Smokers Airline Set To Light Up Next Year
More legroom, an upper deck lounge and the freedom to smoke to one’s heart’s content are the promises of the new SMINTAIR which hopes to make a maiden voyage from Dusseldorf to Tokyo in March 2007. Alexander Schoppman, Managing Director at SMINTAIR, assures his future flyers that smoking in airline cabins is safe, and he says that airlines only stopped allowing their passengers to smoke in order to save money on fuel and air conditioner filters. On SMINTAIR’s website, Schoppman also denies that second-hand smoke is a health threat and compares today’s anti-smoking campaigns to those of the Nazis. A report issued last month by the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that secondhand smoke exposure can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections and asthma attacks in infants and children. SMINTAIR promises to take passengers back to the glory days of air travel by providing elegant meals and attentive service. This step back in time also includes the promise of "charming and beautiful flight attendants." "In the 50s, 60s and 70s, I was always looking forward to every flight, enjoying a luxurious experience above the clouds," Schoppman says. "The stewardesses (yes, that was the job title, and they were proud of it!) were all friendly, very pretty and in their fresh uniforms." Tickets have not yet gone on sale for the maiden flight, but SMINTAIR has 120 open positions for flight attendants, according to their website.
Email



RSS
Twitter
Facebook
It is about time. There are more people morbidly obese and/or drug users that will certainly pass on before most of us smokers. Some may cringe at the sight of a smoker, but the sight of a 300 lb. hippo or someone with crack ‘sores’ is totally nauseating.
Posted by: Terry | July 12, 2006, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
You have got to be kidding
Posted by: Trenton | July 12, 2006, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
you’re not funny….at all.
Posted by: chris | July 12, 2006, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
I think smoking in jets while flying is not a good idea. I suppose the smoke that comes from the smoking lounge will circulate through the plane?
It is bad enough when we have to inhale an already non-filtered air that circulates throughout the plane.
Smoking has to be banned on airlines for good. Regardless of cigarettes company that still try to destroy human environment.
I don’t want to sit next to a smoker who smells bad of smoke or smell his/her breath every time they come back from the smoking lounge.
Posted by: Leimomi | July 12, 2006, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
If you don’t want to sit on a plane with smokers, then take a non-smoking flight. I am sick and tired of being treated like a second-class citizen for having a cigarette now and again. I am not a full-time smoker, but do enjoy one – especially during a stressful situation like flying. Next thing you know they’ll want to ban McDonalds and Haagen Das because it makes you fat. Everyone has the right to make a choice – just take another flight. I think this a great victory for smokers everywhere!
Posted by: Calanne | July 12, 2006, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
is this a “GAG” ?
Posted by: radargrl | July 12, 2006, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
Yea!!!! It’s about time. For too long those who don’t smoke have indulged in a campaign to marginalize those who do. Personally, I’d rather sit next to someone who smokes than some schnockered idiot breathing gin fumes on me.
Those who don’t wish to be exposed to cigarette smoke have a multitude of options available. It’s great that those who DO smoke have at least one place where they’re still welcome.
Posted by: free2Bme | July 12, 2006, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Bravo SMINTAIR!
No kids and no sanctimonious non-smokers! I will definitely be a patron. Besides, body odor and germ-ridden children smell worse. And who wants to sit next to someone so fat that part of them is in your seat? Yuck. Don’t want to sit next to a smoker? Don’t fly on this airline.
Posted by: Smoke on | July 12, 2006, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
“I don’t want to sit next to a smoker who smells bad of smoke or smell his/her breath every time they come back from the smoking lounge.”
Then why on Earth would you even consider buying a ticket on a “smoking” flight?
Posted by: 7rob7 | July 12, 2006, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
If you don’t like the smoke, or recirculated smoke, then you’ve an easy choice — DON’T FLY THIS AIRLINE. For those who enjoy smoking en flight, then here’s the airline for you. Personally, I would also like an airline which doesn’t allow anyone to fly with them under the age of 6 (or alternatively has a sound-proof section where they and their adults must sit). I’ve been much more disturbed by crying/screaming babies than by someone smoking.
Posted by: NWtrnr | July 12, 2006, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
Folks smoked on airplanes until the last decade. Do I see a danger? No more than usual. I recently quit smoking, but I disagree when government dictates what we can or cannot do.
Posted by: JoAnn | July 13, 2006, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Leimomi,
Then don’t fly that airline.
It is about time!
Posted by: Jason | July 13, 2006, 10:44 am 10:44 am
If you have a problem with smokers there is an easy solution…don’t fly on this airline!
Posted by: Landa | July 13, 2006, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Then don’t take this flight. As long as someone knows ahead of time what the situation is, he has no legitimate reason to complain. This applies to a whole slew of issues in which one group of people attempt to cram their personal preferences down _everyone’s_ throats. Personal choice, personal responsibility. Cf: don’t like restaurants that serve meat? Don’t eat there. Don’t mandate that all restaurants become vegetarian.
Posted by: Russ | July 13, 2006, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
I am a former smoker but I still think that if you don’t want to be exposed to smoking on a flight use another airline.
It’s also about time that someone other than me is calling those “airline waitresses” stewardesses and hiring only women who are nice to look at and not “guys” who want to be women.
Posted by: Brian | July 13, 2006, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
“Holy moley”……someone who’s not affraid to use the ‘stewardess’ word, or affraid to provide good meals as well as to let you smoke afterwards…….dang, they might even let you have two carry-on pieces of luggage
“Right On” SMINTAIR,….. mom was right, what goes around comes around. Who knows, other airlines may jump onboard.
Posted by: dreek | July 13, 2006, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
I hope they offer continental US flights.. I do a lot of travel here, and would certainly pay a premium to not around the self-rightous.
Posted by: b | July 13, 2006, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm
Ok, good for smokers, you have an airline, but Smoke On, here’s something you said that I dont get:
“And who wants to sit next to someone so fat that part of them is in your seat?”
Who wants to sit next to someone puffing smoke in your face? Not me. Even if I was a smoker. And not everyone who doesnt smoke is self-rightous, pitying those that do.
Posted by: ATTW | July 13, 2006, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
The trouble I have with this is that other airlines might want to “jump on board” as Brian said.
I can envision an airline having aircraft that are nondedicated, so a craft that is smoking one day is nonsmoking the next. Then all of us with asthma (myself included) are treated to a “fun” 2-4 hours of low level irritation, and more than likely having an attack. That’s not sanctimonious, it’s just plain reality for anyone with asthma.
The sanctimonious people in my mind are those smokers who think their habits are merely a nuisance to others, and that we should just “tolerate their habit”. Well, that may be true for chewing tobacco, but smokers can literally endanger the lives of people with asthma, COPD, etc.
As far as second class citizens go, that distinction goes to the children of smokers, who are forced to breathe very dangerous levels of unfiltered secondhand smoke while still undergoing development. It’s no accident they end up with much higher incidences of asthma and other health problems thanks to selfish ol’ mom and dad.
Posted by: erik | July 13, 2006, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm
forget sanctimonious.
they won’t get a whole lot of business, only people who smoke and people who don’t care.
i’d take screaming babies and fat people over smokers any day – they have nothing to do with the air we have to share in that cramped cabin. hate unruly kids? spend $2 on earplugs or $10 on earphones. don’t like fat people? buck up and pay for first class, ask for another seat, get an exit seat, or just don’t sit in the middle.
there will be pure oxygen flowing throughout the cabin, and they’re going to let people light up? you can’t possibly believe that’s a good idea, practically speaking.
Posted by: em. | July 15, 2006, 12:09 am 12:09 am
i think it’s a great idea…a GREAT cash-cow for the airlines…charge smokers twice to three times as much for tickets…charge a fee for seperate airport terminal care (cigs could easily burn seats)…charge an airport terminal fee for airplane terminals that sits in county free from smoking zone…charge a health insurance fee for passengers that die or get ill during a trip, especially, for children’s…i’d say go for it!!!!
Posted by: PAUL | July 15, 2006, 3:14 am 3:14 am
The non-smokers, who proclaimed the baloney about second hand smoke, will be sneaking on the smoker flights to get in on the goodies, “Charming and beautiful flight attendants.” Not to mention the glory days of air travel by providing elegant meals and attentive service.
Posted by: botcha-galoop | July 15, 2006, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
Hello everybody,
thank you very much for the controverse discussion here at ABC’s bog spot. Please do go to our web site and read all information provided. You’ll see, that there are answers to many questions and loads of information to the one who seeks to know more.
With kind regards,
Alexander W. Schoppmann
(MD – SMINTAIR LTD)
Posted by: Alexander W. Schoppmann | July 17, 2006, 4:43 am 4:43 am
Is it not true that almost all airlines are smoke-free? what the hell are you anti smokers moaning about! If you don’t want to go on an airline where smoking is allowed then don’t book at seat on it! Its as simple as that so stop whining and go get angry about something worth getting annoyed about like global warming or starving children!
Posted by: claire | August 1, 2006, 7:16 pm 7:16 pm
Well Done Smintair!!
I wish you every success and I will most certainly be a future passenger. I will happily spend my money with Smintair and not as I do just now, i.e. grudgingly spending it with BA, Virgin and Continental.
Mr Schoppmann is a hero to the smoking passenger. Thank you Mr S!
Posted by: Yvonne | August 3, 2006, 10:56 am 10:56 am
I watched a city’s council hearings on whether to ban smoking in restaurants. What struck me as deplorable was that the non-smokers weren’t content to allow restaurant owners to choose whether or not to allow smoking in their own restaurants; they demanded that no restaurants allow smoking. No compromise. Reformers that demand that all must live their way. They won. Freedom lost. Perhaps we should demand that no one be allowed to drink alcohol or consume meat or sugar. Lets ban sex for any but married couples, or for people under 25, or in certain states (Check out the Center for Disease Control STD statistics.). There is so much that I don’t do that I could demand noone else be allowed to do.
Posted by: Kathleen | September 23, 2006, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Point of reference … the air doen’t have to be recycled 100 percent, and it wasn’t in the earlier days. Fresh air is drawn in from the front and stale air is exhausted toward the rear of the main cabin. That’s why smoking was always in rear rows. Flight crews did — and still do — have control over the air flow. However, cutting down on fresh air intake saves appreciable fuel. Early smoking bans coincided with a jump in the cost of jet fuel. (note: Since less fresh air is circulated nowadays, the air is probably overall staler now than in earlier times.)
Posted by: John Sinclair | September 13, 2007, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
I believe that this has been tried before — an airline allowing cigarette smoking on board. What a novel idea! But those airlines go out of business. Why? Because somewhat fewer than a quarter of adults smoke. The vast majority do not. so despite the sanctimonious claims of smokers, they are the ones on the losing end of this argument. Obviously, any nonsmoker would be a complete idiot to book a flight on this airline. And they really are not idiot. The nonsmokers, I mean. and so they won’t be booking this airline. And there are simply not enough smokers, or those who are willing to sit on a plane full of smokers, for this to succeed.
So have fun, all of you who are addicted to tobacco and think it’s cool or charming or a moderate vice that shouldn’t bother any of the rest of us. I have no sympathy for any of you who took up the habit after the Surgeon General’s report in 1964, a mere 43 years ago. That was when it was not merely understood but publicized that smoking was Very Bad for you. If you missed the report then, too bad. It’s not as if this is hidden information. So smoke yourselves to death. I don’t care. Just understand that you cannot do it in public places, in restaurants or bars or on board airplanes (with apparently a few exceptions). You are all aged by smoking, and die young. sigh. What a loss.
Posted by: Sheila Hartney | September 16, 2007, 2:44 am 2:44 am
To Sheila and other anti-smokers: You’re all living in a dream world. Yes it was 43 years ago the surgeon general warned that smoking was hazardous to your health and thousands of people quit smoking and yet here we are 43 years later with cancer, heart disease and asthma at epidemic proportions. Wake up world it’s not the cigarette smoker that causes problems it’s our industry, cars, and agriculture that pollute our air, water and food. The air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink are all poisoning us all, so enjoy a cigarette it actually increases the eosoniphils in our blood that fight viruses. Wish a North American airline would start service for smokers.
Posted by: Linda | October 28, 2007, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm