.

There is a recurring FAA airworthiness directive, AD 74-08-09 R3, which affects all commercial aircraft, requiring inspection of the lavatory ashtrays every couple of years to insure that they are present and functional. 

Of course, smoking has been completely banned on commercial airliners for many years. Aircraft operated in the on-demand charter industry under part 135 typically prohibit smoking by passengers as well, though there may be some operators who permit it for select clients.