That's not what you claimed - you claimed that it was a) recirculated less and as a direct result b) more airborne germs are prevalent and c) cost is saved. So

That's not what you claimed - you claimed that it was a) recirculated less and as a direct result b) more airborne germs are prevalent and c) cost is saved. Sorry - it's my fault for not giving more background on Mr. Smith - Patrick Smith has been a Delta Air Lines pilot for about 10 years, written two books on airlines, before that flying cargo, and I've met him more than once, so I'll trust him and the other pilots I've met when they tell me how their airplanes work. Here's more of his articles on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/askthepilot335/ http://www.salon.com/2009/09/25/askthepilot335/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-and-answers/#cX-q9 http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-and-answers/#cX-q9 and another article here: http://airlinesafety.com/articles/FSFCabinAir.htm http://airlinesafety.com/articles/FSFCabinAir.htm I'll allow that it's certainly possible that manufacturers have tweaked the circulation post-smoking, but even if so, it wasn't done with some nefarious intent or to the detriment of passengers. The air we breathe (as I'm about to get on a flight) is incredibly clean, cleaner than in my office.