upvote
It's actually mandated by the FAA that an ashtray be present in the restrooms:

> (g) Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavatory served.

And the plane literally cannot fly with an inoperable or missing ashtray.

reply
deleted
reply
It's counterintuitive, but I've heard an explanation that the alternative - they decide to dispose their cigarette into the bin full of flammable paper waste - is much worse.
reply
If you're wealthy enough $250 is just the price of smoking (especially for someone that can afford a 1st class seat). I wonder why they don't have escalating non-monetary punishments?
reply
You'd think they'd just ban repeat offenders.
reply
deleted
reply
Jim Simons got so tired of paying these, he bought a private plane to save money. To say he was a prolific smoker is an understatement.
reply
I assumed you were talking about who I know as james Simons, but just googled him to make sure there wasn't someone else, and yeah - first pic on Google is him with a cigarette. Also learned it was lung cancer that took him out, though he did make it to 86 which isn't bad.
reply
Then there's George Harrison, who died of lung cancer way too young.
reply
Gross.
reply
> ash trays give them a safe place to put it out

ha. i always thought they were remnants from old airplane plans that were too much effort to update to remove them. thanks for that

reply
The ashtrays are there, even today, because it is suspected that this flight [0] went down when someone disposed a cigarette butt in the lavatory trash, causing a fire.

A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_820

reply
> A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood.

It's enormously expensive for an airframe manufacturer to deal with the fallout of a crash.

There aren't any engineers in an airframe manufacturer willing to sign off on a faulty design. Some good engineers are so worried about that they get shifted to working on conceptual projects.

I took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings.

reply
> took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings

I don't believe they convinced the FAA twin is safer, just that it meets the necessary safety margins. Airlines want them to meet that regulation for fuel efficiency, but I'd want a source that they're actually safe-er, instead of simply safe enough

reply
Boeing proved it safer. The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem.

My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.

reply
Not necessarily safer but safe enough. A modern 4 engine jet should still be safer than the 2 engine equivalent
reply
tldr for the wikipedia article:

this plane did not crash, it made an emergency landing 2 miles from the airport in an onion field. Only 10 crew and 1 passenger survived. The other 123 souls aboard died of smoke/CO inhalation from the fire.

the sole surviving passenger, 21-year-old Ricardo Trajano, disobeyed the instructions to remain in his seat.

reply
Amazing that lighters are allowed in the cabin
reply