I know now because of politics and health issues we can't smoke on planes. But in my country, at least 35% of people smokes, and hate even in the airports not being able to smoke. Not even in smoker lounges, as there aren't any officials (although, both in AEP and EZE, all of us smoke in the lavatories).

Why don't they start, with the latest technologies, using planes where there is a smokers cabin, and that doesn't disturb the other passengers?

I would flew that airline, without even checking whats the extra price for a smoker sit. I prefer smoker than business or first. And many people would feel the same as me.

I was remembering, back in 2009, as I was in the first EZE-GRU-DOH flight, 19 hours in the plane without smoking, I just couldn't any more. Before I flew back, from DOH to EZE, I took some medicines for being calmed those extremely long 19 hours...

Just an idea/question
Cheers,
Eielef @TUC

No, good riddance for that.

As long as you would forego service so the Flight Attendants don't have to be exposed to the health risks of second hand smoke, but then I guess the flight attendants would be seen as 'selfish'.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 1): No, good riddance for that.

Why so? It could be considered discrimination toward the smokers in the world.
I'd like to know if there is a chance of having some legal bases on this quote...

Quoting Prost (Reply 2): As long as you would forego service so the Flight Attendants don't have to be exposed to the health risks of second hand smoke, but then I guess the flight attendants would be seen as 'selfish'.

Let hire a crew of smokers! I'm sure there are many, specially pilots, who smoke. Many older flight attendants smoke too.

Check this out: http://www.worldissues360.com/index....nned-yet-problems-persist-2-66242/
Cheers!
Eielef

[Edited 2014-06-03 18:13:47]

I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want it back on aircraft...talk of the new tech, I don't think any tech would make if possible, not to mention many countries now outlaw smoking in workplaces so as people work on the plane it wouldn't be legal to smoke at least in the uk

Quoting eielef (Reply 3): Why so? It could be considered discrimination toward the smokers in the world. I'd like to know if there is a chance of having some legal bases on this quote...

YOU have chosen to become addicted, and there are health consequences for you and those around you. Conversely, there are no health risks associated with not smoking.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 1): No, good riddance for that.

+1

Quoting eielef (Reply 3): Why so? It could be considered discrimination toward the smokers in the world. I'd like to know if there is a chance of having some legal bases on this quote...

Legal basis for what? That's obviously his opinion.

Quoting eielef (Thread starter): I would flew that airline, without even checking whats the extra price for a smoker sit. I prefer smoker than business or first. And many people would feel the same as me.

Maybe in your country. Here in the US, the country is steadily moving away from smoking as the detrimental health effects have been well documented. You can't smoke in most restaurants, bars, and public buildings here, so I don't see smoking coming back to the airline industry anytime soon. Not to mention the safety hazard from the fire risk and damage to the aircraft.

If you chose to smoke, that is your business. If you smoke around others, your business becomes their business no matter if they like smoking or not.

There is exactly zero chance of smoking ever being allowed on any aircraft that flies to or from the US or EU. Even if there was a technology that somehow seperated you and the other smokers from the rest of us, no airline will spend the money to install it nor be willing to deal with flight crew unions who will sue them if they make the attempt.

Yes the majority non-smokers discrimiate against the minority smokers. I'd suggest quitting but if you want to die sooner, that is your business.

If you are a pilot, of course! You can do what you want up the front...

Well, about 20% of people smoke. Lets even say half of them would like to smoke on a plane, even if the ticket is more expensive. So, we have 10% of total passengers on a flight willing to smoke.
Think of any dense route in the US. Think of LAX-JFK. There are, at least, 10 flights a day. Make ONE of them smokers only. Forget the laws and all of that... Laws can be reversed, there can be new laws, etc.
Wouldn't it be successful?

I've been 3 times to the US in the last few months, and I was surprised how you consider a smoker a real second class citizen. Why don't you consider that way those people who drink alcohol? After a few drinks, he/she could be dangerous.... You even allow them board on a plane, and you even offer (for free or not) lots of drinks with alcohol. Why do you offer wine and not cigarettes, which are even cheaper...

Its a heavy smoker opinion, who doesn't drink alcohol,  

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 8): There is exactly zero chance of smoking ever being allowed on any aircraft that flies to or from the US or EU.

Has US law changed ? I know in the past it only applied to scheduled service. People on private planes and charters were free to do as they wished.

Quoting eielef (Reply 10): Why don't you consider that way those people who drink alcohol? After a few drinks, he/she could be dangerous....

Because 'drinking' itself doesn't cause alcohol to spray all over others... Yes, there are some bad drunks and drug users that are dangerous. But they don't pollute the clean air that people have a right to breathe just by 'drinking', unlike smokers who smoke in public places (non-dedicated smoking areas). They still stink long after the act as well...

Quoting eielef (Thread starter): Why don't they start, with the latest technologies, using planes where there is a smokers cabin, and that doesn't disturb the other passengers?

Two reasons. The first is that the technology to isolate the aircraft into two separate cabins with a downstream air system and exhaust would be extremely expensive.

That leads to the second issue - your 'smoker cabin' would likely have a premium added to the ticket costs of 25 to 50 % and even then the airline would be very unlikely to break even of the aircraft modification costs.

Quoting eielef (Thread starter): 19 hours in the plane without smoking, I just couldn't any more.

This tells you that your have a serious drug addiction - that is killing you.

It is extremely hard to break, but if you want to enjoy life and live to be as old as me - you need to stop smoking.

Your funeral, literally, if you do not stop.

Quoting eielef (Reply 10): Well, about 20% of people smoke. Lets even say half of them would like to smoke on a plane, even if the ticket is more expensive. So, we have 10% of total passengers on a flight willing to smoke. Think of any dense route in the US. Think of LAX-JFK. There are, at least, 10 flights a day. Make ONE of them smokers only. Forget the laws and all of that... Laws can be reversed, there can be new laws, etc. Wouldn't it be successful? I've been 3 times to the US in the last few months, and I was surprised how you consider a smoker a real second class citizen. Why don't you consider that way those people who drink alcohol? After a few drinks, he/she could be dangerous.... You even allow them board on a plane, and you even offer (for free or not) lots of drinks with alcohol. Why do you offer wine and not cigarettes, which are even cheaper...

Not being able to smoke on a plane is not stopping smokers from traveling, so why would airlines spend millions of dollars to retrofit their aircraft to allow smoking? On the flip side, I would avoid an airline like the plague if they allowed smoking on board and I can assure you I'm not alone.

If you choose to smoke, more power to you, but it is an extremely selfish habit because everyone around is forced to inhale your second hand smoke. People that drink are in most cases not a threat at all unless they choose to get behind the wheel, in which case they are far worse than a second class citizen.

Quoting eielef (Reply 10): Forget the laws and all of that... Laws can be reversed, there can be new laws, etc. Wouldn't it be successful?

Not so sure airlines would be all that interested for a number of reasons. PR, there are enough anti-smoking advocates out there, and airlines allowing smoking again in aircraft will be highly criticized for being backwards. Secondly, cleaning costs have gone down dramatically since smoking was prohibited, and I'm not so sure smokers would be willing enough to pay a high enough premium for the increased cost of modifying aircraft and cleaning etc.

If you really can't stand going on a long-haul flight without smoking, split the flight into two flights and have a smoking break somewhere in between.

-CXfirst

There is the technology for that. It's called electronic cigarettes. They produce only water vapor and the burden on nicotine is solely on the smokers lungs. But then again, prejudice prevents even that from being allowed.

BTW, EZE-GRU-DOH in 2009, are you sure of your dates?

What came first? The law banning smoking (I think AC was the first with this idea) or that aircrafts with smoking sectors were too expensive?
"Pollution to the others air". I'd really like to see some studies if that really affects you and how much. In the article I posted before it said that for a flight attendant in the smoker sector, flying 40 hours a week, 24 years, it would affect in the same way than it would have affect her smoking herself one full cigarette.
I've read in some trip reports on this website, that the air was too thick, to hot, and it smelled awful after a long flight (as SIN-NYC) from SQ. It would improve the others too, having fresh air more often... Wouldn't you like that?

Back to alcohol. A passenger starts drinking. I've seen this in Russia, where I've lived, and drinking vodka (or other beverages with over 35% of alcohol) is very popular. The cabin crew always tells to the passengers that free drinks will be provided, but that it's prohibited for them to open their duty free bottles. Nevertheless, most open them, as in a long trip, like MOW-NYC.
Are flight crews trained on knowing when they should stop giving a passenger alcohol? When it will become too dangerous? It could even risk the safety on the plane, as for instance pretending (while being drunk) that he has a weapon or he has a bomb.

It sounds crazy, but so is those who say that a cigarette could burn a plane. It happened once, I think on a DC9, as the passenger was smoking on the toilet, because in the cabin it was already banned. So, he threw the cigarette in the paper towels disposal, and they started a big and fatal fire.

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 14): I would avoid an airline like the plague if they allowed smoking on board and I can assure you I'm not alone.

I agree 100%

I'd also pay a lot more to not have to put up with that disgusting and sickening smell...

Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 16): here is the technology for that. It's called electronic cigarettes. They produce only water vapor and the burden on nicotine is solely on the smokers lungs. But then again, prejudice prevents even that from being allowed. BTW, EZE-GRU-DOH in 2009, are you sure of your dates?

No, actually it was late june 2010. In 2009 I was in love with AF/AZ.

Electronic cigarettes are a good idea. I tried them once, and I could get used to. But there are banned in many airlines, although others sells them onboard, as FR.

It requires extra maintenance to clear out the cabin filters of all the shit the smokers exhale. Trust me, on the aircraft where smoking has once occured (KE/JL744s, CZ332s for example) you can smell it for years and years and it just gets staler and staler.

It's disgusting, and any discrimination against smokers is a good thing for the rest of us, and maybe for those smokers who were succeptable enough to peer pressure to start in the first place to give up. If I had my way in Aviation I'd ban smokers lounges in airports, duty free cigarettes/tobacco as well.

Smokers may as well be placed on suicide watch, as they're actively trying to kill themselves. Of course they are actually more like those gun toting nutters who take themselves out only after killing 10 other people first.

I would fight any campaign to allow it in aircraft again.

Quoting eielef (Reply 17): It sounds crazy, but so is those who say that a cigarette could burn a plane. It happened once, I think on a DC9, as the passenger was smoking on the toilet, because in the cabin it was already banned. So, he threw the cigarette in the paper towels disposal, and they started a big and fatal fire.

Once is probably TOO much, wouldn't you say?




Tell you what........you pay extra for your smoking section, smoke all you want, BUT, you have to clean up the seats and ashtrays in the smoking section as well as clean the plastic surfaces in that section.





Truth be known, it's just NOT going to happen. Smoking sections on a/c were a joke anyway because the only way to delineate between smoking and non-smoking sections was a little sign on top of one of the seats. That could be moved from seat to seat, depending on where they decided the smoking section should be. I sincerely doubt that the smoke, from those cigarettes, paid much attention to that little sign.

Also consider what smoking does to the aircraft itself. The nicotine gets into everything in the cabin and air circulation system. If you ever see pics of DC10s from the smoking days look at the outflow vent on the lower left forward fuselage. The brown streak behind it is nicotine from cigarette smoke      

Quoting eielef (Reply 10): Wouldn't it be successful?

No, because smokers will still fly, as you admitted you do regardless of a smokers cabin...

Quoting eielef (Reply 10): I've been 3 times to the US in the last few months,

Well there you go. Smokers are still going to fly so it's not like airlines would be getting many if any more passengers. I have never heard anyone say they won't fly because they can't smoke. It just doesn't happen.

Smoking should never be allowed anywhere except in the smokers own residence or vehicle. No one should be subjected to having to breath that crap. I too would never fly an airplane again if they allowed smoking on it.

Why would you want aircraft to stink after a smoking flight? Statistically, smokers have 1/4th as sensitive a sense of smell as non-smokers and don't realize how strong the odor is. Not to mention the dangers of second hand smoke. I know asthmatics who go into fits when exposed to cigarette smoke. Why do that to them? Why expose a pregnant FA to 2nd hand smoke? (She might be afraid to mention she was pregnant as it is certain only low seniority FAs would get the smoker flights).

Quoting Karadion (Reply 1): No, good riddance for that.

+1

Quoting Prost (Reply 2): As long as you would forego service so the Flight Attendants don't have to be exposed to the health risks of second hand smoke,

It is illegal to knowingly expose workers in California to known carcinogens such as 2nd hand smoke... It is legal liability to expose pregnant women to carcinogens and it would be illegal to deny women the right to work flights (so one is walking into a HUGE lawsuit).

Quoting eielef (Reply 3): Why so? It could be considered discrimination toward the smokers in the world.

How? Please explain. There is no right to expose others to nasty smells and carcinogens. It isn't possible to keep weight down and filter out everything a smoker would put out.

Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 4): I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want it back on aircraft

Addiction.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 5): YOU have chosen to become addicted, and there are health consequences for you and those around you. Conversely, there are no health risks associated with not smoking.

  

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 15): Secondly, cleaning costs have gone down dramatically since smoking was prohibited, and I'm not so sure smokers would be willing enough to pay a high enough premium for the increased cost of modifying aircraft and cleaning etc.

   Seats last longer too (no more burn marks and less scrubbing).

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 14): I would avoid an airline like the plague if they allowed smoking on board and I can assure you I'm not alone.

Not only that, I would ensure not to invest in that airline as I wouldn't ever fly it.

Quoting eielef (Reply 17): I'd really like to see some studies if that really affects you and how much.

There is tons of research on that. I don't know where you have your numbers from as they've found second hand smoke can actually be worse for some people.

Seriously... the research is clear. I'm a combustion engineer. Do you know how we find out how dangers carcinogens are? From cigarette research! (From trying to find a non-cancerous cigarette... turns out there are so many toxins that isn't possible.)

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...ses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

Quoting eielef (Reply 10): Wouldn't it be successful?

Commercially? Unlikely. LAX-JFK has tons of flights as premium demand wants flights all around the clock. (Before work, after dropping the kids at school, right before lunch, after lunch, after the afternoon meetings, after work, after dinner, and late night.) Which time is the only one smokers want? How will you have smoker only dedicated aircraft. Think how much a smoker's hotel room stinks and why in the USA *most* hotel guests demand a non-smoking room to avoid the odor. I don't want to be on the flight right after the smokers... Why would anyone?

The cost of equipment to clean the air in a cabin is too high for what most smokers would be willing to pay.

Seriously, are you so addicted that you couldn't handle a flight without a smoke? Research by Dunn-Rankin has shown how cigarette smoke propagates *everywhere.*

Quoting eielef (Reply 17): Back to alcohol.

Some customers wouldn't fly next to someone drinking. More won't fly next to someone drinking. The business case favors the non-smokers. Most of my smoking friends want non-smoking flights today.

Quoting eielef (Reply 17): It sounds crazy, but so is those who say that a cigarette could burn a plane. It happened once,

AC flight 797, among the dead was a noted country singer Stan Rogers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797

Varig flight 820 (also fatalities, actually only 11 of 134 survived):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_820

In China, 25 of 69 passengers died in a cigarette caused plane crash:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/unusual.htm (search for cigarette)

FedEx fire caused by electric cigarettes:
http://www.examiner.com/article/fede...sp-blamed-on-electronic-cigarettes

Patrick Swaze was in a 'near crash' as the accumulation of carbon monoxide in the pilot's blood, much due to smoking, impared him when the cabin lost some pressure:
http://www.airsafe.com/events/celebs/swayze.htm

In fact, response times are proven slower for smokers (due to carbon monoxide bonding to red blood cells). Here is an example for automobiles, but let's not have our pilots distracted by smoking...
http://naturalsociety.com/the-detrimental-effects-of-smoking/

And the above has some information on the dangers of third hand smoke. Basically, the residue left over from smoking has a ton of toxins in it! I don't want to sit in that again! I certainly do not wish my children exposed. (Children of non-smokers live longer than smokers...)

Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 16): There is the technology for that. It's called electronic cigarettes. They produce only water vapor and the burden on nicotine is solely on the smokers lungs. But then again, prejudice prevents even that from being allowed.

You can smell the nicotine being exhaled. Come on! That stuff is an insecticide... I don't want my children exposed. Just do without for a few hours...

Lightsaber

When I started flying my airline had smoking on the international flights. Passengers on the aisle would be 'considerate' of their seatmates and hold their cigarettes in the aisle, especially during meal tray pick up. I had on more than one occasion the lit cigarettes get carelessly singed on my forearms. But, as a flight attendant I guess that I should be grateful for that.

Quoting eielef (Reply 3): It could be considered discrimination toward the smokers in the world.

Smoking is a choice. It's not discrimination when you put limits on someone for making a choice that has adverse consequences on those around them.

-Mir

You are all right. I've been reading the argentine new Tobacco law, Ley 26.687, and it bans specifically smoking on any public mean of transportation, that includes even taxicabs. Nor the passenger or the driver are allowed to smoke.

Lets move to something smaller. Why aren't smoker lounges in all airports? Why do you ban them too? Don't we have any right?

Those who say I'm killing myself, its my choice. Those who eat fat are also killing themselves too, or those who use oil, salt, sugar, etc.etc.etc. And, think wise: how many people die in this two groups? 1st. Those who smoke and die after lungs cancer, or 2nd. Those who have fat or salt in their diet, and die from fat a heart failure?

As others have said, the chances are zero. Most (all?) Western countries now ban smoking inside in public places, and if those restrictions were eased the backlash would be huge. The city of Melbourne in Australia is planning to go one step further and ban smoking, period, including on public streets and sidewalks (they plan to put up dedicated smoking shelters that smokers can duck into and close the door so that nobody else breathes in the smoke). That is the way the world is moving, not the other way around.

Quoting eielef (Reply 27): Those who eat fat are also killing themselves too, or those who use oil, salt, sugar, etc.etc.etc.

If you were to completely abstain from fats or sugars, you would die. Those items (in moderation) are essential for a healthy life. I suggest you abstain from tobacco instead.

[Edited 2014-06-03 20:05:23]

Quoting eielef (Reply 27): Those who say I'm killing myself, its my choice.

I don't think it is your choice anymore. I think you've become addicted. Given that you also wrote:

Quoting eielef (Thread starter): 9 hours in the plane without smoking, I just couldn't any more.

It sounds like the best course of action would be to quit smoking, rather than to push for a change in the law that would never happen.

[Edited 2014-06-03 20:10:54]

[Edited 2014-06-03 20:11:20]

[Edited 2014-06-03 20:46:10]

Smoking lounges I can get behind. Te best ones I've ever experienced are in SLC. I was walking right by the open door, with the room full of smokers, amd I couldn't smell a thing.

The problem remains, however, someone still has to clean those rooms, exposing workers to the smoke.

I know people who start choking and gasping for air if they even see and empty ashtray on a table, or a pack of cigarettes on a store shelf.

The only thing I can say is if you smoke and have a long flight ahead of you, buy a box of NicoDerm CQ patches and put one on before boarding the aircraft.

Anyone remember the Muse Air smokers kit? It was a small box with some mint candies in it and a few brochures about how to quit smoking from the American Cancer Society.

Quoting eielef (Reply 27): 2nd. Those who have fat or salt in their diet, and die from fat a heart failure?

As far as that goes, high cholesterol can also be genetic, so it's not like those people have a choice.

Health hazards aside, smoking is, and should be banned because it's a huge fire hazard! Do you guys know how many people in the US alone die in fires because they fell asleep while smoking? It's staggering!

Quoting eielef (Reply 9): I've been 3 times to the US in the last few months, and I was surprised how you consider a smoker a real second class citizen. Why don't you consider that way those people who drink alcohol? After a few drinks, he/she could be dangerous.... You even allow them board on a plane, and you even offer (for free or not) lots of drinks with alcohol. Why do you offer wine and not cigarettes, which are even cheaper...

That's why they have overservice rules. If someone gets super wasted and misbehaves, they get tossed out.

Quoting eielef (Reply 27): Those who say I'm killing myself, its my choice. Those who eat fat are also killing themselves too, or those who use oil, salt, sugar, etc.etc.etc. And, think wise: how many people die in this two groups? 1st. Those who smoke and die after lungs cancer, or 2nd. Those who have fat or salt in their diet, and die from fat a heart failure?

I'm sure it's googleable, but the bottom line is that people engage in different unhealthy behaviors. To the extent that those harm others, those harmed have the right not to be exposed to it. If someone eats unhealthily and has health issues, I don't smell it when I walk past it and get the same issue they have. Both smokers and people with unhealthy eating habits cause a health system burden, which I as a taxpayer need to shoulder. To the extent that someone burdens this system by their own choices, I get annoyed.

Quoting eielef (Reply 27): Those who say I'm killing myself, its my choice. Those who eat fat are also killing themselves too

The difference is the second hand smoke that you leave behind when you smoke. I've yet to see anyone that eats fat, sugar, oil, etc. leave anything behind when they eat, that could possibly harm anyone.

Quoting eielef (Reply 16): "Pollution to the others air". I'd really like to see some studies if that really affects you and how much.

Passive smoking kills, and is in some ways more dangerous than active smoking. There is no need to link you any studies, this is common knowledge and has been for years on end now. I am living a healthy life with sports and good nutrition, I don't want some jackass smoking next to me screwing that up.

Quoting eielef (Reply 16): Are flight crews trained on knowing when they should stop giving a passenger alcohol?

Yes, they are indeed. It doesn't always work, sadly. People react very differently to alcohol, some people become very docile and will just nod off, others will become aggressive.
I would be the first to vote for a ban of alcohol on all flights, but unfortunately, some nouveau-riches will always chose their ride on the brand of champagne served in First Class, so we will likely not see that :

If you want to smoke gooutside. there's room on the wings.

Inside the aircraft, there cannot be a Smoking section since the air circulation includes the whole cabin. If one smokes in row one the People in row 31 get the smoke as well.

There is no reason whatsoeven to affect other People with your addiction, and that is exactly what smokers do. From health reason to the simple fact that clothes of non smokers stink after they come out of an aircraft in which some People have smoked.

No one Needs that.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37): Inside the aircraft, there cannot be a Smoking section since the air circulation includes the whole cabin. If one smokes in row one the People in row 31 get the smoke as well.

   And vice versa.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):

Everything in this post. You're on a tear, and it's highly satisfying to read.  

I spent way too much time in my youth on smoking flights. Whether I was in the smoking or nonsmoking section, I stank and felt lousy when I got off the airplane. Never again, and I do my best to avoid other smoking establishments (bars, restaurants) for the same reason. I'm very glad the US has a blanket no-smoking rule in place for commercial aircraft.

I was watching a debate the other day, and in the end both debaters agreed that smoking will disappear in France in the next 20 years, thanks in part to e-cigarettes, and of course higher and higher price and prohibition along with social stigma.

Did I just wake up in 1990? What year is it?

Quoting eielef (Reply 27): Why aren't smoker lounges in all airports? Why do you ban them too?

because terminals also transmit smoke around the aircon even with dedicated rooms. MNL NAIA2 for example spills out into the adjacent gate lounge every time the door opens to the smoking deck.

There's an easy solution to the 'problem': Become a millionaire or, even better, a billionaire and buy your own aircraft, then set your own rules.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 39): I was watching a debate the other day, and in the end both debaters agreed that smoking will disappear in France in the next 20 years, thanks in part to e-cigarettes, and of course higher and higher price and prohibition along with social stigma.

Those e-cigarettes are worse than normal ones. When I commute on the train, there is a guy smoking one at the train station and it stinks way more than any normal cigarette.

I'm a smoker.

And there is no way smoking will ever/should ever be allowed on flights again. I have no issues flying 12 hours without a cigarette.

The only way I ever see it coming back is if someone figures out a way to convert the area taken by a toilet into a negative pressure room with a valve venting the smoke out of the aircraft...And the airlines charge to go in there. The revenue stream would be an interesting thing to see.

Quoting eielef (Reply 27): Those who eat fat are also killing themselves too

Quoting mayor (Reply 32): As far as that goes, high cholesterol can also be genetic, so it's not like those people have a choice.

Then again, I've seen Cinnabon "restaurants" in almost every major US airport I've been to, and there has always been plenty of people in line. If that's not making an active choice to die, what is?

Cheers
Mats

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 40): Did I just wake up in 1990? What year is it?

Just some people lagging behind.
I anticipate that smoking will be banned in every country in the developed world within 25 years, and within the whole globe within 50 years.
Consciousness is expanding.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 42): There's an easy solution to the 'problem': Become a millionaire or, even better, a billionaire and buy your own aircraft, then set your own rules.

Not even then. The Crew has a right to a smoke free work place in many countries-.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 42): buy your own aircraft, then set your own rules.

Unless you intend to fly the aircraft yourself, any flight or cabin crew are entitled to a safe working environment, so occupational safety and health laws would still apply.

In many countries, even where smoking on a private aircraft might be permitted, there are still times during which smoking is not permitted. For example, in Australia the pilot of a private flight would still need to make an announcement along the lines of, "The law requires that you refrain from smoking on the tarmac and in the terminal as well as during take-off, landing, and refuelling. Smoking in the toilet is prohibited at all times."
(CAO 20.11)

I was told it was easier to spot some maintenance issues around the fuselage (such as rivets that were not properly tight) in the smoking days as there would be a trail of brown nicotine from them.

Having said that I would never fly on a plane that allowed smoking.