Smoking
Guest
Posts: n/a
Smoking
Is it true that BA are considering placing a non smokers only rule on their TEP scheme?
There's going to be some worried people about.
Smokers remember::
It's disgusting
It causes early hypoxia
You smell.
Well done BA if this is true
[This message has been edited by 1.32 Vmd (edited 28 May 2001).]
There's going to be some worried people about.
Smokers remember::
It's disgusting
It causes early hypoxia
You smell.
Well done BA if this is true
[This message has been edited by 1.32 Vmd (edited 28 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I suppose it's possible but I would not get too worried if you are a smoker yet.....sounds like another rumour to me.
From one point of view it would make sense as BA could say that the long term health effects of smoking could be a threat to their investment. Anyone know any more about this?
One thing I do know is that a lot of pilots smoke........
From one point of view it would make sense as BA could say that the long term health effects of smoking could be a threat to their investment. Anyone know any more about this?
One thing I do know is that a lot of pilots smoke........
)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually, in my experience very few pilots smoke these days. 20 years ago, probably 40 - 50% of pilots smoked; now, maybe less than 10% do - and most of those are either just about to retire (and have smoked all their lives) or have just left full time education (and are still smoking because it's 'cool'). The rest of us have decided that life is a little more valuable than a tab or two at the end of a stressful trip.
If BA are insisting on non-smoking pilots, I'd be very surprised - there are probably 'human rights' (yuk!) issues here - but I'd love to think it was true!
------------------
Scroggs
Wannabe Forum Moderator
[email protected]
If BA are insisting on non-smoking pilots, I'd be very surprised - there are probably 'human rights' (yuk!) issues here - but I'd love to think it was true!
------------------
Scroggs
Wannabe Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
These are just my personal thoughts, and I'm just another wannabe, not an expert in Aviation medical:
If you think about it, airlines like BA can justify not employing smokers. Because many airlines operate no-smoking flights. And obviously this includes the crew. Smoker's anxiety builds up when they haven't had a fag for ages, and no airline want high levels of anxiety in the cockpit during a Long-haul flight. This could cause safety issues.
Again, let me reiterate that these are MY thoughts.
Cheers
BTW
If you think about it, airlines like BA can justify not employing smokers. Because many airlines operate no-smoking flights. And obviously this includes the crew. Smoker's anxiety builds up when they haven't had a fag for ages, and no airline want high levels of anxiety in the cockpit during a Long-haul flight. This could cause safety issues.
Again, let me reiterate that these are MY thoughts.
Cheers
BTW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not siding with smokers or non-smokers..... but how could they tell anyway !?!? Whilst obviously not condoning lying to the Dr's, surely people would just stop admitting it during medical time that they chuff fags !?!? Unless they've chuffed 100 a day for ten years it's unlikely to show up on a lung function test. (I don't smoke by the way !)
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a subject worthy of some moderately serious debate. If you turn it into a slanging match,I shall close it.
For my thruppence worth, it is arguable that the health risks posed to smokers by their addiction could be considered unacceptable by an employer. The employer would have to successfully argue that the annual medical is insufficient to detect the health degradation caused by smoking, and demonstrate that there have been a number of actual, or potential, incidents caused by the fact of an individual's smoking habit. Whether such a position could survive examination in a court is, at the very least, debatable.
Alchohol was mentioned as a similar candidate for disqualification from employment, but I would counter that many recent medical studies suggest that moderate consumption of alchohol is actually good for one's health. However, an addiction to alchohol is neither good for the individual nor their passengers, and is not tolerated by any airline.
------------------
Scroggs
Wannabe Forum Moderator
[email protected]
For my thruppence worth, it is arguable that the health risks posed to smokers by their addiction could be considered unacceptable by an employer. The employer would have to successfully argue that the annual medical is insufficient to detect the health degradation caused by smoking, and demonstrate that there have been a number of actual, or potential, incidents caused by the fact of an individual's smoking habit. Whether such a position could survive examination in a court is, at the very least, debatable.
Alchohol was mentioned as a similar candidate for disqualification from employment, but I would counter that many recent medical studies suggest that moderate consumption of alchohol is actually good for one's health. However, an addiction to alchohol is neither good for the individual nor their passengers, and is not tolerated by any airline.
------------------
Scroggs
Wannabe Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
BTW
I agree, everybody is entitled to their opinion, unfortunately opinions which appear to based on ignorance achieve very little other than antagonism.
Your argument that nicotine deprivation can cause anxiety is fair, but the anxiety caused will vary from person to person. As an ex smoker I can say that it is quite easy to go long periods without a fag and not be adversely affected.
Further, nicotine can be supplied through alternative products that are inoffensive, i.e. chewing gum, patches, inhalators. The greatest problem for those giving up smoking is breaking the habit and not the addiction because of the above products.
Anxiety can be caused by many other things, your argument fails to acknowledge this. Do you stop people flying because their partner, spouse, child, parent etc. is ill? Do you stop somebody flying because they are going through a divorce? Just two examples of situations which can cause anxiety.
So p*ss off and, as I said, try thinking before exposing us to your thoughts.
As for the health risks, a medical should be able to pick any major risks. It is widely accepted that smoking can lead to lung disease and heart disease, but it does not automatically do so. Many people who have never smoked suffer unexpected heart attacks, the purpose of a medical is to ensure fitness to fly - if a smoker is fit to fly then their employer has no right to stop them because they don't like smokers, they can stop them smoking in company time but not in their own time - it is legal after all.
[This message has been edited by jollygreengiant (edited 30 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by jollygreengiant (edited 30 May 2001).]
I agree, everybody is entitled to their opinion, unfortunately opinions which appear to based on ignorance achieve very little other than antagonism.
Your argument that nicotine deprivation can cause anxiety is fair, but the anxiety caused will vary from person to person. As an ex smoker I can say that it is quite easy to go long periods without a fag and not be adversely affected.
Further, nicotine can be supplied through alternative products that are inoffensive, i.e. chewing gum, patches, inhalators. The greatest problem for those giving up smoking is breaking the habit and not the addiction because of the above products.
Anxiety can be caused by many other things, your argument fails to acknowledge this. Do you stop people flying because their partner, spouse, child, parent etc. is ill? Do you stop somebody flying because they are going through a divorce? Just two examples of situations which can cause anxiety.
So p*ss off and, as I said, try thinking before exposing us to your thoughts.
As for the health risks, a medical should be able to pick any major risks. It is widely accepted that smoking can lead to lung disease and heart disease, but it does not automatically do so. Many people who have never smoked suffer unexpected heart attacks, the purpose of a medical is to ensure fitness to fly - if a smoker is fit to fly then their employer has no right to stop them because they don't like smokers, they can stop them smoking in company time but not in their own time - it is legal after all.
[This message has been edited by jollygreengiant (edited 30 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by jollygreengiant (edited 30 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I think this would be a damn good thing. Smoking is frankly disgusting, and BA is obviously taking the moral lead in this case. Why should smokers be allowed on the TPS, eh? In the event of a depressurisation they're unnecessarily endangering the lives of their passengers and colleagues. If they were really committed to being an airline pilot they'd be happy to quit on joining anyway.
What *really* annoys me though is these "social" smokers that only have a ciggy when they go out of an evening. They don't even have the excuse that they're addicted! At least some old hack on 40-a-day can claim he doesn't have the willpower or moral fibre to stand up to his problem, but these wet-behind-the-ears smoking wannabes can't even say that. Pathetic.
Hooray for BA, I say.
What *really* annoys me though is these "social" smokers that only have a ciggy when they go out of an evening. They don't even have the excuse that they're addicted! At least some old hack on 40-a-day can claim he doesn't have the willpower or moral fibre to stand up to his problem, but these wet-behind-the-ears smoking wannabes can't even say that. Pathetic.
Hooray for BA, I say.