5 ms·

The airlines actually save money by preventing smoking : The air in the cabins needs to be recycled less often. The flip side, though, is that air-bourne disea

by mdda 14y ago

The airlines actually save money by preventing smoking : The air in the cabins needs to be recycled less often. The flip side, though, is that air-bourne diseases are more prevalent on flights now, since the air is rebreathed more often before filtering. Source : Qi series 1 (BBC UK).

MattRogish 14y ago
Wrong: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2010/02/the-truth-about-recycled-airplane-air-.html http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealt...
- corin_ 14y ago
  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 occasion be wrong (and have corrected themselves for mistakes in previous shows in the past), but they won't put a fact into a show without getting good sources for it, so if they say that air gets recycled less now than when smoking was allowed, I believe them.
  - MattRogish 14y ago
    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 I've met when they tell me how their airplanes work. Here's more of his articles on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/askthepilot335/ http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/askthepilot335/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-and-answers/#cX-q9 http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-and-answers/#cX-q9 and another article here: http://airlinesafety.com/articles/FSFCabinAir.htm http://airlinesafety.com/articles/FSFCabinAir.htm I'll allow that it's certainly possible that manufacturers have tweaked the circulation post-smoking, but even if so, it wasn't done with some nefarious intent or to the detriment of passengers. The air we breathe (as I'm about to get on a flight) is incredibly clean, cleaner than in my office.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      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, and that therefore after the smoking ban it could be lowered without being "some nefarious intent".
      - MattRogish 14y ago
        I'n sorry, you're right. I confused you with the OP, please accept my apology.
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        Except the recirculation systems started well before the smoking ban...
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    From the transcript (http://sites.google.com/site/qitranscripts/transcripts/1x10 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.
ars 14y ago
How exactly do they save money by not recycling air? You don't have to pay for air during flight - it comes from the outside air and is free, it's not canisters or something.
- cameldrv 14y ago
  You do have to pay for air if you care what pressure it is at. Non-Sherpas will demand a refund of their ticket price if provided air at ambient pressure at 35000 ft.
  - ars 14y ago
    Lets do the math then: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=785+millibars+*+876+cubic+meters+*+ln%28239+millibars%2F785+millibars%29 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.
    - hasker 14y ago
      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.
      - Arelius 14y ago
        Is it to save weight, or to save other costs around maintaining blankets and pillows?
    - megablast 14y ago
      Some airlines make just over $100 per flight. Not per person per flight, PER FLIGHT. They are looking for every saving they can get. You can work this out my looking at an an airlines profits, and how many flights they did a year.
gaius 14y ago
Uhh, you know QI is a comedy show, right? Anyway, it's not true. Air in the cabin is bled off the engines, from the early stage of the compressor, then pressurized and heated. It's not one cabinful of air that was in it from the ground endlessly recirculated. QI also told the world that the Internet uses GPS to route packets (tho' some devices may use GPS for its clock signal, packets don't know geographically where they are).
- corin_ 14y ago
  It's a comedy show, but that doesn't mean they don't take facts seriously. As I said in another comment further down, QI is: a show with a team of good researchers, they can on occasion be wrong (and have corrected themselves for mistakes in previous shows in the past), but they won't put a fact into a show without getting good sources for it So while they may be wrong in this instance, the fact that they are a comedy show isn't reason enough to think so.
Symmetry 14y ago
An interesting book I read a while ago on health myths had a very good debunking of that urban legend: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004YD69WM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004YD69WM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_...

by mdda 14y ago

MattRogish 14y ago

Wrong: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2010/02/the-truth-about-recycled-airplane-air-.html http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealt...

corin_ 14y ago
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 occasion be wrong (and have corrected themselves for mistakes in previous shows in the past), but they won't put a fact into a show without getting good sources for it, so if they say that air gets recycled less now than when smoking was allowed, I believe them.
- MattRogish 14y ago
  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 I've met when they tell me how their airplanes work. Here's more of his articles on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/askthepilot335/ http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/askthepilot335/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-and-answers/#cX-q9 http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-and-answers/#cX-q9 and another article here: http://airlinesafety.com/articles/FSFCabinAir.htm http://airlinesafety.com/articles/FSFCabinAir.htm I'll allow that it's certainly possible that manufacturers have tweaked the circulation post-smoking, but even if so, it wasn't done with some nefarious intent or to the detriment of passengers. The air we breathe (as I'm about to get on a flight) is incredibly clean, cleaner than in my office.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    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, and that therefore after the smoking ban it could be lowered without being "some nefarious intent".
    - MattRogish 14y ago
      I'n sorry, you're right. I confused you with the OP, please accept my apology.
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      Except the recirculation systems started well before the smoking ban...
- gnaffle 14y ago
  From the transcript (http://sites.google.com/site/qitranscripts/transcripts/1x10 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.

ars 14y ago

How exactly do they save money by not recycling air? You don't have to pay for air during flight - it comes from the outside air and is free, it's not canisters or something.

cameldrv 14y ago
You do have to pay for air if you care what pressure it is at. Non-Sherpas will demand a refund of their ticket price if provided air at ambient pressure at 35000 ft.
- ars 14y ago
  Lets do the math then: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=785+millibars+*+876+cubic+meters+*+ln%28239+millibars%2F785+millibars%29 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.
  - hasker 14y ago
    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.
    - Arelius 14y ago
      Is it to save weight, or to save other costs around maintaining blankets and pillows?
  - megablast 14y ago
    Some airlines make just over $100 per flight. Not per person per flight, PER FLIGHT. They are looking for every saving they can get. You can work this out my looking at an an airlines profits, and how many flights they did a year.

gaius 14y ago

Uhh, you know QI is a comedy show, right? Anyway, it's not true. Air in the cabin is bled off the engines, from the early stage of the compressor, then pressurized and heated. It's not one cabinful of air that was in it from the ground endlessly recirculated. QI also told the world that the Internet uses GPS to route packets (tho' some devices may use GPS for its clock signal, packets don't know geographically where they are).

corin_ 14y ago
It's a comedy show, but that doesn't mean they don't take facts seriously. As I said in another comment further down, QI is: a show with a team of good researchers, they can on occasion be wrong (and have corrected themselves for mistakes in previous shows in the past), but they won't put a fact into a show without getting good sources for it So while they may be wrong in this instance, the fact that they are a comedy show isn't reason enough to think so.

Symmetry 14y ago

An interesting book I read a while ago on health myths had a very good debunking of that urban legend: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004YD69WM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004YD69WM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_...