Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 for example.
If he wasn't joking: For venting smoke, the airbus manual says (or used to say) you have to reduce speed to below 200 knots. You should be at low altitude, of course.
Despite studies showing these it not much good in venting this way, crews still desire to do it.
I looked and Romney didn't say anything about " passengers rolling down the windows at 30,000 feet and at 500 knots."
That's just wild ass charicature circle jerking. What he said was that they (FAA? Manufacturer? Leasor?) should allow it. He might have been reflecting the crew's sentiments.
Venting air via an open window could be done using air rams to maintain pressure. The FAA doesn't like the planes slowing down and dropping altitude to do it for delayed landing, reduced cummonication, and analysis of In effectiveness.
Wide body jets are particularly bad aerodynamically to allow venting based on studies.
planes in the US May have their windows bolted shut, I don't know about that.
But I do know that even today there are planes evenin commercial service that have windows that can be opened in flight and older flight manuals gave instructions on how to do it in the event of smoke or fire. (btw, fire can be bad because the vacuum can pull it into other areas of the plane).
Anyway, I don't get Linus' reaction as I when I read the quote in the la times I immediately thought I understood what he was saying.
The planes are made with opening windows, but I don't know