A surprisingly well-written article. The only thing they got wrong was categorically stating that e-cigarettes have an end that lights up when they should have included the word "some."
That the DOT is moving this way should come as a surprise to no one. From the article:
"We still don't know the health effects of e-cigarettes, and we don't want to turn airline passengers into laboratory mice," Lautenberg said in an e-mailed statement.
This statement is, unfortunately, 100% correct. While medical evidence is, so far, quite favorable, we have not yet reached (and may be many years away from reaching) a point where we
know that they are not harmful in some way. Plus, it is unreasonable to expect your average passenger to know anything about e-cigarette use (or even that they exist) and not possibly freak out when they see plumes of vapor wafting towards them (and their children). You also cannot place the onus of dealing with this on airline staff.
It is also entirely unreasonable for the airlines to sanction the use of e-cigs in lavatories for a couple of reasons, the most important being that there is often too long of a line for lavs as it is.
The airline (and DOT) concerns about e-cig use is definitely more about perception than any real evidence of potential harm to others. At least one airline's policy against them, if I remember correctly, even indirectly acknowledges this. But even a prohibition based on perceptions is not inherently unreasonable.
Such a policy will obviously up the ante for those of you that choose to stealth vape in your airline seat. Now, instead of just possibly violating an airline policy (not a big deal, might get banned from the airline), you would be violating a DOT regulation and could possibly be punished with a fine (or worse) if caught using them. I would not at all be surprised to hear "e-cigarettes are also prohibited" added to the pre-flight flight attendant preamble on all flights soon.