The indoor smoking ban at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport has officially gone into effect. Delta should capitalize on the restrictive new law with an innovative use of its SkyClub patio in Terminal F.
I read through the language of the new law. Its primary target is indoor smoking, with specific exemptions made for outdoor seating areas in bars and restaurants. Although the language could be construed to disallow smoking anywhere on the premises of Atlanta Airport, I don’ think that is a necessary interpretation of the law.
Let’s take a look at the text of the new ordinance.
§1, 22-68
No person shall smoke or vape in Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport or in buildings and facilities owned or operated by the city department of aviation.
Seems clear, but not necessarily. Does in mean inside or on the premises? I’d argue it refers to inside, since ATL will have designated outdoor smoking areas curbside and the language includes “in buildings” (further implying indoors).
The new ordinance bans smoking in public places. Further down in §2, 86-31, public place is defined as an “enclosed area”:
Public place means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted.
In §2, 86-32, the ban is limited to enclosed public places:
Smoking and vaping is prohibited in public places. Except as otherwise specifically authorized in this Article, smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places in the City of Atlanta.
Originally, the bill also banned smoking in “outdoor seating or serving areas” but that provision was explicitly redacted in a last-minute amendment to the bill prior to passage. Instead, that clause now reads:
Smoking and vaping is prohibited in bars and restaurants, except as otherwise specifically authorized in this Article.
Atlanta restaurants and bars have interpreted this as an exemption for all outdoor areas. Interestingly, the bill does not include any limits for how far outdoor smoking must be segregated from windows, doors, and other points of foot traffic.
In discussing exemptions, the ordinance reiterates in §5, 106-9(b) that smoking is not allowed “in or upon” any city-run facility:
No person shall smoke or vape in or upon buildings and facilities owned or operated by the City of Atlanta.
Could “upon” mean outdoor areas of Atlanta Airport? Again, this seems unlikely, since designated smoking areas outdoor now exist before security.
Thus, I read the bill to prohibit all indoor smoking but to leave permissible all outdoor smoking.
An Opportunity For Delta
All the smoking rooms in Atlanta Airport are now closed since they were indoor. But what if Delta took its SkyClub in Terminal F and turned the beautiful outdoor patio into a smoking area?
The roof is retractable and the area would have to be designated as non-smoking when the roof was closed, but for most of the year it would make a convenient place for people to smoke.
And think of the business opportunities. Delta stopped selling single visit passes in 2018, but what if it made an exception for this club? Sell a pass for $69 and you’d have smokers lining up to avoid having to exit the secure side of the airport and then endure another security check.
With snacks and drinks included, I know there would be a lot of takers and the whole experience could be used to win more business. Delta could easily only sell passes to passengers traveling on Delta, which might push smokers to choose Delta over the competition (then again, connecting passengers in ATL are likely already traveling on Delta anyway).
Delta would not even have to send staff out to the patio (and subject them to second hand smoke) during the day. Ashtrays could cleaned out nightly after the club closed.
CONCLUSION
I enjoy Delta SkyClubs and think Delta could win even more customers by adapting one of its several SkyClubs in Atlanta to cater to smokers. Doing so on the outdoor terrace would likely not run afoul of the ordinance and would show that Delta cares about its smoking passengers too.
As I’ve said before, I am not a smoker, hate the smell of smoke, and would urge any smoker to quit smoking immediately. But smoking remains prevalent in much of the world and any first-word airport should have a smoking area to accommodate those who have not wised up to quit smoking.
What do you think? Should Delta cater to smokers in Atlanta?
> Read More: Ugh…Atlanta Bans Smoking In Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport
> Read More: Atlanta Airport Wants To Help You Stop Smoking With Absurd Smoking Ban
Why would you take the one place that people can enjoy the outside air and pollute it?! This doesn’t make sense, unless you want to piss people off.
I want to reasonably accommodate smokers.
JoelFreak All motor vehicles pollute the air so they need to be completely banned. You might want to ban airplanes while you’re at it
I get the premise of extra revenue for Delta, would be smart. However as a person who loves that outdoor patio I would be pissed. But how much in extra revenue would actually be generated. 69$ a day x 365 x 100 people who love smoking that much? And extra 3 mil a year? Worth it for the potential pissed off clients?
i don’t want to be around that, not to mention some moron will flick the butts onto the tarmac and delta will be on the hook. this is a shit idea imo.
I think the stink of cigarette smoke would find its way into the lounge and ruin the experience for everyone inside. There’s no way to avoid it, especially when the wind is blowing. Not to mention when the smoker returns to the interior of the lounge they would reek of smoke as well. I quotient want them to sit anywhere near me.
Definitely a bad idea IMO.
I often come in TATL through ATL The terminal F SkyClub is the only reasonable way to get sunshine and kick the old biological clock between flights. Now, I empathize with smokers; frankly, denying addicts any reasonable way to get their fix is going to have unintended consequences that can’t be fixed by a free month of nicotine gum. But that outdoor area is darn small and the lounge is already pretty overrun as it is. Plus, “in or upon” pretty clearly excludes the place. And finally, profiting from addiction so blatantly invites lawsuits.
Until there’s any proof that brief whiffs of cigarette smoke are annoying to nonsmokers, that isn’t a fair comment to make. Last I checked, brief whiffs of cigarette smoke have never once harmed any nonsmokers. Let’s not forget smokers still do make up a good minority of those flying, and to me I think it’s better to give them some dignity and one designated place to smoke post-security, over making it more stressful for smokers.
I’m sorry, Matthew, but this is a terrible idea. There would be, in my opinion, a net loss in customers, as non-smokers would avoid the area. Delta elites and those granted access via their ticket would rebel, as the loss of the patio would be perceived as an injustice. New customers, the target for the converted area, may not be willing or able to pay for the privilege for lounge access. The divide between the outdoor and indoor areas would need to be policed, as presumably the smoking area patrons wouldn’t have access to the indoor amenities. I appreciate your willingness to think outside the box but, in my opinion, this is a non-starter.
The answer is to provide separated areas of equal comfort. At Dubai Airport there are three levels of smoking rooms. Economy, Business and First class. Business and First Class having waiter service but at all levels the comfort zones for smokers and non smokers are equal in comfort. There is no underclass. But if America did that the puritans would be screaming “Wrong Message”! We must keep to the sub message. Deny dignity at all times. Keep them in the cold, keep them at the margins. Keep the discomfort. All this coming from a culture that sees itself as a wholesome inclusive society…………………..I don’t think so. It’s got too many caveats.
Honestly, there’s nothing wrong about this idea Paul. Last I checked, smokers do still make up a sizable minority of those flying. And to me, there’s nothing wrong with providing them a few small areas where they could smoke. Let’s not forget TSA lines are a HUGE fregging PITA to go through, so for sure you’d have some smokers paying for the right to have a one time pass to access this outdoor area so they could smoke. I know to some the smell of cigarettes is annoying, but for sure smelling it isn’t the end of the world. We haven’t forgotten that even smokers should be able to have some dignity and some place to smoke post-security, have we? To me, there was nothing wrong with the smoking lounges Atlanta’s airport used to have, till the start of this month.
The problem with this country is two kinds of people with vastly different political ideologies are forced into a single system of governance. Here is my idea. Break the governance into red and blue states and let the governance in those two kinds of states differ based on ideology. We should also separate the financial systems but only stay united in foreign policy.
So i used to be vehemently anti smoking, but i recently bought tobacco stocks and now to me republicans and their kids should be fair game. They should be marketed to, encouraged to smoke and kept alive as zombie smokers. Walking ATM machines. And this of course suits their political ideology of personal responsibility and choice. Fine by me. Living zombies that make me rich.
In blue states of course there should be blanket ban. I think this is a win/ win if there ever was one.
This would ease so many of our problems. If Karen doesnt want to vaccinate her kids against measles in a red state, that fine. When we send medicines from blue states to red states they should be priced to hurt their pocketbooks. Unadulterated capitalism baby.
Smart idea. Regarding the airport, this was an exceedingly ill conceived law as you have pointed out before. Your idea would remedy some of that shortsightedness while driving extra revenue for Delta.
Your interpretation is quite a stretch.
Terrible idea. Non-smokers would rebel. Why should this airport need something no other large US airports have anymore.
Ugh…just no. While I agree that the airport smoking ban is shortsighted, effectively making the SkyDeck off-limits to SkyClub members and premium cabin passengers is a flat-out awful idea. No, I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, but I do love outdoor lounge decks for plane spotting and fresh air. I have been out on the SkyDeck, and it’s a small enough area that you won’t be able to escape the smell when someone lights up. As someone else said above, if I had to put up with the stench of cigarette smoke out there, I’d be seriously p*ssed. And I’d imagine so would a lot of other non-smokers who currently enjoy the SkyDeck.
While I give you some credit for thinking outside the box, my cat is giving you the death stare for this horrible suggestion…
Matthew – if the LAX United Club’s outdoor area permitted this (I’m assuming they don’t), would your thinking change at all? That would hit a bit closer home for you.
I would welcome this. They do prohibit it and I think it is a shame.
This could be the worst idea of the new decade.
To be honest, there’s NOTHING wrong with smoking lounges. I’ve been to TONS of airports(Las Vegas, Amsterdam, etc), where outside of those lounge areas I didn’t even notice the smell of cigarettes at all. Also the only people who whine about smoking, are uptight anti-smoking prohibitionists who unnecessarily whine about their smell. Live and let live, and let smokers have some sort of area to smoke. Also like the blog author Matthew said, this would be a FANTASTIC idea to do! The expanded smoking ban only applies to indoor and enclosed spaces, so to me there’s no doubt Delta could permit smoking in this outdoor patio area if they wanted to. Let’s not forget TGI Friday’s has as outdoor patio area in Miami that permits smoking, and also there’s an outdoor patio bar area at Key West’s airport that allows smoking. Sorry but last I checked, a brief whiff of smoking on an outdoor patio won’t kill you.
What a terrible idea. How about non smokers wanting to breathe some fresh air and going to the rooftop of the SkyClub and them be around all the smokers you are inviting to go there and pollute the air. Laws like this are doing a favor to smokers and the more difficult it is for them to smoke hopefully they will find a way to quit and save their lives.
There is no such thing as “fresh air” anywhere. Especially at an airport! LOL
It will never happen. Every time the door opened it would send the smoke straight into the club. People would scream bloody murder.
Bottom line is that unlike Europe, especially Zurich, where smoking rooms are technological wonders and quite comfortable, there is just no interest to invest the money or take the money from sponsored companies (as they do in Europe). The rooms are managed by the airport instead of sponsored corporate entities so they end up unclean, disgusting, and not properly ventilated.
Go to the Zurich airport and see how it could be done.
Good idea. I’d rather not have additional people going through the mad house called ATL security lines. I also hate smoking but think it’s really dumb to require smokers to go out through security just to smoke.
What is the big deal of making them to go outside the terminal to smoke? At MSP you either smoke outside the terminal or you don’t smoke. Once you go through security, say goodbye to smoking until you land somewhere else.
Forcing smokers to the curbs clogs security lines for non-smokers and more importantly, subjects everyone entering or leaving the airport to second hand smoke.
* * *
Question, for all those who are against my idea: is it just because you hate the smell of burning tobacco?
The issue in the U.S. is clear in this in comparison to Europe and Asia. And it’s not JUST a cultural thing in that more people smoke in those places thus more accept it. It’s all about the management of smoking and smoking areas.
1. In Europe and Japan (and some other areas of Asia) they maintain smoking rooms with impeccable standards. The tech of the vent systems is first rate. Cleaners keep them as clean as the rest of the airport. And smokers in Europe tend to be more considerate in, unlike the U.S., not throwing Cigs on the floor or dropping ashes everywhere. Counter that with poorly ventilated rooms like you saw in Atlanta with filthy conditions and of course it compounds to people hating them. Even smokers!
2. Look at the smoking rooms at ZRH as an example. Comfortable seating, counters, plugs, and fantastic ventilation. Smokers respect that environment so are more considerate in how they treat the space. As such they are clean, pleasant, and few non-smokers ever complain or make comments like they did when near or passing those disgusting rooms that were at ATL. Why has Europe succeeded in this? Getting tobacco companies to pay for them and sponsor them. Pretty simple.
3. Even outdoor areas are better thought out in Europe. They have proper ash trays and people don’t throw their cigs all over the sidewalks in front of the terminal. Smokers in Europe respect the space and the airport works hard to keep it clean. Take a look outside of Charlotte in the smoking area as a comparison and it looks like a war zone with the last person cleaning the single bin there in 1986.
4. Even hotels in Europe that allow some sort smoking (rooms, a special cigar bar, or a ventilated cigar area) you see a vast difference in those few that do (or did) in the U.S. It comes down to cleaning. They actually clean properly the rooms and public areas unlike the horrific cleaning you see in the U.S. other than at a few very top end properties.
5. it’s just a cultural thing that also reflects on reactions by Non-smokers. Smoke a cigar outside a Four Seasons in LA and people are screaming for a hazmat suit to protect themselves. In Europe or Asia that same person probably would not even notice as you tend to just accept and get used to it. I compare it to the sounds of a horn honking. If you are in Canada and hear someone honk, everyone around is horrified and in shock! Go to New York or Rome and you barely even notice it happening all around you.
Make it as difficult as possible for smokers so maybe they quit smoking. That is why I love MSP airport. Smokers sit outside in the cold before even entering the terminal. Regular cigarette is not only burning tobacco. It is a bunch of nasty chemicals that kill people. Yes, I hate the smell of cigarettes.
Well, aren’t you a nice person? Bless your heart.
Matthew, I speak as one who appreciates your attempt at accommodation for all (i.e. not excluding smokers) and your sympathy. What you are experiencing with this feedback is the work of people who probably preach all sorts of tolerance and “inclusion” but whose principles flee when it’s something THEY don’t like so much that they can’t abide even a fleeting whiff as they go through an AIRPORT (not a part of their daily life though even then it’s simply a matter of not wanting to employ the coping skills of a civil society) and are willing to believe that that is enough to cause them harm. But if we put them in sealed hangar with a running plane or in a sealed garage with a running car they will die right then and there. Yet they agonize over a possible errant wisp of cigarette smoke as their impending doom when, if you locked them in a room with even a hundred smokers smoking at one time, at most they’ll come out irritated. THIS is the mentality you’re trying to appeal to — one of just sheer hate and loss of reason. For years they screamed “can’t you just go outside!?” Forced outside they then selfishly want the one inch of space left, even complaining that THEY can’t sit outside. But they wanted the indoors since they said it was different than smoking in the outdoors. In other words, now they want to know in advance that ANY place their dainty feet might deign to walk one day — if even for just a few seconds out of their entire lives — that it will be the way THEY want it. And they call smokers selfish. The commenter, Santastico, provides the insight as to what these smoking bans are really after: Forcing people to quit by making it as inconvenient as possible. Meanwhile, let’s just remember that these smoking rooms in the airport existed for decades with no complaints until the orchestrated efforts of a tiny fraction of the non-smokers — ANTI-smokers in the activist organizations — to shut them down.
For total transparency I tell you that I run a smokers’ rights organization. We neither encourage nor discourage smoking by informed adults. We simply defend and protect the interests of adults who choose to smoke.
Audrey, thank you for your comment. I support the goals of your organization and will continue to make the case for smoking accommodations in U.S. airports on this blog.
“Question, for all those who are against my idea: is it just because you hate the smell of burning tobacco?”
Yes. Even a whiff of cigarette smoke makes me gag, and being around it for more than a couple of minutes often triggers a headache that then lingers the entire day. (I guess I should be thankful that this keeps me away from casinos.) The SkyDeck simply isn’t large enough to keep the smoke from bothering those who are bothered by the smell. Now, if DL wants to allow vaping out on the SkyDeck, or build a separate smoking deck, I could live with that.
Santastico, you won’t mind all airports and airlines be alcohol-free, right?
I couldn’t care less about alcohol. I only fly US airlines and none of them serve anything that is worth drinking. If I want a nice wine I drink at home. Thus, no, I won’t mind all airports and airlines be alcohol free.
What the hell is wrong with you?
You’re a nasty individual.
Impressed to see your readers are SO offended by smokers, come on people!!!
Live and let live!
I agree, smoking isn’t the best habit, but we’ve all seem some much worse ones in flights, lounges and airports in general. I suggest all of the judgmental readers incorporate a bit of tolerance into you New Years resolutions, safe travels!
Finally, someone with a brain and some humanity.
What if instead of eliminating smoking rooms at ATL, and ruining a beautiful lounge, they just remodeled smoking rooms, and then charged people to use them. For example, you could access a clean room with good ventilation for $5.00. What a great oppertunity for the airport to capitalize on smokers. I would hope the room would be filled with pictures of smokers lungs though to help show why people shoud quit.
That is actually a tremendous idea — better than mine.
First, AVL, why do you care if other people smoke [full stop] or care if they smoke in a place you’ll never be? Are you the world’s mommy? And, using your example, if I disapproved of drinking–because I believed it was bad for drinkers’ health, or I hated the smell of whiskey, or didn’t want to be in the
company of drunks–should I then require bars to wallpaper their walls with pictures of rotting livers, crashed cars and beaten wives?
@Walt – I do not particularly care if other people smoke, just as long as it is separate from non-smokers. If smokers want to damage their health, then they should do it elsewhere (or spaces should be created for them to smoke elsewhere) and avoid exposing non-smokers to secondhand smoke. As for bars, alcohol (in moderation) is not anywhere as bad for you as smoking, and many more people drink than smoke, and drinking is not looked down upons as much as smoking.
Walt. No. I encourage you to smoke, your kids to smoke, your entire family to smoke. I want you increase your smoking to a few packs a day. Just please don’t die early.
You are the consumer the companies and their shareholders love. Just don’t smoke near us.
correction needed :
“Although the language could be construed to disallow smoking anywhere on the premises of Atlanta Airport, I ~~~~~don’~~~~~ think that is a necessary interpretation of the law.”
Hilarious. While some of you are so worried that a few nanograms of cigarette smoke from an outdoor roof might somehow leak into what you presume is a pristine terminal, tons of the serious pollutants in airplane exhaust are not just permeating the terminal but the entire air field and its surroundings.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/
https://err.ersjournals.com/content/22/128/124
Yes, but at least they dont reek like cigarettes do.
As I am both a smoker and have worked at my local airport for the last 25 years I find some of the comments above amusing. The air quality at any airport both inside and out is the poorest, if not worse, than you will find in any centre of any major city. If I stood in Times Square for 8 hours I’d be cleaner than working for 8 hours at my local airport. I have to wash my high viz jacket once a week otherwise it wouldn’t be Hi Viz. We regularly get Health & Safety meetings on how to reduce our exposure to aircraft pollution so any angle that smoking a cigarette, which is 99% steam (water vapor) when exhaled is, or should be an issue, is amusing. This is a cosmetic issue. Anti smoking zealots will have you thinking all sorts of nonsense just to restrict, confine and coral people. It’s a power thing.
I have helped many an elderly or disabled person on and off planes, I know all about smells.
These roof top areas once used to wave loved ones off on their exiting journey are a relic of the past but could be valuable income earners for airports. I have seen many cigar bars and smoking lounges in Hong Kong, Dubai, Athens, the Caribbean and Europe. Some even with waiter service. Some are sponsored by high street retail names others by alcohol brands. They bring in tens of thousands in valuable revenue for the airport. They give dignity back to people brow beaten by the puritans below and they add not one jot of difference to the air quality at airports. This would be a good move. But don’t tell that to ASH or the censorious.
You make a good point, David.
David, please encourage your kids and neighbors to pick up smoking as well. Smokers are what make this country great and we need more of you. Just don’t do it anywhere near us.
I encourage nobody to pick up anything. Once past the age of consent people have the right to choose whatever path they wish.
I will say this though, we are supposed to live in an inclusive society where we look for inclusive solutions in all things. Discrimination is not part of our make up or at least it shouldn’t be. To hold perfectly decent people in contempt is not part of our culture…..unless the State has given you tacit permission to hate.
Which, in this case, it has.
If there are technical solutions to issues we should look at them. But that, in this case, would be not getting the sub message given out by anti smoking organisation.
They what you to hate, they what you to be intolerant of others. Their aim is prohibition. As we all know prohibition doesn’t work. We have had 80 years of drug prohibition and that’s worked wonderfully……NOT.
The amount of unbridled bile from some on this issue is testament to how the state as allowed hatred to ferment in people to the point where decent people, consuming a legal product, can be subject to social and economical segregation from the rest of us. Purely down to an aesthetic. If we are allowed to hate smelly people based on a cosmetic. If so I have a long list of types I would like seen removed from the streets. If I was given rein to do so. Non of use are perfect. Remember that. He who is without sin cast the first stone.
Well you should encourage them, they are free to choose.
In fact i think we should get young kids hooked on drugs like cocaine and then they are free to choose after they turn 18 whether to continue.
It’s really important to give people the right to choose. Personal responsibility and personal choice.
Matthew, I applaud you for trying to be inclusive of all people. Your idea may have some issues, but it would be a very smart idea if Delta capitalized on the concept of having a nice area where smokers can do their thing without bothering non-smokers. Then, everyone is happy.
The problem is that most of tne posters here–with their totally irrational and unscientific fear of a whiff of smoke and their zealous and fiercely punitive bigotry–WOULDN’T be happy. They’d experience, as Mencken once defined the crux of Puritanism, “the terrible haunting fear that somebody somewhere might be happy.”