Non user of nicotine products.
 

I saw this "Non user of nicotine products" listed as one of the requirements on the Alaska Airlines application. Is this common?

I use to work at a hotel where Alaska pilots were in and out of there all the time. I heard the same thing you did and asked a few pilots and FAs about it and they said if you want to work for Alaska, you have to be smoke free. Personally I think it's an outstanding policy and hope that other airlines will follow similar suit.

Why? What difference does it make to you if your co-workers smoke? I think Alaska is overstepping it's bounds as to what it can rightfully limit it's employees to.

I understand if they want to create and enforce rules as to where/when crews may smoke, but to say that you can't use it at all, even in your own time, that's absurd.

I'd even go so far as to say that it's ok to limit the crews to smoking only before and after their duty time. But I don't think anyone needs to tell anyone else what they can do in their own time, that is unless they decide that nicotine in your system poses a serious safety of flight issue, and I think that should be up to the FAA to decide.

I think the issue, though, is safety. If you had to limit someone to not smoking during their duty day, imagine the kind of withdrawal symptoms that person may be having on short final. I don't smoke, nor have I really ever known someone who has tried to quit, but I could imagine that blocking someone from smoking for 10-14 hours at a time could be very bad thing.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but it does make sense from a business and safety standpoint.

The nicotine issue is not just smoking. It's also found in chew. The reality is that they spend less on health insurance if people don't use nicotine. Since Alaska has self-funded insurance, it directly affects the bottom line. They only test for it is after you are initially hired and never again.

I don't think it's absurd in the least. I'm the last person you're going to convince otherwise. Someone who doesn't smoke is going to be in much better health than those who do, hence more productive and alert. Personally, I don't think the health standards are tight enough for obtaining a medical. If you smoke, no medical for you; that's how I feel about it.

On more fundamental note, why wouldn't you quit? Why would you want to engage in a habit that is not only bad for you but bad for everyone else in your presence? Second hand smoke is a killer and just as bad if not worse. I've seen pilots smoking while in uniform and it looks just flat out unprofessional and gives the compnay they work for a bad image. Smoking is a cause for heart attacks, CHF, lung cancer, asthma and emphysema. I know having a heart attack while on final would be much worse than with drawal symptoms. Ever see someone have a heart attack or asthma attack before? Ever see someone have withdrawal symptoms? Two different animals. The bottom line is smoking is a health risk to you, those around you and those who are sitting behind your cockpit door. I applaud Alaska having a non smoking policy! I know it said non-nicotine, which includes all nicotine products, but smoking is the only one that effects more than just the user.

This explains why they have no 'smoking-hot' FAs working for them...

-LAFF

It's common knowledge over there that you just have to pass the pre-employment tobacco screen and then you can ignore the rule if you want. Just don't light up on company property.

LOL! Great pun but I have to say that most of the FAs I met at the hotel were indeed smoking hot. But they didn't smoke. :D

So where does it end? No beer, no red meat, no coffee? If its legal then crews should be allowed to indulge.