Nicotine testing????

[TonyC]

This is not a new requirement. I recall a squadron mate (notice I didn't say "friend") of mine 20 years ago applying to a Major (don't recall which one) that hired only non-smokers. (It might have been nicotine-free, might have been cigarettes, I don't know - - probably didn't know in that amount of detail then, and I certainly would have forgotten it since.) He was a smoker, thought he could stop for a few days, use plenty of breath mints, etc. He got nailed. It may have been on the physical - - blood pressure, heart rate, I don't know - - or it may have been a blood test. In any event, he did not get the job, and he was convinved (remember, they don't tell you why) that it was because they found out he smoked.


In addition to health care costs, I would imagine the liability to the airline would be significantly increased for a smoker. The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job are increased, and nobody wants their pilot (or dispatcher) to be having a heart attack on the job.

Nicotine... when you consider that it can cost you a job, the phrase "expensive habit" takes on whole new proportions.

 

[CatYaaak]

In addition to health care costs, I would imagine the liability to the airline would be significantly increased for a smoker. The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job are increased, and nobody wants their pilot (or dispatcher) to be having a heart attack on the job.QUOTE]

Well that's a nice, not-supported-by-any-evidence throw away supposition("The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job ARE INCREASED...etc...). Did it slip your mind that we maintain medical certificates requiring yearly EKGs beginning at 35 yo, and yearly after age 40 to early-detect this sort of thing? (heart disease)? We're talking about OUR job after all..complete with systematic medical monitoring, not the general workforce. Insurance companies are the world's greatest keeper of statistical history...you know, those things we call "facts"?.....that's how they measure "risk" and justify higher rates for various activities and who's participating..they don't rely on "imagining". Now, where are your facts AS RELATED TO PROFESSIONIAL PILOTS DYING ON THE JOB, let alone whether smoking was a factor?

If your liability supposition held any water, then they'd testing for traces of Big Macs and fettucini alfredo too.

 

[Simon Says]

File a lawsuit against the Phillip Morris for loss of imputed income. Tell them you were addicted to their product and now you lost a chance at a job because of it. An added bonus to this scenerio is that they got large pockets.

On a more intelligent side. How long does nicotine stay in your system?

 

[Swede]

I would be absolutely amazed that any urine test would show positive for a drug after 2 months, let alone 5 or 6. Look up the NIDA 5... only MJ is detectable past just a few days, due to its affinity for fat cells.

Hair is another matter, your hair is like a tree with growth rings, and can reveal substance use for a LONG time. I suspect if you shaved your head, they might go so far as to ask for a pube.

I use smokeless, and I think the health risks for smokeless are significantly less than smoking. In fact, the true oral cancer rates for smokeless is no worse than a guy who has a beer or wine 3-5 times/week. Alcohol contributes far more to oral and throat cancers than smokeless tobacco.

Nicotine itself is addictive but is not carcinogenic. What makes ciggies so lethal is the combustion byproducts.

 

[flx757]

Did it slip your mind that we maintain medical certificates requiring yearly EKGs beginning at 35 yo, and yearly after age 40 to early-detect this sort of thing? (heart disease)? QUOTE]

Again, not taking sides on this or any argument, but the routine 20 sec. resting EKGs that are done as part of your yearly physical are totally worthless for "detecting heart disease". A resting EKG will detect a heart attack if you are having one at the exact moment you are hooked up to the EKG. It will not predict if you are at risk for one. A stress EKG and other tests are required for that.

For example, I had a resting EKG with the rest of my "FAA physical" in late April, 2003. On June 28, 2003 I had a heart attack. That EKG sure did an excellent job in detecting MY heart disease, now didn't it? However, when the EMTs showed up and connected me to the EKG, they could then tell I was probably having a heart attack.

It never slips my mind that most pilots will go to the quickest, easiest and most hassle free AME to get their medical. All they care about is the simplest, easiest way to get the piece of paper. The LAST thing they want is an actual physical exam which may turn up something disqualifying. So, I wouldn't be using the fact that we go for yearly physicals with EKGs for the basis of any health argument.

Again, I'm not taking sides on the merits or flaws in Alaska's policy. Just stating what it is, and how they implement it. And also, that it has BEEN policy for many years. And this post to relate my point of view on the FAA physical?EKG subject. I wish everyone good health. long careers with great companies and low health costs...

PS...CatYaaak,

I DO agree with your statement about Big Macs and Fettuccine Alfredo...

 

[TonyC]

In addition to health care costs, I would imagine the liability to the airline would be significantly increased for a smoker. The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job are increased, and nobody wants their pilot (or dispatcher) to be having a heart attack on the job.

Well that's a nice, not-supported-by-any-evidence throw away supposition("The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job ARE INCREASED...etc...). Did it slip your mind that we maintain medical certificates requiring yearly EKGs beginning at 35 yo, and yearly after age 40 to early-detect this sort of thing? (heart disease)? We're talking about OUR job after all..complete with systematic medical monitoring, not the general workforce. Insurance companies are the world's greatest keeper of statistical history...you know, those things we call "facts"?.....that's how they measure "risk" and justify higher rates for various activities and who's participating..they don't rely on "imagining". Now, where are your facts AS RELATED TO PROFESSIONIAL PILOTS DYING ON THE JOB, let alone whether smoking was a factor?

If your liability supposition held any water, then they'd testing for traces of Big Macs and fettucini alfredo too.

I'm not sure why THIS post has got your panties in a twist... I DID say "imagine" - - I didn't pretend to know why companies might prefer nicotine-free employees, nor did I represent any inside knowledge. I didn't pretend to have or present facts - - I was venturing a guess. I guess that smoking makes a person a higher risk, and I guess that a Class I FAA physical in no way mitigates the increased risk of nicotine usage. I know the twice a year urine test and once a year finger probe and resting EKG have NOT kept all of the pilots at MY airline alive.

BUT, since I'm just a box hauler, my guesses are annoying to you. I've already conceded to your superior wisdom on another thread. I concede again to your superior wisdom.


P.S. I fixed your quote of me so it's be more readable. I hope that doesn't offend you.

 

[rvsm410]

Good discussion....

While I'm crying in my soup for the lost opportunity at Alaska, just wanted to say this was a good discussion..what everyine here has said is more than likely true, good ol common sense....

I'm just upset that the call did not come 2 months from now when I meet the 6 month "nic-free" requirement, or that I did not lie the otherday.....well.. scratch that, if I have learned anything its to tell the truth, or just keep the ol yap shut...

I'll try again, but dispatch jobs are a whole lot harder to come by that Flying jobs, and they are tough enough, especially with a quality company like Alaska.....

Can't wait to see the comments on my other thread, "If you were a CEO"....this should be interesting...

But the good news is I stayed in Holiday Inn Express last night and I saved 20% with Geico! hehe!

Col. Bill

 

[Jungle_Jet]

The discussion about sharing the cockpit with a talking ashtray aside, I think the issue with Alaska goes beyond mere health insurance costs. It also has to do with:

1) Productivity issues. Non-smokers don't require 10 minute smoke breaks every 20 minutes or so.

2) Non-smokers aren't as likely to go postal on a customer if they've gone more than 30 minutes without a smoke on a busy, stressfull day. Of course, if you work for SWA at MDW then you aren't included in this observation, as it seems you're likely to go postal for no reason at all (gotta love that Airline show).

3) Isn't Alaska a very Christian/family oriented company? Perhaps upper management feels destroying your body in such a willful manner is sinful.

4) Perhaps non-smokers are more likely to want to work for this company, in the same manner that all-non smoking restaurants compete for that same market (outside of the People's Republic of California and NYC of course).

5) Perhaps they don't want their employees being seen in uniform smoking a cig, a sight I personally find totally unprofessional. It wouldn't keep witht the above mentioned Christian/family image. Not much worse at an airport then walking through that nicotine cloud at the door where 15 airline employees are puffing away on break. Can't imagine all potential passengers appreciate that experience either.

Am now putting on flame retardant suit to prepare for all of the fire from pissed-off smokers.

 

[B190Captain]

If this is such a big issue then why do all other carriers follow the same rule? It's bullsh!t in my opinion. You have to be smoke free to work at Alaska but you can drink like a fish. Like alcohol has no health risk!

 

[Jungle_Jet]

If this is such a big issue then why do all other carriers follow the same rule? It's bullsh!t in my opinion. You have to be smoke free to work at Alaska but you can drink like a fish. Like alcohol has no health risk!

Gone too long without a smoke break?

To say it's BS because Alaska is the only one that does it is rather weak logic. Way to debate the facts of the issue bud. Perhaps Alaska is the only one who does it because they're a little forward thinking? Perhaps they care about the issues more than other airlines do (which facts you'd know if you'd actually read anyone else's posts before providing your encyclopedic fount of knowledge).

 

[FlyFlyFly]

I think you will find that they substitute the nicotine test for an intelligence test. Since it is well documented that tobacco will adversely affect your health, they assume that if you use tobacco you could not possibly meet their minimum intelligence requirements.

 

[MsFan]

Same thing happened to me about 3 years ago. Got the call from Alaska to come in for sim check and interview. After answering the typical "Any drunk driving? Ever convicted of a felony? (Convicted? No, never convicted.) etc" questions I got the "Have you been free of nicotine products for six months?" I almost dropped the phone because I completely wasn't expecting that question. I hadn't had a dip in about 4 months but didn't want to lie and get busted. I knew I'd never get a call back if I was branded a liar. I told the HR guy it had only been 4 months. He said that it was company policy blah blah blah. I asked if I could interview in two months when the requirement would be met. He said no problem, if I didn't hear from them in two months then to give them a call. When I hadn't heard from them in 10 weeks I gave them a call and explained to the HR person who answered the phone what had happened. She acted like I was some wacko from the asylum who was trying to scam an interview. I was told to write a letter to the chief pilot explaining what happened and then they'd see if "they could get me back on the call back list." An Alaska buddy of mine talked to a friend of his who works in the chief pilot's office about my situation, explaining that there had been some misunderstanding. She said she'd look into it and that I'd probably get a call within a couple weeks. Nothing. He called her back later and asked when I could expect the call. She said "I looked into his file and it says he's a smoker so we can't call him." So apparently, at least in my case, it is something that black flags your record and makes it very difficult (impossible in my case) to get another call.

I was hired by NWA shortly thereafter and haven't really looked back. The one thing that was frustrating was that nowhere in the application material to Alaska, nowhere on their website, nowhere in any Airline Pilot magazine did it mention being nicotine free for 6 months prior to interviewing (and I had done a lot of research). Maybe it does now, but at that time there was no mention of it until the phone call. It's a company's right to discriminate against nicotine users I guess, but in fairness you should make that policy quite clear to any applicant up front. By dropping the bomb on them in the pre-interview phone call, you're giving them the choice of lying and maybe getting busted, or telling the truth and being black flagged. Not much of a choice.

 

[flx757]

The one thing that was frustrating was that nowhere in the application material to Alaska, nowhere on their website, nowhere in any Airline Pilot magazine did it mention being nicotine free for 6 months prior to interviewing (and I had done a lot of research). Maybe it does now, but at that time there was no mention of it until the phone call.

I interviewed twice before getting hired last year. Once in 1988 and once in 1998. On BOTH of those occassions it was made very clear in all literature and in the application packets that they required you to be a non user of nicotine products for the previous 6 months, just as it does now. I find it hard to believe this information would suddenly be unavailable for a couple of years.

While anything is possible, it would seem strange that a well known and totally disclosed policy would, for a certain time frame, be made undisclosed.

 

[MsFan]

Remember UPAS? If you were already hired then, you may not have had to use that. It was a computer-based application process for Alaska (and other airlines)when I applied. No mention of tobacco use anywhere. Trust me, after that phone call the first thing I did was go to the Alaska website and dig as far as I could looking for the six month window deal. Nothing. Pulled out all the Air Inc garbage I had wasted money on. No mention anywhere.

While it's entirely possible that I'm a total retard and missed something that was right in front of my face, I don't think it was as completely obvious as it was for you in 1998.

I gotta go spit my chew out now.

 

[B190Captain]

Gone too long without a smoke break?

To say it's BS because Alaska is the only one that does it is rather weak logic. Way to debate the facts of the issue bud. Perhaps Alaska is the only one who does it because they're a little forward thinking? Perhaps they care about the issues more than other airlines do (which facts you'd know if you'd actually read anyone else's posts before providing your encyclopedic fount of knowledge).

Wow that was a pretty eloquent response. Did you get a headache thinking that? I merely stated that denying someone the opportunity to work at Alaska just because they smoke or chew is hypocritical since alcohol, a legal substance, has detrimental effects on the body as well.

Perhaps you are just an an idiot that likes to hide behind a message board by criticizing other peoples opinions and insulting their intellect.