Abstract
This 6 page document contains the 1994 testimony of American Airlines flight attendant Patricia Young, in which she urged Congress to ban smoking on all international flights. Ms. Young stated that when she was forced to work on smoking flights, "at times my tears and mucus were the color or coffee or tea." Some of the effects of her chronic exposure to tobacco smoke at work, according to her testimony, included chronic bronchitis, asthma, chronic laryngitis, chronic sinus disease and severe debilitating headaches with vomiting and diarrhea. Ms. Young stated that that "When asked by company employees...when smoking would be eliminated on all flights [Mr. Robert Crandall, Chairman and President of AMR Corporation, parent company of American Airlines] would smile, light up a cigarette, blow out the smoke and say: 'Does that answer your question?' "
The second document in this group is a stockholder resolution to the AMR Corporation asking that AMR act to "protect the health and well-being of its passengers and employees [and] eliminate smoking from all American flights by January 1, 1995." The paper states, "The Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST the proposal."
The third document is a letter Mr. Crandall sent to Ms. Young responding to her request that he support a ban on smoking on commercial aircraft. Mr. Crandall's response is incredible when viewed in retrospect of what has been accomplished since that time:
"Dear Patty:
Unfortunately, I simply cannot make a public statement against smoking on commercial aircraft. While I could tolerate such a prohibition, a great many of our passengers continue to tell us that long flights -- transcons, etc. -- on a nonsmoking airline would simply be unacceptable. Additionally, of course, no U.S. carrier can go "nonsmoking" internationally since all the foreign flag carriers are much more liberal than we and a higher percentage of foreign than domestic customers smoke. A second consideration is our community relationships. As I'm sure you know, cigarette manufacturing is a very important industry in many of the states in the Southeast and particularly important in North Carolina -- where our Raleigh-Durham hub is located. Can you imagine the reaction of community leaders -- and the many thousands of people who work for the cigarette companies -- to an antismoking initiative by American Airlines? As you pursue your efforts, I hope you will consider their impact on others. There are a great many people whose lives and welfare would be adversely impacted by further antismoking legislation. In advancing your cause, I think you should carefully consider the other guy's point of view. In any event, I cannot do as you ask because doing so would damage our stockholders, our business and ultimately, many of our employees. We shall not oppose the spread of no-smoking legislation -- since I can understand the desire of many to avoid smoking's passive effects -- but we cannot advocate it.
Very truly yours,
R.L. Crandall"
Taken together, this brief series of documents give a look at the extreme difficulties and lack of support that flight attendants faced--even from their own employers--in their fight to attain a smoke-free workplace.
Fields
- Quotes
August 14, 1989
Ms. Patty Young
4910 West Hanover
Dallas, Texas 75209
Dear Patty:
Unfortunately, I simply cannot make a public statement against smoking on commercial aircraft. While I could tolerate such a prohibition, a great many of our passengers continue to tell us that long flights -- transcons, etc. -- on a nonsmoking airline would simply be unacceptable. Additionally, of course, no U.S. carrier can go "nonsmoking" internationally since all the foreign flag carriers are much more liberal than we and a higher percentage of foreign than domestic customers smoke. A second consideration is our community relationships. As I'm sure you know, cigarette manufacturing is a very important industry in many of the states in the Southeast and particularly important in North Carolina -- where our Raleigh-Durham hub is located. Can you imagine the reaction of community leaders -- and the many thousands of people who work for the cigarette companies -- to an antismoking initiative by American Airlines? As you pursue your efforts, I hope you will consider their impact on others. There are a great many people whose lives and welfare would be adversely impacted by further antismoking legislation. In advancing your cause, I think you should carefully consider the other guy's point of view. In any event, I cannot do as you ask because doing so would damage our stockholders, our business and ultimately, many of our employees. We shall not oppose the spread of no-smoking legislation -- since I can understand the desire of many to avoid smoking's passive effects -- but we cannot advocate it.
Very truly yours,
R.L. Crandall
Chairman and President
American Airlines
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Author
- Young, Patricia 1 (Flight attendant & very early advocate for smoke-free workpl)
Patricia Young began pushing for smoke-free workplaces in 1966
- Recipient
- Presumed recipient, Tobacco Institute
RegionUnited States
International
LitigationConnecticut AG
TypeSTATEMENT / TESTIMONY
Subjectsmoking restriction
flight attendant
airplane
airlines
health effects
secondhand smoke
secondhand smoke/health effects
Annotations
- 1. Young, Patricia Author
- Affiliation:
American Airlines Inc
Document Images
Page 1: 10002003
PATRICIA YOUNG
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT ATTENDANT
MAY 18, 1994
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS
PATTY YOUNG, AND I HAVE BEEN A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 28 YEARS.
FOR THE LAST 25 OF THOSE YEARS I HAVE BEEN CONSTANTLY WORKING
TO HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE REMOVED FROM MY WORK
ENVIRONMENT.
IT TOOK AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO BAN SMOKING ON MOST
DOMESTIC FLIGHTS, AND IT WILL TAKE ANOTHER ACT OF CONGRESS TO
BAN SMOKING ON ALL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS.
OBVIOUSLY, CONGRESS CAN NOT RELY ON THE AIRLINES TO
CREATE A HEALTHY AND SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR EITHER THE FLIGHT
CREWS OR THE PASSENGERS. NOR CAN CONGRESS RELY ON THE
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TO SET PROTECTIVE STANDARDS
FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY. THE FEDERAL AGENCIES INVOLVED INCLUDE
THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA), THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT), THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS (OFCCP), AND THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA). THESE AGENCIES HAVE BEEN
NO~ING MORE ~ WHORES FOR BIG BUSINESS.
IT IS A FACT THAT THE AIR LINES ARE MORE INTERESTED IN
PROFIT THAN IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF FLIGHT CREWS AND
PASSENGERS. PART OF THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS TO SAVE ON THE FUEL
COSTS OF MAINTAINING CABIN AIR QUALITY.
TICT 0011034
Page 2: 10002004
PAT~ YOUNG, page 2
IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CABIN AIR QUALITY, HOT AIR IS TAKEN
FROM THE AIRCRAFT ENGINES AND MIXED WITH COLD OUTSIDE AIR TO
MAINTAIN CABIN TEMPERATURE. THE MORE HOT AIR TAKEN FROM THE
ENGINES, THE HIGHER THE FUEL COSTS. THEREFORE, THE AIR LINES
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FRESH AIR BROUGHT INTO THE CABIN.
FIVE YEARS AGO, I SPOKE BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
CONSIDERING THE BANNING OF SMOKING ON DOMESTIC FLIGHTS. I
SAID TO THAT COMMITTEE: "WE, THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ARE NOT A
DISPOSABLE WORK FORCE AND WE DESERVE A HEALTHY AND SAFE
WORKING ENVIRONMENT."
OBVIOUSLY, I WAS WRONG: WE ARE DISPOSABLE. THE AIR LINES
HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE CABIN AIR QUALITY BY BANNING
SMOKING ON ALL FLIGHTS. AS A RESULT, FLIGHT ATTENDANTS ARE
SICK, DISEASED, DYING AND DEAD FROM ILLNESSES CAUSED BY
TOBACCO SMOKE. WE ARE WALKING TIME BOMBS BECAUSE OF THE RAPE
WE HAVE BEEN FORCED TO ENDURE IN OUR WORK ENVIRONMENT. EVEN
WHEN WE SECURE A SMOKE FREE ENVIRONMENT, WE WILL STILL BE
SUBJECT TO TOBACCO RELATED CANCERS AND OTHER ILLNESSES WHICH
CAN TAKE UP TO 20 YEARS TO SHOW UP.
SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF MY TOBACCO RELATED ILLNESSES ARE
CHRONIC BRONCHITIS, ASTHMA, CHRONIC LARYNGITIS, CHRONIC SINUS
DISEASE WITH POLYPS, AND SEVERE DEBILITATING HEADACHES WITH
VOMITING AND DIARRHEA. ALSO WHEN I WAS FORCED TO WORK
SMOKING FLIGHTS, AT TIMES MY TEARS AND MUCUS WERE THE COLOR
OF COFFEE OR TEA. IF THAT WAS THE VISIBLE EFFECT, OBVIOUSLY,
THE TOBACCO SMOKE WAS AFFECTING MY ENTIRE BODY.
TICT 0011035
Page 3: 10002005
PAT~ YOUNG, PAGE 3
AS A RESULT OF MY SMOKING RELATED INJURIES, I HAVE BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY UNDER SECTION 503
OF THE REHABILITATION ACT AND TITLE I OF THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THE OFFICE
OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR. THEREFORE, I REPRESENT THE CLASS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES THAT ARE EITHER CAUSED OR AGGRAVATED BY
TOBACCO SMOKE. THIS CLASS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IS
EITHER DENIED ACCESS ON INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS OR FORCED TO
ACCEPT SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES IN ORDER TO FLY ON
INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS.
THE AIRLINES ALSO BELIEVE THAT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR
MARKET SHARE, IT IS NECESSARY TO PANDER TO THEIR DRUG
ADDICTED SMOKING PASSENGERS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY OF FLIGHT CREWS AND NON-SMOKING PASSENGERS. THIS CAN
BE CONFIRMED BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE AMR CORPORATION
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF ITS ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS.
PROPOSAL 5, A STOCKHOLDER RESOLUTION, PROPOSES THE
ELIMINATION OF SMOKING ON ALL AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHTS BY
JANUARY i, 1995. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMR CORPORATION
OPPOSES THE "NON-SMOKING PROPOSAL" AND RECOMMENDS THAT IT BE
REJECTED BY THE STOCKHOLDERS AT TODAYS ANNUAL MEETING.
TICT 00110.36
Page 4: 10002006
PATTY YOUNG, page
THIS RECOMMENDATION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMES AS
NO SURPRISE BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS STATEMENTS BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
MR. ROBERT CRANDALL. WHEN ASKED BY COMPANY EMPLOYEES IN
MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP MEETINGS WHEN SMOKING WOULD BE
ELIMINATED ON ALL FLIGHTS, MR. CRANDALL WOULD SMILE, LIGHT UP
A CIGARETTE, BLOW OUT THE SMOKE AND SAY: "DOES THAT ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION?"
IN A LETTER SENT TO ME, MR. CRANDALL HAS ALSO EXPRESSED
MORE CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE OF TOBACCO WORKERS ADVERSELY
IMPACTED BY ANTISMOKING LEGISLATION THAN HE HAS FOR THE
HEALTH AND WELFARE OF HIS OWN COMPANY'S FLIGHT CREW
EMPLOYEES.
AS A RESULT OF THE TOTAL ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY
BY FEDERAL AGENCIES, FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WERE LEFT WITH NO
RECOURSE OTHER THAN A WORLD WIDE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST
THE TOBACCO COMPANIES. THIS LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN STATE COURT
IN MIAMI, FLORIDA. BY STANLEY M. ROSENBLATT, P.A.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS CAN BE BEST COMPARED TO THE CANARIES
IN THE COAL MINES, NOTHING MORE THAN A DISPOSABLE WORK FORCE
SUBJECT TO THE COMPANY STORE MENTALITY OF THEIR EMPLOYERS.
THEREFORE, CONGRESS MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY TO ELIMINATE
THE HAZARDOUS FLYING ENVIRONMENT BY ELIMINATING SMOKING ON
ALL FLIGHTS.
Page 5: 10002007
PROPOSAL S--STOCKHOLDER RF..SOLUTION
Dr. James F. Socks, 5003 Deerwood Park Drive, Arlington, Texas 76017, who owns 100 shares of
stock,
has given notice that he will propose the following resolution. The proposed resolution and
statement in
support thereof are s~t forth below. A majority of vot~ cast is n~'y for approval of the proposal.
t~SOLVI~D: "That the stockholders of ~ Corporation hereby request that management in order to
protect the health and well-l~ing of its passengers and empioye~ eliminat~ smoking from all American
Airlines tiights by January 1, 1995."
RF_ASONS: "The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that environmental rebate smoke presents
a hazard to passengers and cr~w members, and has recommended a ban on smoking on commercial
"The International Civil Aviation Counsel, a Unit~l Nations organization, has adopted a
resolution
calling for a complete smoking ban on ~ll international flights by July 1, 1996."
"The C~nter for Diseas~ Control ~stimates s~condhand smok~ kills an estimated 3,000 adult non-
smokers f~'vm lung cancer annually and causes numerous respiratory problems in nonsmokers."
"The ventilation rate of faesh air in commercial ai~craf-t/s low m order to save jet fuel and
thereby
reduc~ operating costs, and therefore the alvcr-Mt cabin can contain as much as 50% recirculated air
which
may cent*i- h/gh l~vels of smok~ containing carcinogens and toxic substances."
"If you agree, pleas~ mark your proxy FOR this resolution."
The Bom.d of Dire,.-mrs oppom tl~ proposal.
American Airlines complies with federal regulations prohibiting smoking on all domestic flights
less
than six hours in duration. In respons~ to customer demand, American has announced plans to begin
limited
non-smoking flights between New York and London this spring. However, American operates its interna-
tional flights in an exu'~mely competitive environment in which em:h carrier must carefully protect
its market
share. American cannot ~ford to lo~ passengers who smok~ to other airlines. Your Board of Directors
bel/~ves that American's adoption of a worldwide non-smoking pol/cy prior to other U.S. and foreign
airlines
adopting a similar policy would place American at a serious competitive disadvantage.
Vo~ ~ for
The a£1L-mative vote of a majority of the shares represented and ent'~tled to vote is required
to approve
this Stockholder R~.solution.
The Bom-d of Dire,.~s recemmemis a vo~ AGAINST tl~ proposal
OTHER MATTERS
The Board of Directors knows of no other matters to be acted upon at the meeting, but if any
such
matters properly come before the meeting, it is intended that the persons voting the proxies will
vote in
accordance with their best judgments.
By Order of the Board of Directors,
March 31, 1994
Charles D. Mart.arC
Corporate Secreta~
TICT 0011 O38
Page 6: 10002008
American Airlines
August 14, 1989
Ms. Patty Young
4910 West Hanover
Dallas, Texas 75209
Dear Patty:
Unfortunately, I simply cannot make a public state~mnt against
snmking on commercial aircraft.
While I could tolerate such a prohibition, a great many of our
passengers continue to tell us that long flights -- transcons, etc. --
on a nonsmoking airline would simply be unacceptable. Additionally,
of course, no U.S. carrier can 9o "nonsmoking" internationally since
all the foreign flag carriers are much more liberal than we and a
higher percentage of foreign than domestic customers smoke.
A second consideration is our community relationships. As I'm sure you
know, cigarette manufacturing is a very important industry in many of
the states in the Southeast and particularly important in North Carolina
-- where our Raleigh-Durham hub is located. Can you imagine the reaction
of community ]eaders -- and the.many thousands of people who work for the
cigarette companies -- to an antismoking initiative by American Airlines?
As you pursue your efforts, I hope you will consider their impact on
others. There are a great many people whose lives and welfare would be
~dve~sely impacted by further antismoking legislation. In advancing
your cause, I think you should carefully consider the other guy's point
of view.
In any event, i cannot do as ycu ask because doing so wou~d damage our
stockholders, our business and ultimately, many of our employees. We
shall not oppose the spread of no-smoking legislation -- since I can
understand the desire of many to avoid smoking's passive effects -- but
we cannot advocate it.
eh
TICT 0011039
~',~ ~. ~."~-.".. ..%:~ ~'_- :cr, ','.c~:' - ,~c~' -e,~.. "~26~-9~C
