This United thing has gone too far

[titaniumsalute]

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Frankly I can't stand United. They really F ed up Continental Airlines when they bought it. I can't stand them. HOWEVER, the whole leggings thing wasn't about general passengers. All airlines offer "buddy passes" for airline employees to fly free or very cheap standby. However, it comes with rather strict dress codes. They basically all do it. I flew American Airlines a few times on a "buddy pass" and had to wear slacks and a nice sweater versus my usual jeans and a polo short sleaved shirt. It was the price I had to pay to fly free.

Here's what non-rev buddy pass attire consists (not allowed):

Any attire that reveals a midriff.
Attire that reveals any type of undergarments.
Attire that is designated as sleepwear, underwear, or swim attire.
Mini Skirts
Shorts that do not meet 3 inches above the knee when in a standing position.
Form-fitting lycra/spandex tops, pants and dresses.
Attire that has offensive and/or derogatory terminology or graphics.
Attire that is excessively dirty or has holes/tears.
Any attire that is provocative, inappropriately revealing, or see-through clothing.
Bare feet
Beach-type, rubber flip-flops

[Agschmid]

1. Yup.

[msongs]

2. pass-users/buddies are expected to follow the airline employee dress code. nt

[BannonsLiver]

3. I flew United to Cancun recently

And an off-duty pilot and his wife were sitting in the row in front of us. He was wearing a badge, which is how I knew who he was. this clod went full recline into my lap on a short 1 hr 50 min flight. I thought it was incredibly amateurish and bad form and maybe not the best image for United, but I guess he's used to riding up front.

[pnwmom]

4. How is it strict when it allows shorts but not leggings? Sounds plain old sexist to me.

If boys also wear the item of casual attire, then it's okay. If mostly girls do, then it's not.

[PdxSean]

11. Shorts don't show camel toe.

Both can wear shorts, but shorts aren't as good as showing camel toes and the curvature of the ass. I suspect that a guy wearing yoga pants or leggings would have been denied a seat even if it wasn't a FREE ticket.

[titaniumsalute]

12. You stole my post actually

A guy wearing spandex will show a decent dick lump or a female can have a nice camel toe. Frankly, in my opinion, most of the time I see someone wearing spandex or leggings in public...well probably shouldn't be.

[JCanete]

26. they can show a bulge in the sack, so fucking what. nt

[womanofthehills]

42. Oh my god!!! A bulge in the sack !! I think I might faint.

If I was on a boring plane trip, I might enjoy seeing a budge in the sack. Lord forbid we see any outline of our bodies through our clothes.

[synergie]

16. Boys wear leggings too though. Bike shorts, running tights etc.

No lycra, boys have those types of tops as well.

[aquamarina]

17. Leggings are classified in the

Exercise and/or workout attire which are in the banned category. So if Bob shows up in his running shorts, tee shirt, tennies and socks he's not going to be allowed to board either. This is not a sexist issue. It is a simple issue of complying with a dress code when you are flying as a guest of the airlines. Don't like the dress code, then pay for your own ticket and wear what you want.

[pnwmom]

20. Oh, yeah? Then how come numerous United Airlines tweets simply said they had the

right to determine ANY passenger's clothing wasn't okay -- till they FINALLY realized they could use the "pass" excuse?

[aquamarina]

21. I am pretty sure they do have the right.

And quite frankly given that dress codes are listed right on non-rev tickets, the parents or guardians should have known what the kids could or could not wear. Not to mention the fact that the United employee whose flight privileges were being used could have gotten in trouble and/or had his or her flight privileges restricted. BTW, not everything is about sexist or discrimination against what girls can or can't wear. This is about a pre-established dress code for persons - young or old, boys or girls - who fly as guests of the airlines.

[pnwmom]

22. We are not flying as "guests" of the airlines when we pay for our tickets. We are customers

and we should be able to wear any clothing that wouldn't get us arrested on the streets.

[aquamarina]

23. Yes, if you pay for your ticket, then you are a customer.

However, in this case, these kids were not paying customers. They were flying on a United employee's flying "privileges." These are the passes given to United employees who can then give them out to friends and family. That is what these kids were flying on. They were not paying customers. If they were, they would not have been stopped at the gate for their attire. That is why I am so flabbergasted by this topic.

[pnwmom]

24. This is the part you're not understanding. The airline didn't acknowledge that these girls

were flying on the pass until well AFTER the Twitterverse blew up.

Instead, they kept tweeting out copies of its usual rules of passage that apply to ALL passengers, leading any normal person to think that they thought they had the right to bar ANY passenger from wearing leggings.

[aquamarina]

25. Just because they didn't acknowledge it right away doesn't mean

that it wasn't the reason for denying their boarding. In fact, from what I've read when the girls were asked to change clothes they didn't make any fuss, it was the people in the boarding area who were commenting and twittering without knowing all the facts.

[pnwmom]

31. That's not the point. The UA person who kept tweeting that legalese

clearly thought it justified whatever decision the gate agent made -- in whatever circumstances.

But it didn't.

And the reason the people in the boarding area didn't know all the facts was because people were tweeting to UA and they kept getting the wrong STUPID answer. The girls weren't barred for boarding because of the standard airplane ticket wording. They were barred for special circumstances.

UA deserved the bad publicity it got.

[brooklynite]

28. ...which didn't go over well when most other airlines said "leggings? no problem!"

[tammywammy]

38. The other airlines were selling tickets to paying passengers.

So of course there's no problem.

[snooper2]

29. long as not stinky, stinky people get thrown off planes

[pnwmom]

30. Agreed. Stinky and dirty are health issues also. n/t

[womanofthehills]

40. leggings are no longer in the exercise category

Look around you - it's everyday attire in the US.

[womanofthehills]

33. Agreed - sexist to me also - all young girls wear leggings - these were teen girls

Has anyone on here checked out women's jeans lately? I was at Walmart looking for a cheap pair but ALL the jeans are skin tight like leggings - kind of legging jeans. You can barely tell the difference between leggings and jeans. Look around - it's what all the kids are wearing. I ended up getting much tighter jeans than I usually wear because my daughter told me I was so out of date.

If you are a human American person, you probably know that millions of female persons in our soon-to-made-great-again country wear leggings ― especially young girls. Last year, online legging sales overtook jean sales. My daughter, who is 6, hasn’t worn jeans in years because obviously stretchy leggings are 1,000 times more comfortable and you can get them with glitter and butterflies. Many, many adult women also pointed out that United was continuing in an age-old tradition of shaming and sexualizing girls for wearing certain clothes.

If you are a human American person, you probably know that millions of female persons in our soon-to-made-great-again country wear leggings ― especially young girls. Last year, online legging sales overtook jean sales. My daughter, who is 6, hasn’t worn jeans in years because obviously stretchy leggings are 1,000 times more comfortable and you can get them with glitter and butterflies. Many, many adult women also pointed out that United was continuing in an age-old tradition of shaming and sexualizing girls for wearing certain clothes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-we-lost-our-minds-over-leggings_us_58dc05b4e4b01ca7b4295705?w9f9sv5genw6u5wmi&

[titaniumsalute]

44. A non-rev dress code is a dress code. Period.

These weren't regular flying passengers. The airline has said "No problem" there. These are specialized free or super cheap seast that the airline doles out for family, friends or airline employees. This isn't hard to understand.

[SoCalNative]

5. Frankly, I wish the airlines would institute a proper dress code for ALL passengers

eom

[womanofthehills]

41. I could care less what the passengers are wearing

I really hate the authoritarian mentality that says you must wear this or that. So let's say, I'm sitting in my airplane seat and for one second I see a teen girl go by in leggings. Huh!!

[joeybee12]

6. Agree...it's fake news

For people who need their daily dosage of outrage

[Initech]

7. This is why I hate social media sometimes.

You only get half the story before the outrage machine turns its' amplifiers to 11. If we had heard the airlines' side of the story, it would be a non issue. And this is how we've come to live in a world where facts don't matter.

[pnwmom]

32. The airline had plenty of time to tell their story. Instead, they repeated on Twitter

over and over and over again (and more) that they had the right to ban the girls because of the standard language on all tickets.

But that wasn't true. Facts DO matter and United got theirs wrong. They only barred them from boarding because of the special types of Passes they were traveling with.

[leftstreet]

8. Did other passengers know you were on a 'buddy pass?'

I ask because I just don't get this whole issue

Do you wear a name tag, or badge, or something that indicates you're associated with the airline and using a buddy pass?

[titaniumsalute]

13. The non-rev deals are designed for pilots/flight attendants, etc.

They want the airline employees in general to dress nicely. and YES when they fly they must wear their ID badges which identify which airline they work for. The airlines have graciously expanded buddy pass/non-rev deals to friends and family of the airline employees. Why not follow their dress codes?

They could just say F U and not allow any non-airline employee to fly non-rev.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. One of the rules is you aren't supposed to advertise that you are flying non-rev.

I guess they don't want the paying passengers jealous.

The ticket gate agent obviously knows you are non-rev and they are tasked with checking your attire.

I was almost denied boarding once because I didn't have a neck-tie on. I was wearing a jacket but no tie. I was told only first class was available and I would need to have a tie. I had it in my jacket pocket for this contingency so all I had do is show it to the agent and she put me on the wait list. I just slipped in the bathroom to put on the tie before being issued the boarding pass.

This was before the rules were relaxed.

Also, we were required to discretely notify the flight attendant we were flying non-rev. One of the reasons was for meal selection. They didn't want you getting the choice of the rubber chicken over a paying passenger. Also, since non-rev booking is done last minute, meal service might not be up to date and come up short.

I was actually called out for not notifying once. I got a finger wag from the FA.

[pnwmom]

35. So they want to have it both ways. They want you to be discreet so other people aren't jealous.

And they want you to dress up because you're representing the airline.

[aquamarina]

15. No

However the ticket is marked "Non-Rev" which indicates that you are flying on someone's privileges. However all the airline personnel do know you are associated with the airlines. But that's not really the point. When you are flying as a guest of the airlines, you need to follow their simple dress code. Don't like the dress code, then don't fly as a guest of the airlines.

[OregonBlue]

9. We didn't see the girls in question or the leggings. Why are we making judgements?

[WoonTars]

10. It really was a non-issue when you realized it was about an employee discounted fare.

Could it have been handled better? I'm pretty sure United thinks so right about now, but there have always been dress codes for those types of tickets, and frankly, they're worth it for the value of flights you get!!!

[aquamarina]

18. I agree.

You want to fly as a guest of the airlines then you need to follow the airline's dress code. You don't like the dress code then buy your own ticket and wear what you want.

[pnwmom]

37. And if you don't want to get bad publicity as an airline then don't tell your customers

that you barred a passenger for wearing leggings because the language on the ticket says you can.

That wasn't the truth. The fact was that these girls were barred because of the special terms of their special tickets.

[aquamarina]

43. Exactly, they were barred because they didn't follow the stated dress code.

And gate attendants are allowed to make that judgment. I can tell you from personal experience that when my mom, who was flying on one of my brother's non-rev passes showed up to the gate wearing tennis shows, she was told by the GATE ATTENDANT that she could not board the plane unless she changed into regular shoes and so she did - easy peasy.

And I totally agree that United handled this in a piss poor manner but that doesn't take away from the fact that gate attendants can and do make passengers, who are flying on non-rev passes, change clothes or shoes if don't follow the prescribed dress code.

I would venture a guess that it was someone at United's Corporate Communications who knee jerked responded to a twitter feed without knowing all or even any of the facts. And I'm almost certain that said Corporate Communicator never contacted the gate attendant who was probably too busy doing his or her job than paying attention to a bunch of passengers creating a Twitter storm.

[ret5hd]

19. I agree. See...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8863883
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8863976

[grantcart]

27. The whole point of the policy is to have non revenue passengers blend in with revenue

passengers so that they don't create antagonism and resentment.

[Lee-Lee]

36. It's also done to try and make the environment a bit more "classy"

If you can get X percentage of your people flying dressed up a bit that creates an overall more classy or upscale feeling experience for the paying customers.

[kcr]

39. That makes no sense. Dressing up would make them stand out.

The point of the policy is it's an outdated policy. It sounds more like a gate agent used it as an excuse to harass someone and it made the news, and rules-are-rules types are defending it.

[Lee-Lee]

34. It's a perfect example of someone seeking attention blasting off to the world without the full story

In today's social media world everyone wants the big scoop that goes viral to get attention, and the truth or accuracy doesn't matter as long as you get the retweets and the new followers.

You see it in stories like this, you see it in so many other cases.

It's totally irresponsible, but getting retweets and followers is the goal and not honesty and accuracy.