they would all have smoking sections. smoking is banned entirely so they cant do that. the main reason given is due to the people who work there. that is afair.
No doubt. But what about the people who don't? It's not really easy to discern those who are the good boys from those who are bad boys. Guess we could kill 'em all and let god sort it out. Not since my 20's. Recently, I was one of the lucky ones who had to go to the ER due to my infection with H1N1. I can't say it was caused by anything other than the fact that I'm a human being, exposed to pretty much every virus. Given enough time, I'm gonna' get sick. The key words there are: more dangerous. Amongst other things. For starters, it's impossible to tell the difference between the various strains of flu. One could be nothing. The other could be something. Moreover, many people carry the flu and are totally infectious and show no signs. Lastly, trying to stop people from being exposed is a known impossibility. We can't even slow it down. Considering these and relevant facts, airlines really don't get into the business of saying, "Sorry, passenger A, you have the sniffles." When any person with a first year degree in the sciences knows that all the hype about preventing colds and influenze is about making people feel protected than actually doing anything meaningful. EVERYBODY is and will be exposed to EVERY strain of flu within a given year. It's simply impossible to stop it (unless you're living in a bubble or in a cottage out in the woods). There's no such thing as isolation. You know this. And there's no such thing as a plane that could adequately isolate sick, infected and contagious passengers. The ruse about "extent of time exposed" is a wives' tale. When I had H1N1, I had the sniffles and aches for three days leading up to the full deal. I worked, went grocery shopping, to my gym and to the public library. I unwittingly infected hundreds of people. There's just no reasonable way to isolate people with the flu. Allergies. You're asking more than what is reasonable, doable, or even reliably managed since, as I pointed out, you're gonna' get infected anyway. You're asking to be isolated away from a universal human condition, one which is not easily avoided and one which would unreasonably burden airliners with the task of screening and segregating. . . . there, you might be on to something! Those 200 healthy people aren't really 200 healthy people. People, as I said, carry all sorts of illnesses without signs and secretly infect hundreds of others. Moreover, even the healthy ones will be exposed, while shitting in a public toilet, while digging their hands into the peanut bowl at their bar or while grabbing the guide-rail on an escalator. Germs are everywhere and aren't really avoidable. That would require costly tests, which would be a public relation's nightmare, amongst other things. ~String
Ironically the air inside the cabin used to actually be cleaner back when people smoked as it was regularly filtered. Now they just move the stale air around the cabin.
Okay, I admit that I was mostly just grumpy after being kept awake on a flight. But surely we can sequester the snorers into a sound-proof cabin for long flights? They know who they are, and it's inevitable they'll snore if they sleep upright in one of those airline seats. And sleep deprivation surely has predictable, unwanted costs on the health and welfare of all the other passengers (comparable to - or even greater than - second-hand smoke???), so...
Christa, see my earlier post: "No. The problem is who do you get to work in your smoke poluted bar when it is against the law to subject employees to the risks involved in breathing second hand smoke? It's not just a matter of consumer choice. Consider the implications of your bar staff suing you for putting their health at risk, you can't fire them for not wanting to die of lung cancer. "But they choose to work here" I hear you cry, true but I also choose to work in an office and I also have the right to work in a safe environment just as bar staff, waiters, etc do. Employers must allow equal opportunities, it's no good saying to a prospective employee "this place will be full of smoke, take it or leave it" because you are then discriminating against people that don't want to suffer the ill effects of passive smoking."
Sorry to hear about your flight. I hate flying. I'm scared to death of it, and I've logged more hours in the air than most people can imagine. Between living and studying overseas, moving across the continent several times and being a marketing manager for Costco, I've probably flown to the Sun and back. I used to have a standing prescription from my doctor for Valium whenever I had to fly. Two of those (for long trips) and a few drinks of vodka. . . and the plane could crash land; I'd never even know it. Regarding your poor trip: Try sitting next a fat SNORING, SWEATING, SINKING German lady from Madrid to Tenerife (4 hours) on an Iberia Airlines flight! She was literally spilling across goddamned seat. The seats, I swear to frakking Vishnu, were 18" wide and the bitch insisted that I had to put the armrest up to accommodate her tubby ass. Sorry. I refused, and thankfully the flight attendant agreed.* Later, when I put my foot up on the base of the seat in front of me, she smacked my foot trying to tell me to take it down; prompting me to grab her lard-filled hand and thrust a big fat middle finger in her face. She muttered profanities in Deutsch for the entire trip whilst she was awake, none of which I could understand, other than: Ficken (sp) Englisch! At the end of the flight I leaned over and said, "Ameeeeeeeerrrrrican! Fettarsch!" I would have had no compunction about punching that rosy-cheeked pachyderm in the face were it not for the threat of jail-time and a flight back to the US. ~String ____________________________________________ *International law holds that you buy the space on the plain, not the actual trip. If you're too fat to fit in your space, then you're required to buy more. "Large People" advocacy groups have sued over this fact, contesting that this is discrimination against fat people. Courts have not come down in their favor.
Personally, I'd have been just as happy to let her attribute that to the English. They've earned their reputation as the world's least-desirable tourists, so why not avail ourselves of it? And I feel you on the stupid-narrow Spanish (and Mexican!) seats. One last airline complaint: I've noticed that European attendants take a much harder line with disruptive passengers, and specifically screaming brats. In the US, the attendants bizarrely consider such shenanigans "adorable" and encourage them by fawning over the imps and feeding them extra helpings of sugary beverages >:[
Sure, they're strict, except on flights to Barcelona where there was a weeeee hint of skunky-bud in the air (this was back when the back o' the plain was for smokers). I couldn't help but giggle. I mean, REALLY!? Taking a toke on a plain and violating about 58 national and international regulations! The perpetrator either deserved a medal or jail time. Europeans are smokers, they smoke in frakking hospitals (at least, when I lived there), and smoking weed is only nominally worse to them. ~String
I don't think we should ban smoking outside. I love going out when it's like 20 degrees below, watching all the smokers passing out 'cause they don't know when to stop exhaling.....
Our garage gets cleaned every winter. Its what my husband does while he is trying to stay warm out there.
It's changed a lot in recent years actually. No more smoking anywhere you want in the Madrid airport, and the cigarette machines on the streets in Germany now require a fancy EU identity card so that toddlers can't buy any more. They're still much better about providing smoking areas in airports and the like, though. There are numerous major US airports without a single smoking area. And nowadays you can't even go back outside to smoke once you're through security (for example, during a long layover).
Believe it or not, there is still one in my favorite Chinese restaurant, still has the original "Salem" logo on the front. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Still sells cigarettes. I don't know how it is still legal. ~String
i hate HATE them screaming little bratts!! I dont even like them in stores, places to eat, and needless to include that into movie theaters... yes, I have a small child who throws tantrums at random times.. but I dont take her out if shes like that..I know she cant sit threw a movie, so I dont go watch them.. I wait for them to come out so I can rent them.. I dont pay 7bucks a ticket to deal with someones bratty ass, loud children, who dont know how to whisper, and run EVERYWHERE while I am trying to watch the movie. ugh...
To be fair, there are movies where it's understood that rowdy kids are okay. These are Disney movies, shown during the daytime. Nobody cares how crazy the kids go in those, since the adults don't care about the movie and just want some time to chat and relax while the kids wear themselves out. Now, when people bring brats to evening showings of real movies, that's obnoxious. I once sat in front of a family that brought 3 small children, the youngest of which was too small to see over the seat. So they also brought several noise-making toys to entertain him during the movie. After about 20 minutes some guy a few rows over stood up and ordered them to get out, which they did :]
here u still see kids in the theater at the 9pm shows, i have seen them at 6pm shows also... i took chy to the movies once, when the movie P.ot C worlds end came out.. chy was like 8months old.. there where kids running around yelling, you heard ppl saying shhhh... my daughter just got ancey and I took her into the hallway.. if ur kids dont have the attention to watch a 2-3hour movie, dont bring them.. its simple...and some areas have these bounce houses that are just for kids to play inside while parents sit and do whatever, they even have WiFi access.. 5$ for however long ur kids play, and they pass out after you leave...
