Well, knowing this will probably give me a lot of heat, I'll have my say anyway.
It's all about money, as is everything else in this day and age. However, I'll put forward the idea that an airline bold enough to introduce confined smoking areas on their long-haul fleet would see tremendous business. As european travellers will know, unless you are exiting via LHR, FRA or CDG you are probably in for a stop if going to a far away place that's not a major hub (Like JFK / LAX / NRT etc). Now, if had a choice of going via, say, FRA and connect on a smoking flight I'd do that rather than, say, LHR on a non-smoking. I'll bet that a lot of smokers would do the same, based on what people are telling me.
But, and here's the real bugger, installing confined smoking areas would entail the removal of revenue generating seats. Would I pay a premium for a smoking flight ? Yes, absolutely. There is nothing worse than a + 10 hour non-smoking flight !
Alternatively, maybe a confined area could be installed in the lower deck (similar to the lower deck toilets on A330's) which would "only" reduce the amount of cargo an aircraft is able to load.
So, where is that bold airline to be found ? Former CEO of SAS, Jan Carlzon, once said that if he was to venture into aviation again, it would be for starting up a smoking airline and he would probably make a lot of dosh doing so.
Finally, I have not heard of an accident that could be attributed to legal smoking. Alas, claiming that smoking is inherently dangerous is, in my opinion, unsubstantiated. Indeed, allowing smoking in a confined area, properly insulated and with extinguishers (and a few ashtrays for good measure
) would most likely increase the safety level, as pax would not sneak off to the toilets for a smoke and drop the butt in the bin with possible disastourous consequences, should the bin extinguisher fail.
Comments ?