United Airlines temporarily grounded its Airbus A321neo fleet last night for an extremely odd reason. The issue has been resolved…for now.
United Airlines Had To Ground A321neo Fleet Due To No Smoking Light
First noted by JonNYC, United Airlines suddenly pulled its Airbus A321neo fleet out of operations last night:
https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1757155345636446461?s=20
It turns out the issue was that the no smoking lights could not be turned off!
Yes, smoking has not been allowed onboard a domestic flight in the USA since 1990, but an archaic Federal Aviation Administration rule still requires that the flight crew must be able to turn off and on the no smoking light, when present.
“If smoking is to be prohibited, there must be at least one placard so stating that is legible to each person seated in the cabin. If smoking is to be allowed, and if the crew compartment is separated from the passenger compartment, there must be at least one sign notifying when smoking is prohibited. Signs which notify when smoking is prohibited must be operable by a member of the flightcrew and, when illuminated, must be legible under all probable conditions of cabin illumination to each person seated in the cabin.”
As View From The Wing notes, many of United’s aircraft have already been “hardwired to stay illuminated at all times” (the light itself has been replaced with a sticker). United had received special permission for this, but failed to receive advance permission on its new fleet of A321neo aircraft.
It is not clear what triggered this correction, but it has already been resolved, with the FAA allowing United to resume A321neo service while it “evaluates” its exemption request.
United says the FAA has given it permission to put its five A321neo back into service while it “evaluates” the no smoking sign exemption request.
This brings the stupidest aircraft grounding in history to a close.
— Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) February 13, 2024
It is expected that the exemption will be granted.
This outdated rule is one reason carriers like Delta have switched out the no smoking light for a wi-fi light:
FAA regulations also continue to require ashtrays onboard, which is why you will always find ashtrays on lavatory doors, even on brand new aircraft:
CONCLUSION
United certainly erred in failing to get an exemption for the archaic smoking light requirement, but it is silly that this rule is still on the books decades after smoking has been banned onboard.
It’s time to update these guidelines. While ashtrays onboard may still be smart for cases like this and this, the smoking light rule should be extinguished…
government…
always broke and never can be fixed
Maybe if we could fire the lazy government workers, things like this would not happen
United failed to get the exemption. Not a “lazy government worker”. You want a better government (and don’t we all), we need to elect more competent, educated lawmakers that are able to look toward the future, rather than holding grudges from the past.
There shouldn’t need to be an exemption for this. Government should not enforce ridiculous arbitrary rules to the point airlines will pull perfectly good planes from service in fear of an enforcement action. The bureaucrat class prevent any sensibility because they’d be out of jobs.
The existence of the government is the problem here.
There shouldn’t be an exemption needed? Then we need to change the laws. You cannot ask others to risk their jobs because we think the rules need change.
@Derek
I don’t doubt that there are diligent and well-meaning people at the FAA. But whenever someone thinks a rule change is “common sense” or “obvious” doesn’t always mean the process is.
The mechanism for agencies to rescind rules is far too arduous and because it essentially re-opens the rulemaking process. Any time that happens “public interest” groups aiming to use the rulemaking process to their own ends end up pouncing on the opportunity to do so. Add on top of that the lawsuits that inevitably follow any proposed rule change, and it just becomes easier to deal with the status quo. That’s regrettable, but the mechanism to change that doesn’t lie with lazy bureaucrats, it lies with Congress.
“FAA regulations also continue to require ashtrays onboard, which is why you will always find ashtrays on lavatory doors, even on brand new aircraft” Why????
Quick answer: if someone is going to break the law, FAA would rather the passenger use an ash tray than cause a fire by trying to put the cigarette ashes/butt in the waste receptacle.
Yes. Unfortunately the days when people would follow the rules and didn’t break the laws are long gone.
When did those days exist?
In the delusional memories of people?
I find it funny that FAA has recently changed rules about EICAS requirements or nacelle strength standards being higher than in the 1990s, but not this. EICAS shows that FAA can change rules.
Rulemaking was finalized in the past year, but I believe it was initially proposed in fall 2011…
I have a feeling that “evaluating” the request really means something more like “Yes, but we have a red tape factory to keep in business, so it’ll take a while to make it official.”
Smokers are jokers.
Why did the pilot nod off? Because it was a little Boeing. Light smoker and bad joker
The enforcement of this rule (that resulted in groundings) is oddly a bit anti consumer. No passenger safety was at any risk and United should not have been force to cancel/delay flights for this reason.
First the B737Max and now the Airbus 321. Are there any safe planes left anymore???
What a poor take
Think sarcasm my man.
The REAL REASON: It’s a CONSPIRACY (sabotage, plot) by Boeing to get the A321s turned off, and out of service!
I smoke like a chimney. The last time I smoked on a flight was 1988. I know the law doesn’t allow it, so I don’t do it. I’m currently vacationing in Australia, and I made sure to carry nicotine lozenges with me for the flight from SFO. Why do we even need these signs in the first place? We have penalties in place for getting caught. This was just a random act of bureaucracy.