Tobacco Documents Online

[LetterC ad of The Tobacco Instityte, Inc.] DRAFT 5-/9/80 Docket Section Civil Aeronautics Board 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20428 Re: Docket No. 38048, EDR-399, Dated April 16, 1980 Dear Sirs: On April 22, 1980, the Civil Aeronautics Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the above-captioned proceeding to amend 14 C.F.R. Part 252 to permit airlines to refuse to expand aircraft "no-smoking" sections to accommodate stand-by passengers and persons who arrive at the check-in counter less than 5 minutes before the scheduled departure of their flight. (45 Fed. Reg. 26976.) The Tobacco Institute, a trade association that represents major cigarette manufac- turers and marketers of tobacco products, submits these comments on the Board's proposal. The Tobacco Institute supports the principle of the proposed regulations. Since the Board's "no-smoking" rules were adopted in 1973, the Board, the airlines, and airline c.A passengers have become embroiled in a serie 9 of controversies 4 in which the demands of antismoking advocates have been met at the expense of the legitimate interests of other passengers. Late arrivals and stand-bys who insist on their "right" to sit in the no-smoking section, without regard to the incon- venience they may cause to smoking passengers who arrive on time and hold confirmed reservations, have been a particularly egregious example of the aw4e-4a" inconsiderate behavior of

. : - 2 - the antismokers. When airlines have been unable to accommo- date their last-minute demands, some of these antismokers have even sought to institute formal enforcement proceedings under the Board's regulations. In the disputes that result from these unpleasant incidents, the right of smoking passen- gers to travel in reasonable comfort, free from harassment and discrimination, is often neglected or entirely forgotten. The Board's proposal, however, does not go far enough. The 5-minute notice that it provides is too short to assure that passengers who arrive on time are not needlessly inconvenienced by nonsmoking passengers who arrive late. On domestic flights, most airlines do not guarantee that reserva- tions will be held unless passengers arrive at least 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time. The same requirement should also apply to persons who wish to insist on no-smoking seats. Surveys show that the great majority of passengers either smoke or do not seriously object to smoking. The relatively few passengers who strongly desire a seat in the no-smoking section can reasonably be expected to get to the airport 15 minutes before departure time. The Board's proposal would not apply to "shuttle" services and similar flights for which reservations are not offered. This is a major deficiency, because many of the most serious problems under the present rules have involved passen- gers who arrive late for "shuttle" flights. On occasion, such u ~ N ~ W

f`j".rt - 3 - personsihave taken seats in the back of the cabin and insisted that e`e\ryone in front of them refrain from smoking. Last Decembe , (~J~ afCdi/'lws spute among passengers on the Eastern Airlines A 4 Washington-New York shuttle, apparently caused by a passenger who arrived late and insisted on a seat in the "no-smoking" 14 iwcu'L'ey6f sectionj led the pilot to make an unscheduled landing in A Baltimore. The Board's proposal would not prevent such incidents from recurring. There is no reason why the last-minute arrival of nonsmokers should disrupt seating arrangements on shuttle flights. Persons who wish to insist on their "right" to a "no-smoking" seat can certainly be expected to arrive a few minutes before departure in order to claim that right without causing undue inconvenience to other passengers. With these changes, the Board's proposal would be a salutary revision of the smoking regulations. For reasons that it has stated in comments in other proceedings before the Board (Dockets 29044 and 37657), The Tobacco Institute seriously questions the legal basis for those regulations and believes they should be eliminated entirely. As long as the rules remain in effect, however, they should be designed to cause minimum interference with the managerial discretion of the airlines and with the right of all passengers, smokers and nonsmokers alike, to travel in comfort. Respectfully submitted, Horace R. Kornegay 0 \ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ CJ ~ ~