American Airlines

[ramblingrose]

When did CO ban e-cigs? AA is the only airline that had officially banned them as far as I know. I can't find anything on CO's prohibited items list.

Sad but true. "The use of electronic, simulated smoking materials (cigarettes, pipes, cigars) is prohibited on Continental Airlines"

Continental's Dangerous Goods page. Last paragraph in the lighters and matches section. So like American its okay to transport, but not to use in flight.

[Sumratio]

I got the exact same forum reply from them. Probably done automatically. The part about the RF energy is what really bothers me ... they are playing on people's ignorance of RF. It is a completely moronic reason not to allow them. As for the couple drops of vaporized liquid effecting air quality in the cabin ... that is pretty weak too.

[ramblingrose]

I got the exact same forum reply from them. Probably done automatically. The part about the RF energy is what really bothers me ... they are playing on people's ignorance of RF. It is a completely moronic reason not to allow them. As for the couple drops of vaporized liquid effecting air quality in the cabin ... that is pretty weak too.

I agree, and would be very - make that extremely - surprised if there is any risk with e-cigs. I also question whether their ban is actually based on risk as opposed to an easy way to avoid dealing with us in an accepted smoke-free zone. But I don't see a way to counter their assertions, and I don't think they're busy testing e-cigs to resolve the issues.

I do appreciate that they had the courtesy to answer cordially. They could have ignored it (not great for enticing customers) or come up with a one sentence answer just so they're not ignoring potential flyers. With all the letters I've sent to politicians, not one has had the same courtesy. So much for "every vote counts".

[ramblingrose]

Any chance you can scan and post this letter for those that think the same as you that it could not hurt to have if we get harassed for having it in our carry-on, etc.

I don't see a way to upload a file into a post? If I'm just not seeing it, please tell me how to do it. Otherwise PM me and I'll email it to you.

[Jim Davis]

She can take more than that if she wants. If my brain is functioning (no guarantees on that!) up to 100ml is fine. I think that equals the 3.4oz allowable size.

You're best to keep it at or below 3oz. Once you start to approach the limit, you have problems. TSA people can't (or will not) use discretion, and too close to the limit may be refused. If you need more than 3oz, take 2 bottles.

[PTJD]

You're best to keep it at or below 3oz. Once you start to approach the limit, you have problems. TSA people can't (or will not) use discretion, and too close to the limit may be refused. If you need more than 3oz, take 2 bottles.

Agreed, don't even get close to the max, TSA will not discuss the matter when they refuse any carry-on item, its not like they will patiently measure it.

[ramblingrose]

I got the exact same forum reply from them. Probably done automatically.

I don't fault them for this. Whether mine was the first query or they had already been asked, it only makes sense to create a response once, file it, and then use it any time the question is asked again. Any business would do the same.

Ah well. I still have Nicotrol inhalers if I'm ever really stuck. It's no wonder the quit rate with NRT is so low. They're truly vile.

[Jim Davis]

I don't fault them for this. Whether mine was the first query or they had already been asked, it only makes sense to create a response once, file it, and then use it any time the question is asked again. Any business would do the same.

Ah well. I still have Nicotrol inhalers if I'm ever really stuck. It's no wonder the quit rate with NRT is so low. They're truly vile.

You just go to the lav, take a couple of hits, and go back to your seat. Nothing to it.

[ramblingrose]

You just go to the lav, take a couple of hits, and go back to your seat. Nothing to it.

Definitely! The attendants will think I have a bladder problem by the time we land.

[epiper]

I wrote to American Airlines requesting an explanation of their ban on using e-cigs during flights. Here is their response:

"Thank you for your comments about electronic cigarettes. While we do permit passengers to carry electronic cigarettes aboard, their activation is prohibited. Currently, there are unresolved health and safety concerns that prevent the use of electronic cigarettes on our flights.

Among these concerns, this product has not been tested to ensure that it doesn't emit an excess of RF energy (which could interfere with onboard systems) while used in an aircraft cabin. Additionally, the effects of propylene glycol mist (which this product emits) being disbursed throughout a compressed cabin have not been examined.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address this matter. I hope that you will agree that the safety of our passengers and crew should always be our top priority."

Whether or not we like the decision, I'm appreciative that my letter didn't go into a junk pile (I wasn't sure I would get any response). It does show that they have at least looked into it enough to have specific concerns, rather than the 'ban it just because its like a cigarette' sentiment we see too much of.

I'm going to reply with a thank you and inquire whether the airline is now, or is planning to investigate their concerns.

I'm also going to make a copy of the letter and keep it in my carry-on bag. On the off-chance that I ever have a problem going through security with a TSA agent unfamiliar with e-cigs, it might be helpful to be able to show them that it's allowed to be carried onto the plane.

I'm flying over 50K miles per year with AA, so the fact that they banned my e-pipe now is a concern for me. The FA I consulted with said that if enough "valued AA flyers" write to them, they may revisit the issue. The letter you posted (thanks!) indicates to me that the chance for any change is slim.

Do you think it might be worth the effort organizing a petition or smth?