I know it might sound very odd, but I would love to try that once, even though I bet that on the long run it would get nasty. I was born too late to be able to do it in Europe, but maybe somewhere else in the world?
Otherwise, can you tell me how it felt back in the day when it was possible? I bet it was fun( for smokers at least!)
Have a nice day

I remember it when it was allowed in the US.

As a non-smoker, I considered it nothing other than totally nasty. So many people in such a small space made it overwhelming.

I for one am glad it's completely gone from at least the US. The smoke literally makes my lungs reactive and I have to carry an inhaler to compensate.

I do clearly remember the ash trays in the arm rests from some time in the 80's and maybe early 90's?

I remember smoking was still allowed in August 1995 on a BA flight LHR - LAX but was prohibited on the return flight LAX - LHR in September 1995.

Maybe some small local airline from a third world country still allows it, but it's questionable if you want to fly on such an airline in the first place. Mostly they're not exactly known for their safety culture.

Hopefully not.

AY allowed smoking on Japanese flights until late 90's, but not on Chinese flights... They probably didn't want the heavy smoking Chinese people to poison the air.

Flew JAL LHR-NRT-SYD in 96, and there were seats reserved at the back of the aircraft just for smokers to wander down from non-smoking seat to.
IIRC the headrest said something like
“Limited to 10 mns max use”

From the point of view of a non-smoker, it was awful. After a flight, you stunk, your clothes stunk, your hair stunk, even the things in your checked baggage stunk. The cabin air was a blue haze. Even after the non-smoking sections were introduced, it was still awful. If you wanted a non-smoking seat and were late to the gate (close connection) they just moved the no-smoking sign further back. After a week of travel, you had to scrub the tar off of your glasses and other possessions. It was also a serious maintenance problem for the airlines. All the little valves and things in the air conditioning systems got coated with tar and stuck/operated sluggishly.

I used to fly on KE 747s in the smallish business cabin in the mid-late 80s. As I remember it, the cabin was divided into Smoking Optional and Smoking Mandatory (or, so it seemed at the time.)

It was terrible, believe us. That's one thing I am NOT missing. I have particularly bad memories of a peculiarly horrible flight: cramped seat, DC-9, last-row, smoking section & plenty of turbulence. Between the stench, the noise, and the rollercoaster ride I got off feeling positively ill...

Last time I was faced with a smoking passenger it was on a Syrianair plane in the early '00s, onboard a clearly non smoking flight. One of the passengers got very upset both by the very unruly passenger, who was refusing to extinguish the cigarette, and equally so by the utter lack of interest by the cabin crew. Long story short, a brawl ensued and the cigarette was forcibly extracted from the pax mouth and extinguished on his jacket! Very satisfying.

My last flight with smoking allowed in the last couple of rows was with Condor on a FRA-HOG-FRA flight in 2003.
It was extremely awful.

While I’ve never really flown where smoking was universally allowed, Turkmenistan Airlines on domestic flights did not seem to care whether you smoked or not. On a flight from Ashgabat to either Mary or Turkmenbashi there were 5 or 6 people smoking on the flight - this was in 2015. Airlines in Iran were the last to outlaw smoking on domestic flights I think - as recently as a few years ago there were smoking areas on flights, but I never saw anyone light up.

Further research shows Turkmenistan Airlines will "allow" smoking on pretty much any flight, including those two and from the UK.

dredgy wrote:

Further research shows Turkmenistan Airlines will "allow" smoking on pretty much any flight, including those two and from the UK.

I am surprised considering Berdimuhamedow is the former health minister, and is a known anti-smoker and is planning to outlaw tobacco by 2025 as stated on Radio Free Europe.

Just go sit in your car for 4 hours, light up, and leave the windows rolled up. Same thing.

The cockpit of a few airlines I have been on during turnarounds smells strongly of cigarette smoke.

smallvoyageur wrote:

dredgy wrote:

Further research shows Turkmenistan Airlines will "allow" smoking on pretty much any flight, including those two and from the UK.

I am surprised considering Berdimuhamedow is the former health minister, and is a known anti-smoker and is planning to outlaw tobacco by 2025 as stated on Radio Free Europe.

Isn’t really allowed, but just extreme staff indifference. I started reading reviews on Skytrax to make sure my experience wasn’t a one off and it’s a common complaint, among others such as drunk passengers being allowed unchecked and being able to keep your seat in lie-flat mode during takeoff and landing.

Don't remember it on planes in the USA when I was a kid in the 1980's and 90's, but it was allowed. The only flight I've ever been able to smoke on was an Air Berlin flight from TXL-PMI in 2003. The next year it was out outlawed.

Regardless of the health debate, flights over six hours would be much easier if I could smoke. ATL is the only airport left in the USA, that I know of, that still has smoking lounges post security. Therefore, I always connect in ATL if possible.

masgniw wrote:

Just go sit in your car for 4 hours, light up, and leave the windows rolled up. Same thing.

Not really. The air in the cabin is recirculated and exchanged with outside air every few minutes. As a smoker, I can't even smoke in the car for any length of time with the windows rolled up without feeling nauseous and sick. When the room or cabin is vented, it's no problem.

Figuring it takes a smoker 40+ years of directly inhaling cigarettes all day before the succumb to illness, a little secondhand smoke isn't going to hurt non-smokers in the long term.

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

Regardless of the health debate, flights over six hours would be much easier for me if I could smoke.

Fixed that for you.

masgniw wrote:

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

Regardless of the health debate, flights over six hours would be much easier for me if I could smoke.

Fixed that for you.

And other smokers.

Not here to get into a debate about smoking in public places. That was the norm for decades, and non-smokers didn't fall over dead.

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

masgniw wrote:

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

Regardless of the health debate, flights over six hours would be much easier for me if I could smoke.

Fixed that for you.

And other smokers.

Not here to get into a debate about smoking in public places. That was the norm for decades, and non-smokers didn't fall over dead.

Uh yea...they did. Secondhand smoke inhalation is deadly. From the ALA:

"Between 1964 and 2014, 2.5 million people died from exposure to secondhand smoke, according to a report from the U.S. Surgeon General. The report also concluded that secondhand smoke is a definitive cause of stroke."

You can't "not get into a debate" and then spit out non-truths.

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

Regardless of the health debate, flights over six hours would be much easier if I could smoke. ATL is the only airport left in the USA, that I know of, that still has smoking lounges post security. Therefore, I always connect in ATL if possible.

There are post-security smoking lounges at IAD as well. They're frequently pretty crowded, but it's somewhat fun to watch the people in the haze as one walks past. See http://www.flydulles.com/iad/smoking-areas.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 23), "it's somewhat fun to watch the people in the haze as one walks past."

Yes, I agree, but unfortunately often you see young children sitting in the smoking lounges waiting with their parents and I can't help but feel terribly sorry for them having to endure that smoke, through no choice of their own.

e38

Not here to get into a debate about smoking in public places. That was the norm for decades, and non-smokers didn't fall over dead.

Well, we have asthma attacks and other breathing issues. I'm highly allergic to that crap, and my sister's asthma was so bad back then that we had to move across the country to find her a climate where she wouldn't die. And no, I'm not exaggerating. No fun having her cooped up in a metal tube where the air was so smoggy and clogged that she nearly asphyxiated. Let's not even get started on the long term problem that FAs have experienced over the years from the second hand smoke.

IADCA wrote:

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

Regardless of the health debate, flights over six hours would be much easier if I could smoke. ATL is the only airport left in the USA, that I know of, that still has smoking lounges post security. Therefore, I always connect in ATL if possible.

There are post-security smoking lounges at IAD as well. They're frequently pretty crowded, but it's somewhat fun to watch the people in the haze as one walks past. See http://www.flydulles.com/iad/smoking-areas.

Denver has one too in C-concourse...next to a restaurant. Sure can smell that smoke when you arrive on that level from the escalators ex-train ride to C.

I hate cigarette smoke and I wasn't that bothered most of the time, I'm shocked to see so many people saying that the cabin was filled with a thick cloud of smoke, sorry, it never happened to me and I started flying LONG ago, we used to give cigarettes to passengers after the meal. Some flights were bad, some flights weren't, you wouldn't have all the passengers smoking at the same time, it would be someone here and someone else over there. People would rarely smoke during the night or during meals, heavy smoking also depended on the route, class and other factors and you wouldn't suffer that much on bigger planes. The awful smell lingered in the clothes though and I think this is what bothered people most, those little ashtrays stank...

I'm a heavy smoker and I used to take sleeping pills on long flights. Recently, I found ONE brand of extremely expensive nicotine gum that helps me to tolerate not smoking on the duration of the flight.
Russia has outlawed also smoker lounges on airports, so I'm writing now from the parking lot, boarding in 90 mins for a 4 hour flight to OVB... I'm not anxious. I got used to it. I hate it but there is nothing I can do.
Just remember smokers are about 15-25% of adult population. So is not a small market. But smokers just gave up. Like some 10 years ago you could smoke in every restaurant and now you can't. We give up. As we also gave up of having confortable seats in Economy, or not having to pay for luggage or food and drinks, which had always been free of charge. They tell us is cheaper to fly nowadays. Is it?

eielef wrote:

I'm a heavy smoker and I used to take sleeping pills on long flights. Recently, I found ONE brand of extremely expensive nicotine gum that helps me to tolerate not smoking on the duration of the flight.
Russia has outlawed also smoker lounges on airports, so I'm writing now from the parking lot, boarding in 90 mins for a 4 hour flight to OVB... I'm not anxious. I got used to it. I hate it but there is nothing I can do.
Just remember smokers are about 15-25% of adult population. So is not a small market. But smokers just gave up. Like some 10 years ago you could smoke in every restaurant and now you can't. We give up. As we also gave up of having confortable seats in Economy, or not having to pay for luggage or food and drinks, which had always been free of charge. They tell us is cheaper to fly nowadays. Is it?

Great comparison... NOT

Smoking effects others, even people who have never touched a sigaret in there life. A smaller economy seat and less service (for a lower price) is a choice for the customer (buy a bigger seat/food) and needed for airlines to survive the drive for cheaper tickets. It's still your choice though.

However, smoking is not, if you don't smoke you can stil be affected by it.

Comparing tighter seating with the smoking ban is just crazy.

You can't pay extra to smoke on the plane. You can pay extra (lot extra actually) to fly on business class, or first class.
Is not the idea of the airlines making more money selling more tickets. Is the idea we accept it with resignation... I just landed after 3h20. Although I had all the 3 seats for myself, my legs didn't fit anywhere. So I spent the whole evening suffering. At least it was in a great plane (Tu154M) and food was great.
But now, i'm flying on a budget airline, boring plane (B737-800), and, again, smoke ban.
I'm comparing a seat with smoking. I'm not saying smoking doesn't affect others. It does, there is (or should be) scientific evidence about it. I'm saying we are forced to quit to something we had before. Before it also affected others health, and no-one complained so much.
What I'm "sad" is that we've given up on so many things, because we allow the airline industry (plus government and regulation) to regulate so many things that don't need to be regulated. There should be planes where smoking is allowed, and people (non-smokers) should know this is a mostly smoker flight, you are invited to join, or to go on a different flight with flight ban. If I would like to set my airline only for smokers, that would be against the law.
If I would like to offer those economy class passengers wider seats with more leg space, it would be against the other airlines. So I have to just do what the others do.

Meanwhile, us, passengers, keep on paying a concept called "Fuel Surcharge" on our tickets. No complains whatsoever. My fare was 500rub, airport taxes 750rub, and "fuel surcharge" 3000rub, plus a very weird "service fee" of 250rub, taking into consideration I bought the ticket on the airline website. What the hell is a fuel surcharge?

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

Figuring it takes a smoker 40+ years of directly inhaling cigarettes all day before the succumb to illness, a little secondhand smoke isn't going to hurt non-smokers in the long term.

Are you kidding?

ual763 wrote:

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

Figuring it takes a smoker 40+ years of directly inhaling cigarettes all day before the succumb to illness, a little secondhand smoke isn't going to hurt non-smokers in the long term.

Are you kidding?

In my country a teenage girl died because of lung cancer. She didn't smoke. Her father did.

Not here to get into a debate about smoking in public places. That was the norm for decades, and non-smokers didn't fall over dead.

Did you honestly just type that? I mean, really? Really? I remember gagging and my sister having such asthmatic responses to second hand smoke that she was hospitalized. We had to move from Illinois to California partially because of her asthma but also because our relatives were heavy smokers and it would kill her if we remained. And yes, by your words you did intend to get into a debate.

I'm not saying smoking doesn't affect others. It does, there is (or should be) scientific evidence about it. I'm saying we are forced to quit to something we had before. Before it also affected others health, and no-one complained so much.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence about the dangers of first and second hand smoke. One merely needs to read it and take it seriously. And yes, we complained A LOT BEFORE. The smoking industry and its lobby was simply too strong to overcome it. Over the past two or three decades or so, times have changed worldwide in this regard, and for the better.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Not here to get into a debate about smoking in public places. That was the norm for decades, and non-smokers didn't fall over dead.

Did you honestly just type that? I mean, really? Really? I remember gagging and my sister having such asthmatic responses to second hand smoke that she was hospitalized. We had to move from Illinois to California partially because of her asthma but also because our relatives were heavy smokers and it would kill her if we remained. And yes, by your words you did intend to get into a debate.

I'm not saying smoking doesn't affect others. It does, there is (or should be) scientific evidence about it. I'm saying we are forced to quit to something we had before. Before it also affected others health, and no-one complained so much.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence about the dangers of first and second hand smoke. One merely needs to read it and take it seriously. And yes, we complained A LOT BEFORE. The smoking industry and its lobby was simply too strong to overcome it. Over the past two or three decades or so, times have changed worldwide in this regard, and for the better.

I really don't think he will be cow-towed to this, he appears to be an avid smoker who wont come to the facts or someone who sides with the smoking industry lobby.

dredgy wrote:

smallvoyageur wrote:

dredgy wrote:

Further research shows Turkmenistan Airlines will "allow" smoking on pretty much any flight, including those two and from the UK.

I am surprised considering Berdimuhamedow is the former health minister, and is a known anti-smoker and is planning to outlaw tobacco by 2025 as stated on Radio Free Europe.

Isn’t really allowed, but just extreme staff indifference. I started reading reviews on Skytrax to make sure my experience wasn’t a one off and it’s a common complaint, among others such as drunk passengers being allowed unchecked and being able to keep your seat in lie-flat mode during takeoff and landing.

Agree, I don't think it is allowed. I flew on two domestic flights in 2014 and don't recall anyone smoking. And Turkmen people smoke with pleasure usually, so if it was allowed I am sure someone would have smoked.

Regards,
Loran

eielef wrote:

You can't pay extra to smoke on the plane. You can pay extra (lot extra actually) to fly on business class, or first class.
Is not the idea of the airlines making more money selling more tickets. Is the idea we accept it with resignation... I just landed after 3h20. Although I had all the 3 seats for myself, my legs didn't fit anywhere. So I spent the whole evening suffering. At least it was in a great plane (Tu154M) and food was great.
But now, i'm flying on a budget airline, boring plane (B737-800), and, again, smoke ban.
I'm comparing a seat with smoking. I'm not saying smoking doesn't affect others. It does, there is (or should be) scientific evidence about it. I'm saying we are forced to quit to something we had before. Before it also affected others health, and no-one complained so much.
What I'm "sad" is that we've given up on so many things, because we allow the airline industry (plus government and regulation) to regulate so many things that don't need to be regulated. There should be planes where smoking is allowed, and people (non-smokers) should know this is a mostly smoker flight, you are invited to join, or to go on a different flight with flight ban. If I would like to set my airline only for smokers, that would be against the law.
If I would like to offer those economy class passengers wider seats with more leg space, it would be against the other airlines. So I have to just do what the others do.

Meanwhile, us, passengers, keep on paying a concept called "Fuel Surcharge" on our tickets. No complains whatsoever. My fare was 500rub, airport taxes 750rub, and "fuel surcharge" 3000rub, plus a very weird "service fee" of 250rub, taking into consideration I bought the ticket on the airline website. What the hell is a fuel surcharge?

Hey, I just want to thank you for posting, and bringing a very.... different perspective. I assume you are Russian and so from my western (and eastern) point of view, your ideas are very startling.

Notwithstanding the irony of your anti-regulatory stance (yes, I realize the Soviet Union was gone a generation ago), none of your ideas would work or have merit
Just because something was accepted in the past, does not mean it is right for the present or the future. Yes - smoking in shared, closed spaces used to be acceptable , but now its not. You can deal with - you are strong.

BTW, your previous post you mentioned 15-25% of the public as smokers...... perhaps that is correct in Russia, but that is no longer close to the reality anywhere in the West and only China and Indonesia reach or exceed 25% among large populations. The world has changed, pretty quickly.

A personal suggestion, my friend: if not quit, then reduce your smoking. You will find so much more enjoyment in small things if you train yourself to not be habitually chained to lighting up so frequently. To not feel the anxiety of not knowing when your next smoke will come.

AZa346 wrote:

I know it might sound very odd, but I would love to try that once, even though I bet that on the long run it would get nasty. I was born too late to be able to do it in Europe, but maybe somewhere else in the world?
Otherwise, can you tell me how it felt back in the day when it was possible? I bet it was fun( for smokers at least!)
Have a nice day

I haven't seen anyone answer the second part directly, so I'll tell you.

Most of my in-flight smoking was during the 80's on TPAC B747's. The rear Y cabin was often a reserved smoking cabin, and was filled with Japanese and Korean businessmen puffing away furiously. I would wander back there, and usually load factors were low enough that there was open seating everywhere. Find an open seat, and light up.

It was unenjoyable, unsatisfying. I believe this was due to the low air pressure and state of sinuses. Just as people say the taste buds are affected at altitude, I think their is a related impact. I remember doing it , and simultaneously feeling a bit "off", lightheaded and wondering just why I was doing it. The seats were gross, too- everyone would missing ashing into those tiny armrest ashtrays which sometimes just overflowed with butts.

Because there oxygen density is so much lower in flight, cigarettes would also self-extinguish more easily, so many were discarded partially smoked, meaning there was even more bulky, reeking waste than you'd expect.
There is no place on a plane to really dump/segregate that stuff, pretty much only into the galleys near your food and drink (ewwwww), so mostly, all that post-cig debris stayed in the armrests, on the seat cushions, ground into the floor carpet.

You're not missing anything. Whatever enjoyment you derive from smoking is at its peak on the ground.

FlyHappy wrote:

I assume you are Russian and so from my western (and eastern) point of view, your ideas are very startling.
(...)
BTW, your previous post you mentioned 15-25% of the public as smokers...... perhaps that is correct in Russia, but that is no longer close to the reality anywhere in the West and only China and Indonesia reach or exceed 25% among large populations. The world has changed, pretty quickly.
A personal suggestion, my friend: if not quit, then reduce your smoking. You will find so much more enjoyment in small things if you train yourself to not be habitually chained to lighting up so frequently. To not feel the anxiety of not knowing when your next smoke will come.

Thanks for your answer. Being on holidays now has reduced my number of hours at the screen. I'm not Russian, and I started smoking when in the mid 2000s, when smoking was banned in most of airlines.
Just a few facts to get them clear: I know that, for non-smokers, smoking harms. I also know that it is unpleasant to seat next to a smoker, specially in a closed space, with his smell and smoke. And I know is against the law to smoke onboard airplanes, as well as in most airports.

What I don't agree with you, are actually three things:
1) The government doesn't allow me to smoke, but doesn't allow the airlines to provide a smoking seat either. MAYBE some day, a new airline, or an old airline with many planes, will decide to create a flight for smokers only. It won't be like before: here, you'll be able to smoke in any part of the plane, as long as it does not interfere with safety. This might sound crazy, but see for instance, in China where 53% smoke. It wouldn't be completely crazy to send not 50% of the flights but say 5% of the flight with seat for smokers only. I wouldn't mind paying extra for be in one of those flights.
2) Actually, globally is closer to 20% the number of smokers. Russia has a high number, but similar to the one in Luxembourg, Denmark or Canada (just to name a few). Countries with less smokers are those very poor in Africa, like DRCongo, Rwanda, or Guinea. Many Latin American countries, as well as some of the Australian continent don't have many smokers either.
The list of cigarettes smoked by person is very interesting. It's not the newest, and I know Wikipedia is not the safest source, but well... Is what I got.
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita
3) Incredible as it sounds, there are still smoker bedrooms in these amazing resorts i'm staying, of an international brand (Wyndham), here in Turkey!
I've been trying to put on a list things to try to change, and I've added trying to quit smoking, as well as trying to loose 50lbs (25kg). Let's see if any of these become true!

eielef wrote:

Thanks for your answer. Being on holidays now has reduced my number of hours at the screen. I'm not Russian, and I started smoking when in the mid 2000s, when smoking was banned in most of airlines.
Just a few facts to get them clear: I know that, for non-smokers, smoking harms. I also know that it is unpleasant to seat next to a smoker, specially in a closed space, with his smell and smoke. And I know is against the law to smoke onboard airplanes, as well as in most airports.

What I don't agree with you, are actually three things:
1) The government doesn't allow me to smoke, but doesn't allow the airlines to provide a smoking seat either. MAYBE some day, a new airline, or an old airline with many planes, will decide to create a flight for smokers only. It won't be like before: here, you'll be able to smoke in any part of the plane, as long as it does not interfere with safety. This might sound crazy, but see for instance, in China where 53% smoke. It wouldn't be completely crazy to send not 50% of the flights but say 5% of the flight with seat for smokers only. I wouldn't mind paying extra for be in one of those flights.
2) Actually, globally is closer to 20% the number of smokers. Russia has a high number, but similar to the one in Luxembourg, Denmark or Canada (just to name a few). Countries with less smokers are those very poor in Africa, like DRCongo, Rwanda, or Guinea. Many Latin American countries, as well as some of the Australian continent don't have many smokers either.
The list of cigarettes smoked by person is very interesting. It's not the newest, and I know Wikipedia is not the safest source, but well... Is what I got.
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita
3) Incredible as it sounds, there are still smoker bedrooms in these amazing resorts i'm staying, of an international brand (Wyndham), here in Turkey!
I've been trying to put on a list things to try to change, and I've added trying to quit smoking, as well as trying to loose 50lbs (25kg). Let's see if any of these become true!

There's really no reason for us to debate the prevalence of smoking locally, regionally or globally. The simple fact is that smoking on board aircraft is part of an era that has gone by and will not return (meaning no regulatory body will approve, even if its not fully enforced somewhere); not even domestically in China. Airlines don't want or need the added expense and difficulty of running separate operations to cater to smoking on board - it will not make money.

You've put quitting on your personal "change list", so why so interested in lobbying for an impossible regulatory U-turn?

1) The government doesn't allow me to smoke, but doesn't allow the airlines to provide a smoking seat either.

Realistically, I'm not sure how they could. Modernly, they would need to offer a completely separate cabin with separate ventilation systems, and even then...

In the old days, a certain number of rows were designated smoking rows. But, that meant nothing when their second hand smoke permeated throughout the entire cabin. Is was horrible. I don't mean to sound self-righteous and I intend this in the nicest possible way, but the best thing you can do for yourself is to stop smoking. Not only will your health improve, your wallet will be fatter, too, since you won't be spending hard earned money on cancer sticks.

Sure, a completely new cabin, and new ventilation systems as well. Most aircraft have taken out the ash trays from its seats (which were mostly filled with chewing gum).
Now, a new airline with new planes could do try to sell flights for smokers. Nobody believed people would pay an extra cent for paying extra money to reserve a SEAT, and it did, and it gives great profit. Why wouldn't it give a larger profit to sell seats for smokers? Or whole planes for smokers, specially in long routes...
"Fly to your dreams, on tobacco airline". That makes a great advertisement.

Problem with my personal list is I often throw it away once I returned to my normal life after holidays. Too much time to think, you see..

One company tried but never got off of the ground...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokers_Express

Aptivaboy wrote:

One company tried but never got off of the ground...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokers_Express

nice try, but no cigar.

AZa346 wrote:

I know it might sound very odd, but I would love to try that once, even though I bet that on the long run it would get nasty. I was born too late to be able to do it in Europe, but maybe somewhere else in the world?
Otherwise, can you tell me how it felt back in the day when it was possible? I bet it was fun( for smokers at least!)
Have a nice day

I remember the last row of First Class on AA 763s was smoking. It was awful since the cabin was only 3 rows (or 2 - it was eons ago in the 1990s). No better in J class either. The MD11 had more rows in F and J which helped, but overall just plain nasty.

Pilots STILL smoke in the cockpit on certain Chinese carriers to this day.

I can't forget seeing flight attendants smoke inflight long time ago... Smoke & mirrors, big time

Rear galley on 757 (talk about 757s with middle cabin lavs) was ideal place for them


In the 1980s and 1990s, ticket agents repeatedly asked "Do you want smoking or non-smoking seat?" questions before issuing boarding passes all day long

Aptivaboy wrote:

One company tried but never got off of the ground...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokers_Express

And then there was Smintair - trying to fly B747 or A380 (!) with 140 Business Class seats between DUS and Japan in 2007. Of course, they didn't come off the ground.

I was on a very new BA 787-9 just on Monday and was surprised to see an ashtray provided in the lavatory.

vhtje wrote:

I was on a very new BA 787-9 just on Monday and was surprised to see an ashtray provided in the lavatory.

A.net, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think ashtrays in the lavs are required by regulation. That way, if someone does try to sneak a smoke in the lav, they don't toss the trash and risk a fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797. This wasn't necessarily a cigarette sparked lav fire, but it can show you the risk.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airways_v._Hanson for anybody who thinks second hand smoke isn't dangerous.

I remember the good ol' days of smoking on planes. I never smoked but it never bothered me nor anyone else that I knew. My clothes never stunk, the plane never stunk didn't even notice it in the non-smoking section.

back in the days Cubana allowed smoking cigars