Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

standalone-sysadmin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 147 posts

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#111

Post by afterburner »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #92
borism wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Sweden. But this has to be one of the most bureaucratic approaches to solving the problem. And it's ripe for abuse.

As I understand it, aside from the cleaning, it's the same in America. But if a driver pulled over in the middle of rush hour traffic to kick someone off a bus because they put down an empty can of soda, they'd be torn to shreds before they made it back to the driver's seat.

"they'd be torn to shreds"

Where are you taking buses that the passengers are so rage-filled?

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#113

Post by gnaffle »

corin_ wrote: post #74
MattRogish wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealt...

Setting aside the fact that this source is a random person blogging and quoting a pilot (his job is flying, not dealing with air-con), the fact that airplane air "isn't as disgusting as you think" doesn't mean it isn't more disgusting now than it was when smoking was allowed. I don't have a source and am too lazy to find one, but it was stated on QI which is a show with a team of good researchers, they can on occasio…

From the transcript (http://sites.google.com/site/qitranscripts/transcripts/1x10) - just the tidbit about 6% savings in fuel cost just by reducing airflow sounds completely implausible:

"Stephen Well, the question is . . . It was almost certainly a bad idea, erm . . . It was a lousy idea, in fact, 'cause when smoking was allowed, the cabin air was completely replaced with fresh air every three minutes, and now, the airlines save money . . . they save up to 6% of their fuel bills by using a mixture of fresh and recycled air--

Julia And SARS.

Peter Ohh.

Stephen --yeah . . . using under half the amount of fresh air needed for comfort; increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the cabin; causing dizziness, and nausea, and allowing viruses to thrive. Passengers think that, because they can't smell smoke, the air is fresher. This is not so. Apart from anything else, it has dramatically increased the number of air rage incidents. One of the earliest reported incidents of air rage involved a passenger in first class, probably trying to take his mind, erm, off cigarettes, by drinking too much, and he was refused another drink, and so he decided to lodge his displeasure, and shat on top of the food trolley. "

While Patrick Smith may not be an air conditioning expert, as a pilot he's required to know how the AC systems work and how to operate them, and if there was a widespread modification to AC systems or pilot procedures after the smoking ban, I'd expect him to know about it and mention it in the article.

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#114

Post by tomjen3 »

nicholaides wrote: post #10

I was thinking about this same idea earlier today: Buses in Philadelphia have a bunch of "No Eating and Drinking" signs and consequently no trash cans. The result is that the back of the bus is covered in trash. If they had just 1 or two trash cans it would be a much more pleasant ride.

Last time I was flying they had removed the bins from the waiting area (because terrorists). I almost wished I left the trash on the seats or not taken care to make it easy to remove -- that is the only way they will stop doing stupid shit like that.

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#115

Post by 5teev »

fr0sty wrote: post #104
lloeki wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allowing smoking on planes was and is a terrible idea. The fire risk alone should immediately discount it. Yet, people still smoke around pumps at gas stations and even throw the butt to the ground.

And given that a lit cigarette is not hot enough to ignite gasoline vapor what is the issue? Representative sample: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/27/smoking.film

The real danger is the unlit cigarette.

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#116

Post by tedunangst »

afterburner wrote: post #110
yardie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The driver isn't a gatekeeper or tollbooth collector. They stop, you pay your fare. You don't pay the fare they aren't going to argue with you, just pull off to the next stop. Because the bus driver has a schedule to keep and if he has to stop the bus for every minor infraction (and eating on the bus is very far down that list) than the schedule becomes unreliable, people stop taking the bus, and then revenue drops.…

"You don't pay the fare they aren't going to argue with you" Where does that happen?

I see it all the time in a bunch of cities. The driver isn't going to chase you to the back of the bus if you walk by him. I've had drivers tell me to just go ahead when I didn't have the right amount of change ready.

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#117

Post by Arelius »

hasker wrote: post #54
ars wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets do the math then: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=785+millibars+*+876+cub... Result: Each air change costs around .62 of a gallon of gas (assuming perfect efficiency). Or around $2.50 - let's call it $10 to account for inefficiency. In contrast it costs around $10,000 per hour (not including salary) to fly a large plane. Saying they don't circulate air to save money is ridiculous.

Some would say the same thing about removing in-flight beverage service or tossing blankets, pillows, and airline magazines to save weights, yet airlines do it. I think it is equally ridiculous to care about such costs, especially at the cost of focusing management away from the top line, but using logic to suggest it does not happen may not get you far in this case.

Is it to save weight, or to save other costs around maintaining blankets and pillows?

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#118

Post by Gmo »

corin_ wrote: post #77
lflux wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fire hazard maybe? Trash cans were removed from commuter trains in Stockholm since they were constantly being set on fire. They're on our buses though. Go to England and you won't see trash cans in train stations at all.

In England we do have bins in stations, but now days they generally consist of a transparent bin bag with no surrounding material (e.g. held open by a loop at the top that's attached to a wall). I believe the logic is that it makes it harder to hide a bomb in them, though whether this is fact or just commonly quoted myth I have no idea.

Well, that has been the case in France since 1993 (bomb attacks in the Parisian metro).

And that was also the explanation I had been given, so I'd say it's probably true.

Re: Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays

#120

Post by aidenn0 »

corin_ wrote: post #99
MattRogish wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what you claimed - you claimed that it was a) recirculated less and as a direct result b) more airborne germs are prevalent and c) cost is saved. Sorry - it's my fault for not giving more background on Mr. Smith - Patrick Smith has been a Delta Air Lines pilot for about 10 years, written two books on airlines, before that flying cargo, and I've met him more than once, so I'll trust him and the other pilots…

That's not what I claimed because I didn't claim anything at all. Your sources are all (I think?) about the fact that the way they deal with air is good, and you may well be right that it's cleaner than in your office. That doesn't mean that it's not less clean than when smoking was allowed - it may well be that in order to get rid of the smell of smoke they needed to clean the air way more than technically necessary…

Except the recirculation systems started well before the smoking ban...
Post reply on HN