Airports Open Smoking Facilities To Combat Drop-Off in Travel

California Aviation / Wall Street Journal ^ | March 15, 2002 | JESSE DRUCKER and JANE COSTELLO

[Max McGarrity]

Here's unexpected fallout from the drop in air travel: more chances to smoke.

Several airports -- including LAX, Dallas/Fort Worth, Boston and Detroit -- are considering opening new smoking facilities in terminals. An important reason for the change: With retail sales off 14%, airports are looking for ways to keep travelers in the terminal. Right now, many of them have to go outside to smoke.

Earlier this month, the DFW Airport Board told its staff to study the issue. And Detroit's Metropolitan Wayne County Airport is evaluating proposals for a bar and grill near the international gates that would permit smoking so "passengers would not need to go out to the curb front," says an airport spokesman. (That would require an exception to local laws banning smoking in county buildings.)

Another factor: With beefed-up security, going outside to smoke and then coming back through the screening checkpoint requires a lot of extra time.

"The purpose of clean air rules in airports is to protect nonsmokers from second-hand smoke, not to punish smokers," says Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society. "So it seems reasonable to me that airports would try to accommodate people who are addicted."

 

[Max McGarrity]

;The purpose of clean air rules in airports is to protect nonsmokers from second-hand smoke, not to punish smokers," says Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society. "So it seems reasonable to me that airports would try to accommodate people who are addicted.

Okay! Who is this guy and what has he done with the real Dr. Thun?

(Hope you're feeling better, Joe.)

[TomGuy]

It's just a ploy...as soon as the traveler numbers are back up, the smokers will again be relegated to the outdoors.

It never seems to amaze me how policies can shift in an instance due to $$$.

[Ramius]

Wow... here's one for the "Duh!" column. Now if only SFO and SEA would pick up on this. I fly between those two places every two weeks, and its always struck me and just plain stupid not to have a smoking area somewhere in the terminal. Maybe-- a BAR. I know... too easy...

[SheLion]

It's always about money! Not our rights or Junk Science, but M O N E Y.

[yoe]

No studies have ever been done on second-hand smoke! Like drilling in the Artic, it is all myth and conjecture. I have twice found airport employees, pilots and stewardesses standing in the 'employees only' corridor SMOKING. Asking if I could join them, I was allowed to once.

Like airport security, it has only been window dressing until now. I think the powers that be should provide a place for those of us who enjoy a cigarette now and then.

[SheLion]

"So it seems reasonable to me that airports would try to accommodate people who are addicted."

Oh! That's cute. Addicted! heh!

[patton]

Yeah, I am one of their favorite customers - the "Business traveler", often flying on a last-minute tickett.

And I smoke.

Well, I fly if I have no choice - I would rather walk, frankly, but time pressure often forces me to give them money.

Believe me, though, I give them the least that I can.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

What a brilliant idea. Throw a bone to the smokers but keep the same screwed-up security.

[mvpel]

Wow! And I thought X-ray strip searches were good enough reason to avoid flying, and now they add THIS to the list! Sheesh.

[Iowa Granny]

They should check out Lambert in St. Louis. They have smoking cassocks,,,,. I switched from United to TWA several years ago due to this feature. I hope the demise of TWA doesn't mean the disappearance of this perk.

[Balding_Eagle]

No studies have ever been done on second-hand smoke!

Not true. Several years ago the WHO did an extensive study. Natually, the results were, as I understand, unambiguous. No health danger from second hand smoke.

The following is from a 10/26/99 WND column by Jon Dougherty

"The study compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people, and examined people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked with and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer," the Telegraph said. The study, seen by the Telegraph, also stated, "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) exposure during childhood."

[logic101.net]

The smoking bans are one of the reasons I will no longer fly. Once you go through security you cannot go out for a smoke, and now you are supposed to get to the airport how long before your flight, 2 hrs? So that is 2 hrs w/o a smoke, then you get on a "smoke free" plane for a few hours, only to arrive at another non-smoking terminal. No thanks.

Add to this, the fact that the new "security" is nothing but window dressing, and the FAA refuses to allow the one thing that would have prevented 9/11; arming the pilots!

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[Great Dane]

HEHE, when we flew to Ohio in December, we found that Columbus airport had a smoking lounge, as did Toronto and Ottawa airports.

[Great Dane]

It's still the money, isn't it.

[stlrocket]

It is amazing that the Morons that run these airports really do not have a clue about the public. They are "tolerant" ONLY -when their revenues decline!

They, and the clueless government, will continue to destroy the airtravel industry until the Clueless Clowns in Airline Senior Management finally address the insanity of wanding 3 year olds, and 89 year old Medal of Honor winners!

I'm not holding my breath.

THE SMOKING NAZI'S

THE "REAL SMOKING NAZI'S

THE DEAD POOL

[uncbob]

They are "tolerant" ONLY -when their revenues decline!

Actually the smokers are the morons.
They sit back and allow themselves to be taxed and taxed again.

What they ought to do is organize, become militant and DEMAND the government spend more money on LUNG CANCER CURES.
They could even get celebrities to wear BROWN RIBBONS in support of finding a cure

Hell it worked for the homosexuals whose deaths from AIDS is caused by their life styles so why not the smokers.
Hell of a lot more puffers than suckers. SO UNITE

[nothingnew]

Hi Max and all....$$$$$$$$$$$ makes the world go round, and changes everything....

PUFF!!!

FMCDH!!

[nothingnew]

Hell of a lot more puffers than suckers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!...oh, behave!!!

FMCDH!!

[Gabz]

My goodness------------- a reporter that actually quoted directly from the study - will wonders never cease!!!!!!!!!

(as a former reporter, I feel entitled to be obnoxious in reference to the main (lame) stream media!!!)