Tobacco Documents Online

WA'CHINGTON~ D.C. 20510 August 18, 1987 STATE SEP , 198/ Mr. John S. Hightower 1344 Kenilworth Parkway Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 Dear Mr. Hightower: Thank you for letting me know of your opposition to legislation which would ban smoking on airline flights. As you are probably aware, a number of measures have been introduced in the Congress which would restrict smoking in public places. Senator Hatch of Utah has introduced S. 51, a bill prohibiting smoking~in public conveyances; that is, any common carrier providing passenger service, including air, rail, boat, ship or bus service. This measure was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on January 6 where sO action has as yet been scheduled. Recently, during the House of Representatives' consideration of a bill making appropriations for the Department Transportation (H.R. 2890), an amendment was successfully offered which would deny funds to the Secretary of Transportation smoking is permitted on aircraft where scheduled flying time is less than two hours. This amendment was incorporated in H.R. 2890, which passed the House on July While the Senate has not taken action on appropriations legislation for the Department of Transportation, I appreciate knowing your views on this matter in advance. Let me assure you that i will certainly give them the careful consideration they deserve should I have the opportunity to vote on such a proposal. With kindest regards, I am ~nited States Senator JBJ/dsf T10045..0848

August, 24, 1987 The Honorable Paul S. Trible, Jr., U.S.'S. U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 tTATF- SEP a 1987 Dear Senator Trible: I am writing to register my opposition to Congressional attempts to ban smoking aboard domestic airline flights. Such legislation is unnecessary for several reasons. First, smoking aboard aircraft is already sharply restricted; every passenger is guaranteed a "no-smoking, seat, even if a smoking section must be reduced or eliminated. Secondly, non-smoking passenger exposure to the nicotine in sm~.king sections is insignificant -- studies show that it would take 224 hours, or nine days of non-stop flying, to reach the "nicotine equivalent" of a single cigarette. Aircraft smoking is not a fire hazard either, but a ban on smoking may be. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT) data taken from the last 17 years, not a single airline fire was smoking-related. The Airline Pilots Association is concerned, however, that a ban could create on-board fire hazards by encouraging surreptitious smoking in lavoratorles. Since Americans are free to choose their life styles on the ground, it is likely that a smoking ban aboard aircraft will be difficult to enforce. Recent DOT data shows less than a single complaint per one million passengers regarding the current smoking policy. A 1987 Airline Pilots Association poll determined that 87 percent of respondents believe the current practice of separating smoking and non-smoking passengers is a reasonable policy that respects the rights of each. Let's keep it that way. Sincerely, Great Falls, Virginia 22066 T10045-0849

August 24, 1987 The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, M.C. U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing to register my opposition to Congressional attempts to ban smoking aboard domestic airline flights. Such legislation is unnecessary for several reasons. First, smoking aboard aircraft is already sharply restricted; every passenger is guaranteed a "no-smoking" seat, even if a smoking section must be reduced or eliminated. Secondly, non-smoking passenger exposure to the nicotine in smoking sections is insignificant -- studies show that it would take 224 hours, or nine days of non-stop flying, to reach the "nicotine equivalent" of a single cigarette. Aircraft smoking is not a fire hazard either, but a ban on smoking may be. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT) data taken from the last 17 years, not a single airline fire was smoking-related. The Airline Pilots Association is concerned, however, that a ban could create on-board fire hazards by encouraging surreptitious smoking in lavoratorles. Since Americans are free to choose their life styles on the ground, it is likely that a smoking ban aboard aircraft will be difficult to enforce. Recent DOT data shows less than a single complaint per one million passengers regarding the current smoking policy. A 1987 Airline Pilots Association poll determined that 87 percent of respondents believe the current practice of separating smoking and non-smoking passengers is a reasonable policy that respects the rights of each. Let's keep it that w~y. Sincerely, 1104 Dapple Grey Court Great Falls, Virginia 22066 TI0045-0850

August 2~, 1987 The Honorable John W. Warner, U.S.S. U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear CongressmanWarner: I am writing to register my opposition to congressional attempts to ban smoking aboard domestic airline flights. Such legislation is unnecessary for several reasons. First, smoking aboard aircraft is already sharply restricted; every passenger is guaranteed a "no-smoklng" seat, even if a smoking section must be reduced or eliminated. Secondly, non-smoking passenger exposure to the nicotine in smoking sections is insignificant -- studies show that it would take 224 hours, or nine days of non-stop flying, to reach the "nicotine equivalent" of a single cigarette. , Aircraft smoking is not a fire hazard either, but a ban on smoking may be. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT) data taken from the last 17 years, not a single airline fire was smoking-related. The Airline Pilots Association is concerned, however, that a ban could create on-board fire hazards by encouraging surreptitious smoking in lavoratories. Since Americans are free to choose their life styles on the ground, it is likely that a smoking ban aboard aircraft will be difficult to enforce. Recent DOT data shows less than a single complaint per one million passengers regarding the current smoking policy. A 1987 Airline Pilots Association poll determined that 87 percent of respondents believe the current practice of separating smoking and non-smoking passengers is a reasonable policy that respects the rights of each. Let's keep it that way. Sincerely, Great Falls, ¥irginia 22066 Ti0045-0851

August 2~, 1987 The Honorable Paul S. Trible, Jr., U.S.S. U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Trible: I am writing to register my opposition to Congressional attempts to ban smoking aboard domestic airline flights. Such legislation is unnecessary for several reasons. First, smoking aboard aircraft is already sharply restricted; every passenger is guaranteed a "no-smoking" seat, even if a smoking section must be reduced or eliminated. Secondly, non-smoking passenger exposure to the nicotine in smoking sections is insignificant -- studies show that it would take 224 hours, or nine days of non-stop flying, to reach the "nicotine equivalent" of a single cigarette. Aircraft smoking is not a fire hazard either, but a ban on smoking may be. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT) data taken from the last 17 years, not a single airline fire was smoking-related. The Airline Pilots Association is concerned, however, that a ban could create on-board fire hazards by encouraging surreptitious smoking in lavoratories. Since Americans ere freeto choose their life styles on the ground, it is likely that a smoking ban aboard aircraft will be difficult to enforce. Recent DOT data shows less than a single complaint per one million passengers regarding the current smoking policy. A 1987 Airline Pilots Association poll determined that 87 percent of respondents believe the current practice of separating smoking and non-smoking passengers is a reasonable policy that respects the rights of each. Let's keep it that way. Sincerely, Croat Falls, Virginia 22066 TI0045-0852

August 2~, 1987 The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, M.C. U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing to register my opposition to Congressional attempts to ban smoking aboard domestic airline flights. Such legislation is unnecessary for several reasons. First, smoking aboard aircraft is already sharply restricted; every passenger is guaranteed a "no-smoking" seat, even if a smoking section must be reduced or eliminated. Secondly, non-smoking passenger exposure to the nicotine in smoking sections is insignificant -- studies show that it would take 224 hours, or nine days of non-stop flying, to reach the "nicotine equivalent" of a single cigarette. Aircraft smoking is not a fire hazard either, but a ban on smoking may be. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT) data taken from the last 17 years, not a single airline fire was smoking-related. The Airline Pilots Association is concerned, however, that a ban could create on-board fire hazards by encouraging surreptitious smoking in lavoratories. Since Americans are free to choose their life styles on the ground, it is likely that a smoking ban aboard aircraft will be difficult to enforce. Recent DOT data shows less than a single complaint per one million passengers regarding the current smoking policy. A 1987 Airline Pilots Association poll determined that 87 percent of respondents believe the current practice of separating smoking and non-smoking passengers is a reasonable policy that respects the rights of each. Let's keep it that way. Sincerely, Michael J. Ke~n 1104 Dapple Grey Court Great Falls, Virginia 22066 T10045-0853

August 24, 1987 The Honorable John W. Warner, U.S.S. U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Congressman Warner: I am writing to register my opposition to Congressional attempts to ban smoking aboard domestic airline flights. Such legislation is unnecessary for several reasons. First, smoking aboard aircraft is already sharply restricted; every passenger is guaranteed a "no-smoking" seat, even if a smoking section must be reduced or eliminated. Secondly, non-smoking passenger exposure to the nicotine in smoking sections is insignificant -- studies show that it would take 224 hours, or nine days of non-stop flying, to reach the "nicotine equivalent" of a single cigarette. Aircraft smoking is not a fire hazard either, but a ban on smoking may be. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT) data taken from the last 17 years, not a single airline fire was smoking-related. The Airline Pilots Association is concerned, however, that a ban could create on-board fire hazards by encou~aglng surreptitious smoking in lavoratories. Since Americans are free to choose their life styles on the ground, it is likely that a smoking ban.aboard aircraft will be difficult to enforce. Recent DOT data shows less than a single complaint per one million passengers regarding the current smoking policy. A 1987 Airline Pilots Association poll determined that 87 percent of respondents believe the current practice of separating smoking and non-smoking passengers is a reasonable policy that respects the rights of each. Let's keep it that way. Sincerely, Great Falls, Virginia 22066 T!0045.-08,54

AUG ~ 6 ~B~ TI0045-0855