Tobacco Documents Online

This Philip Morris "note to file" reports on a July 1988 meeting between Philip Morris (PM) and Finnair Airlines to discuss secondhand tobacco smoke and in-flight air quality. PM's goal for the meeting appeared to be obtain permission to monitor air quality on board Finnair flights. The author of the document, Mary Pottorff, was manager of Worldwide Regulatory Affairs for PM, a member of PM's Ventilation Task Force and PM International's ETS Management Group. In the meeting, Finnair representatives made it clear to the PM representatives that flight attendants' exposure to secondhand smoke in the aft airline cabins of DC-10's was a problem:

"The Finnair group raised several points:

...smoke accumulation in the back of DC 10's has been given as a reason their flight attendants don't want to work in the aft cabin...They have reconfigured the aft cabin galley and non-smoking areas on the Airbus in an effort to minimize the impact of ETS in the aft cabin..."

Finnair also pointed out that smoking aboard aircraft caused discomfort among their passengers as well, saying "They [Finnair] received over 30,000 consumer letters last year, 20% were about smoking and 95% were negative."

Finnair also indicated their understanding that there might be a medical aspect to this problem when they said, "They want their new chief medical officer to be involved in any future discussions" [regarding in-flight air quality].

This document indicates that Finnair made PM aware in 1988 that secondhand smoke aboard aircraft caused passenger discomfort and potential health problems for flight attendants.

This brief 1980 note from James Bowling (Senior Vice President of Philip Morris) to Horace Kornegay (President of the Tobacco Institute) reveals the industry's intent to undermine the rule requiring airlines to establish no-smoking areas on board commercial aircraft. The rule contained a loophole that allowed a "all airlines to apply for permission to experiment wiith alternative methods of protecting nonsmokers from tobacco smoke." http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023258262.html

Bowling states, "Does this present an opportunity for us to mount a first class effort to get the rules changed?...If this presents an opportunity to turn that one around--I think we should do everything possible."

Bowling further states,

"I believe that the successful efforts of the anti's in getting the smoking/no-smoking rule established aboard aircraft was the single most effective thing in their effort to create and promote a social stigma to public smoking."

This statement underscores the often-overlooked historic contribution made by airline flight attendants in the smoke-free movement. Flight attendants were some of the first and most compelling advocates for change. Their dogged struggle against both airline management and the tobacco industry is one of the best examples of the how a group of individuals with no money and no clout can affect sweeping changes in public health. Flight attendants experienced some of the highest exposures to secondhand smoke on the job. They were truly the "canaries in the coal mine" for secondhand smoke exposure on the job. The flight attendants' compelling testiony before Congress led Congress to eventually ban smoking on commercial aircraft. This groundbreaking legislation would not have been possible without the courageous and persistent efforts of this group of individuals.

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.