or perhaps they could crank up the airflow through the cabin?
I can manage to go for a long flight without a smoke if I have to - but I do prefer to have the option. I know of friends who were members of BA's FFQ but who now fly EK because it allows smoking. Now that GF have gone "smoke-free" since several months ago, EK is about the only option for smokers in the area.
There was a petition going around a few years ago to ask EK to go "alcohol free" - fortunately that one "laid an egg"
Surely with smokers put right down at the back, and decent cabin air-flow, someone who really likes to be away from cigarette smoke can put up with the "inconvenience" of having to ask for a seat right at the front
I don't want to blow my fag smoke all over you, but let's have a bit of tolerance here, please!
What about the suggestion that heavy smoke-addicts might have a greater tendancy to get more "stressed out" when deprived of their habit and more likely to be involved in "air rage" incidents?
BTW - I think it's the short (under 2 hours - inter-gulf) sectors where they keep the no-smoking lights on.
------------------
What Goes Around . . . . .
. . often makes a better landing