If anyone wants to smoke, fine. Just don't come near me with that terrible smell in your clothes and hair, revolting breath and all the other puking effects that were endemic in the sixties, but so universal that they were not remarked upon.

Same holds true for cheap cologne.

You only need that to take away the smell of Lifebouy.

If you don't wash, you don't need cologne, cheap or expensive. Stale sweat says it all.

Public [reeking] body odor is next on the list.

Boater - you've failed to include this article from your toilet reader.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2013063/Octomom-Nadya-Suleman-plane-row-Kristen-Johnston-noisy-children.html

As long as we're at it, I say bring back the smoking sections on long-haul flights.

Lufthansa has ordered a number of A380s fitted with a smokers enclave which can accomodate up to 6 smokers.

As long as we're at it, I say bring back the smoking sections on long-haul flights.

Lufthansa has ordered a number of A380s fitted with a smokers enclave which can accomodate up to 6 smokers.

And thus the stink will return.

I'm not concerned about breathing second-hand smoke, I've had to do it most of my life. And breathing in all the strange chemicals on an oil/gas site, or power station can't do you much good either, but the really foul smell on people who have spent a few minutes in one of these smoker's areas is disgusting.

Reind me not to fly LH in the forseeable future.

As long as we're at it, I say bring back the smoking sections on long-haul flights.

Lufthansa has ordered a number of A380s fitted with a smokers enclave which can accomodate up to 6 smokers.

Will it be detachable, like used fuel-tanks on some planes?

Public [reeking] body odor is next on the list.

How Eurocentric of you. Or maybe the rest of the world just has a different idea of what constitutes a bad smell. From my experience I would say that is certainly the case.

And now it is so noticeable when someone smokes heavily, because the smell comes as a shock. It used to be that everyone smelt the same, smokers or not. Now it is only the few, even in ASEAN countries, that have this ashtray smell around them.

If anyone wants to smoke, fine. Just don't come near me with that terrible smell in your clothes and hair, revolting breath and all the other puking effects that were endemic in the sixties, but so universal that they were not remarked upon.

I worked in one of the first no-smoking hotels and at first it was only one floor. I still remember how shocked I was at how much the smoking rooms stunk after coming from the no-smoking floor. I had never noticed it before because they all stunk so badly.

As long as we're at it, I say bring back the smoking sections on long-haul flights.

Lufthansa has ordered a number of A380s fitted with a smokers enclave which can accomodate up to 6 smokers.

If this becomes a retro-fitting trend, I could easily see a few Asian carriers emersing this into some flights and policies - as well we know, some of these same airlines were the last holdouts during the non-smoking fashion swing some years ago.

Non-smoking or smoking carriers. There should be more choices and the respective airlines allowed to practice as they wish.

Public [reeking] body odor is next on the list.

How Eurocentric of you. Or maybe the rest of the world just has a different idea of what constitutes a bad smell. From my experience I would say that is certainly the case.

The "rest of the world".....

Well, we certainly don't require a survey to know whom the consistent offending [body odor] civilisations might be, do we?

Just look to the West, my friend....

As long as we're at it, I say bring back the smoking sections on long-haul flights.

Lufthansa has ordered a number of A380s fitted with a smokers enclave which can accomodate up to 6 smokers.

And thus the stink will return.

I'm not concerned about breathing second-hand smoke, I've had to do it most of my life. And breathing in all the strange chemicals on an oil/gas site, or power station can't do you much good either, but the really foul smell on people who have spent a few minutes in one of these smoker's areas is disgusting.

Reind me not to fly LH in the forseeable future.

most smokers' areas are deliberately designed to stink by not installing proper ventilation. it will not prevent a smoker to enter but bother with the picked up stink to bother non-smokers like you even on a non-smoking flight.

My only question is how to be sure of a smoking flight with LH to and from Bangkok......Its likely I'd make only 1 or 2 visits during a 10 hour flight in any case.

Is this to be a premium cabin offer only?

Warm and fuzzy PC.

Naturally, you're speaking for those non-smokers, which have largely had there emotional state, consciousness, and political opinion manipulated for the last generation [anti-smoking, second-hand smoke zealotry]

Please don't accuse me of being PC. If you read the majority of my posts, you will find that that is the last thing people who know me would use as a description of my attitude.

I am a dinosaur - closest thing to Tyrranosaurus Rex you are likely to meet. (Ahhh - meat!!)

I am a non-smoker. That was my decision as a pre-teen in the late forties, when my father came back from WWII and would happily sit smoking while I finished my Sunday lunch - the taste completely spoiled by the stinking room smell. One reason I started bike racing on Sunday mornings - I could then miss lunch and have it on my own later.

I also shared a small office in the early sixties with two guys who smoked around eighty a day, each. Then I didn't complain because I was the weird one, not smoking. But it made me stink too. Sadly those two are both dead now.

Even here in Vietnam the drivers of cars seldom smoke in the car. I have to use a ferry each day - to and from work. On the ferry a dozen or more drivers smoke on the ferry, outside their cars. Unfortunately when they get back in their cars their clothes still carry the smell of old smoke, which is what I am complaining about. I'm not concerned with all these health risks - I've probably breathed in more impurities than most, working in construction, building petrochem plants, power plants, laying roads and so on for more than fifty years. But I abhor the smell, and the bad breath that smokers all seem to have.

Maybe I'm a fussy tart, but I'm big enough and old enough to express my opinion loud and clear, whatever the political and cultural climate.

God forbid I sit beside you on an airplane!! You'd be tutting and fussing and complaining!!

About the kids thing though, my parents during the 50's and early 60's would go back and forth between Belfast and Entebbe. The flight, in those days took up to 24 hours or more with lots of stop offs.

They have admitted in later years to having given my sister, brother and myself a few drops of whiskey in our milk, over the years.

That is probably frowned on now. And probably why I hate the taste of whiskey. My brother loves it though, with a nice smelly cigar just before getting on a plane....!!!

I've never smoked on a plane but it used to be allowed on the upper deck of buses back home. I would always sit downstairs as the combined smell is enough to put even most smokers off. The thought of sitting next to someone who chain smoked through a 10 hour flight is awful. I do think Humphrey is being a bit picky but then that's his choice after all!

Actually, cigarette smoke from commercially produced tobacco is radioactive. This isn't propaganda; I've seen some of the papers. Polonium gets drawn into the tobacco plant in disproportionate amounts by the fertilizers used commericially. This means that, tar and particulates and other toxins aside, each pack of cigarettes is equal to a chest x-ray, roughly, in terms of exposure- whether in first or in second-hand smoke.

Let's stay on the main topic, though, which is not about re-introducing the smoking section.

I would just like to speak up for the economy class passengers, who also dislike being next to screaming babies, even if we aren't paying as much.

Only half-serious, but what about noise-canceling 'baby helmet' for such children?

I would just like to speak up for the economy class passengers, who also dislike being next to screaming babies, even if we aren't paying as much.

Only half-serious, but what about noise-canceling 'baby helmet' for such children?

A roll of thick sellotape would do....or compulsory ritalin for unfer 10's....job done....

Or perhaps they could hire Casey Anthony to take care of the kids.

Just carry itty bitty parachutes.

...or compulsory ritalin for unfer 10's....job done

Ritalin acts as an stimulant in kids who do not have ADHD. I'm not sure that is such a good idea.

Ritalin will be OK, but then you have to give all the adults Valium.

Wouldn't it be more effective if you gave the valium to the kids?

...or compulsory ritalin for unfer 10's....job done

Ritalin acts as an stimulant in kids who do not have ADHD. I'm not sure that is such a good idea.

Just mix it in with the coke and sweeties in the departure lounge...I'm sure it'll work like a dream....

Ritalin will be OK, but then you have to give all the adults Valium.

This must have been discussed more than a few times on the trolley dolly forum!

Ritalin will be OK, but then you have to give all the adults Valium.

This must have been discussed more than a few times on the trolley dolly forum!

Depends on the airline.

Mostly find tarts with carts these days.

All of you complaining about kids forget one thing, you were all kids at one point in your life. Easily forgot eh? I do concur that some parents should do more to keep the children calm but to be honest,in my travels I've seen far more grown up's misbehave (usually drink induced) than kids.

Your probably also the kind who have no or little patience for learner drivers, cos you were born knowing how to drive and never had to learn.

My daughter (nearly 3) just flew business class a couple of weeks ago. The bed was pulled out and she slept for nearly the whole flight, not a problem. In fact when she woke up, other passengers made most of the noise playing with her. Are you seriously condoning banning my (usually) well behaved daughter from flying because a minority of others are noisy? Get a life, it's a mere 6 or 7 hours* or so out of your life that you MAY have to put up with a little distruption.

* = Times may vary subject to destination and routes.

I was on a flight from Geneva to London once, and when they did the safety speech the lady added that if anyone was caught smoking in the toilets they would be asked to leave immediately without a parachute!!

All of you complaining about kids forget one thing, you were all kids at one point in your life. Easily forgot eh?

So I guess ANYTHING someone younger does can be excused because we were that age once?

I don't blame the kid. I'm sure the kid would rather be at home playing with his/her toys and friends instead of being dragged around on a trip that they don't care about and will never remember anyway. For those of you with vivid memories of your trip to Africa when you were 2-3 years old, save it. You only remember the stories people have told you since.

All of you complaining about kids forget one thing, you were all kids at one point in your life. Easily forgot eh?

So I guess ANYTHING someone younger does can be excused because we were that age once?

Nope. I didn't say that. The context of this discussion is about kids making a little noise on a plane, not throwing stones at the windows or mugging the trolley dolly. You're a smart cookie and you know exactly what was meant and so I can only assume that you are trying to take this in a different direction. Feel free to do so but not at the expense of dragging my comments into it. :jap: