After Barring Girls for Leggings, United Airlines Defends Decision
Source: New York Times
United Airlines barred two women from boarding a flight on Sunday morning and required a child to change into a dress after a gate agent decided the leggings they were wearing were inappropriate. That set off waves of anger on social media, with users criticizing what they called an intrusive, sexist policy, but the airline maintained its support for the gate agents decision.
The two women, who were about to board a flight to Minneapolis, were turned away at the gate at Denver International Airport, the company said on Sunday. United doubled down on that decision, defending it in a series of tweets on Sunday.
The incident was first reported on Twitter by Shannon Watts, a passenger at the airport who was waiting to board a flight to Mexico. In a telephone interview from Mexico on Sunday afternoon, Ms. Watts said she noticed two visibly upset teenage girls leaving the gate next to hers. Both were wearing leggings.
Ms. Watts went over to the neighboring gate and saw a frantic family with two young girls, one of whom was also wearing leggings, engaged in a tense exchange with a gate agent who told them, I dont make the rules, I just enforce them.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html
Do terrorists wear leggings?
Initech
(100,102 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)employees to fly free on stand by.
Jonathan Guerin, a spokesman for United, confirmed that two teenage girls were told they could not board a flight from Denver to Minneapolis because their leggings violated the companys dress code policy for pass travelers, a company benefit that allows United employees and their dependents to travel for free on a standby basis.
Mr. Guerin said pass travelers are representing the company and as such are not allowed to wear Lycra and spandex leggings, tattered or ripped jeans, midriff shirts, flip-flops or any article of clothing that shows their undergarments.
snip
He said both teenage girls stayed behind in Denver, made an adjustment to their outfits and waited for the next flight to Minneapolis. Mr. Guerin did not know if they had successfully boarded or not, and also had no information about the girl Ms. Watts said she saw change into a dress at the gate.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)there were very strict dress codes. Men had to wear a sport coat and tie.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)Business attire was required for both men and women flying non rev.
This article would be much less sensationalist if it stated upfront they were non-revs.
Mike Niendorff
(3,462 posts)I also grew up in an airline family, and when flying non-rev we had very specific dress codes we had to adhere to. This has absolutely nothing to do with regular passengers, it is a specific policy regarding people flying on employee passes.
MDN
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)My friend told me slacks, either a long sleave shirt or nice sweater...no t-shirts, shorts, jeans, etc. They are very strict about this.
trof
(54,256 posts)If you were in coach you could lose the tie.
There came a time when the only guys in first wearing ties were non-revs.
TWA dropped the requirement.
LeftInTX
(25,551 posts)LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)attire because regular passengers were traveling in tank tops and flip-flops. Plus, lots of folks do not own dress clothes -- check out what folks wear to funerals these days. Dress code still exists -- though enforcing no leggings seems extreme, since that's what women's pants are these days.
brush
(53,843 posts)Response to LeftInTX (Reply #5)
tonekat This message was self-deleted by its author.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Does anyone on the plane actually know which passengers are which?
And what's wrong with leggings anyway?
Merlot
(9,696 posts)the least they can do is dress the way the airline requests.
I did it for 5 years, never had a problem with it. Carried a change of clothes in my bag in case I needed to change.
LakeArenal
(28,845 posts)United says they fly as representatives of the airline.. Do they carry a big sign that says I fly for free? I represent the airline?
Other passengers don't have a clue who they are. Even if regular passengers did, why would they expect any travelers to look that much different than they do? Apparently not, as the witness ,Sharon Watts, was quite upset with United's behavior.
So, to save a black eye... United gave themselves a big black eye.
synergie
(1,901 posts)an employee benefit, and thus are required to follow the employee rules of dress. Doesn't matter what anyone else knows or doesn't, the "price" for traveling on an employee ticket is to follow the rules of that ticket.
Seems like the issue here was the communication problem, and how the person "enforcing the rules" chose to handle it, which upset a passenger who witnessed it.
Makes me wonder why the "rules" are not carefully explained to the employee and whomever is using that employee benefit.
LakeArenal
(28,845 posts)I never heard of anyone enforcing an office dress code on children.
In any event the draconian rule still gives United a black eye.. Whether you think they are right or wrong...
Demonaut
(8,926 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Fascists and Authoritarians ALWAYS have some excuse for sexist and racist behavior. I've learned to no longer even entertain that shit.
7962
(11,841 posts)So, no.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)EllieBC
(3,041 posts)If people aren't paying for a fare and are subject to the company dress code, they can always buy a ticket and dress like the regular paying customers. If they are pass flyers, they have to follow the dress code. Seems pretty simple.
7962
(11,841 posts)Just read them. You think they're all making it up? This is "fake news". Free flyers making a fuss because they werent allowed to do as they pleased, and a headline written to make it appear that these "poor girls" were subject to some bad treatment.
But if you really want to find sexism, i'm sure you can see it anywhere if you choose to.
synergie
(1,901 posts)who found it upsetting. Perhaps she didn't know about the rules that the company had with the type of ticket/pass the girls were using and assumed it was yet another instance of an airline engaging in bad behavior.
Remember that there have been quite a few incidents in recent times of paying passengers being denied boarding due to their attire, be it skimpy clothes (per whomever had appointed themselves fashion cop that day), or a hijab.
I'm not sure how much sexism played into this, but bear in mind there is an established track record of sexism being very much in play, with dress codes and applying them arbitrarily to random paying passengers.
This might be a different thing, I guess we'll know more later. If it's not the employee benefit several people have mentioned, then by all means, let's let United have it, but we need a few more facts it seems. This is the first I've heard of such a pass and such a dress code. I thought only employees and active military in certain circumstances were afforded free travel.
7962
(11,841 posts)A friend who was an FA for yrs would use them, but i never knew others could partake
ProfessorGAC
(65,168 posts)That said, they are RELATIVES and so i've never heard of non-related friends flying free. One of those people i know flies free on United. She's the finacee of an engineer here, and her dad works for United. She flies free, standby, pretty much anywhere, and then gets 2 coach tickets once a year. So, the "friend" doesn't get to fly free any place, any time.
The other airlines connected to those i know are Delta and Southwest.
Vermijelli
(76 posts)I was wearing jeans instead of khakis. I had to change in the bathroom.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Also traveling for free
7962
(11,841 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Did the father leave without them?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Anything to get a click i guess
JI7
(89,264 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I flow non-rev a few times and was told to dress nice. Business casual at the time, no jeans.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It's like when we would travel on business. We'd dress weekend casual, but occasionally someone would show up looking like she was a homeless person. We were still representing the company, so should look a certain way even when traveling in casual clothes.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)And my attire was not scrutinized.
I was 19 the last time I did and wore jeans.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)she was always very well dressed for it. She explained it was required.
Freethinker65
(10,048 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Motley13
(3,867 posts)are leggings something I don't understand?????
Is that all they are wearing???
Merlot
(9,696 posts)are flying on passes. That means they are family members or friends of an airline employee and have to follow the airline dress code. It's been that way for years, before terrorists and 911 were even thought of.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This article certainly could have made that more clear up front. To avoid a bunch of unnecessarily banged heads from leaping up in outrage.
I missed it and just wondered if the leggings were too see-through.
marybourg
(12,634 posts)To me they are not street clothes. But then. . . I'm old.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)I worked for airlines and employees and those flying on passes, which are free, have to follow strict dress codes. That mother was an idiot, she knew the rules.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)They also have "Buddy Pass" for employees Friends and Extended Family. That is just a discount, yet they still wanted these paying customers to adhere to dress code. My SIL worked for Airline about 15 years ago.
We were taking our then teenage daughter to a Hockey Tournament. The team was to meet at the hotel dressed in their State Jogging Suits. No way was she walking into that hotel wearing a dress; and neither was I. My husband threw a fit when his sister told him to wear a TIE, which he never wore to work in a Corporate Manhattan Office.
Spent a few dollars more, went on Jet Blue instead, and dressed how we wanted to.
Don't go by the article, its ptetty shittty. Even if it was buddy passes they are pretty cheap, and they are given to emoyees ti distrbute. These people were not paying cuatomers, probably paid $50 bucks compared to $400 for the cheapeat payid ticket. The rules are clear it's ridiculous people are getting into a tiff over this.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)In the old days we always dressed for first class in the event that was all that was available. That meant jacket and tie.
You could get away with nice shirt (or jacket no tie - can't remember) and slacks in coach but you would be screwed if only first class was available - no flight for you.
The idea was you were representing the company so you had to be presentable. My dad always had us board last - no crowding the gate and we had to be on our BEST behavior.
Also, the rule was you had to discretely notify the flight attendant you were non rev so that you would be given choice of meal only if your meal choice was available.
In those days, passes were only available for immediate family only. Later, in the 90s?, all the airlines opened up the policy for non family "buddy passes" - those passes were more expensive than what we paid for non rev. My dad had a theory the new policy was to steal back some revenue from the budget airlines.
Around the same time they offered benefits to non family, the airline relaxed the dress rule. It was getting a bit ludicrous to be the only person, besides the pilots, on the plane with a tie and jacket. Especially since everyone else was in pajamas and sweat pants. The new rule was, iirc, slacks or nice jeans and a collared shirt in coach and no jeans in first.
But with the new policies came new problems. Often times, people who were flying on the pass weren't not clued in to the rules or just blew them off. Or they didn't understand they were flying on stand by space-available only. There were memos flying around about irate passengers throwing a fit about not getting on a flight. Employees were told in no uncertain terms that your benefits would be in jeopardy if one of your guests caused a problem.
That seems to be the situation here. I hope who ever sponsored these people put a muzzle on them.
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)Yes, they need to be appropriately dressed as representatives of the airline. But it also helps them to remember that this a courtesy extended to them as opposed to special treatment for special people.They are expected to ACT appropriately as well as dress appropriately.
duncang
(1,907 posts)Different airline, but same scenario. If you had full dress clothes you might be able to get a first class seat. If you were missing a tie and had a jacket or had a tie and not jacket you probably wouldn't make the cut for a possible first class seat. My father made sure all of us kids wore a full set. And I did see other non-revs get put in the back for someone in their group not having a tie or something other then full business dress clothes. There was always a minimum even to get on. We would have to wait till the last to see if we were getting on. But also the person at the gate would "inspect" us. If there were more then the group that looked the best would have the chance at first class.
One other point to make. It's the person at the gate who makes the interpretation of the rules. And you can have one person letting someone by while another may stop them. So expect pics of someone wearing leggings and getting through.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)have different policies? My SIL worked for US Air. Only Mothers and Fathers, Spouses, and Children got Free Airfare. Brothers (like my husband) and Nieces (like my daughter) did not fall under that "immediate family. I do not remember what that discount Buddy Pass was, but I can tell you that a $69 Jet Blue full fare was a lot cheaper, without the hassle of a dress code. Besides which, it was not easy carrying around all that ice hockey equipment (and luggage), let alone being all dressed up doing it.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)When I was a kid it was only immediate family and the the fee was like 5 bucks.
Later the employee paid income tax on the value.
Then, iirc, in the 90s American, and I think others, opened up passes to anyone. My dad's theory was that the plan was, in fact, to steal revenue from the discount airlines and claw back an empty seat.
You are correct. It was sometimes compelling to just look at the cheap air fares and not deal with the hassle. I almost got burned one year in Montreal with friends for a big party - barely made it out Sunday night. I lucked out there was only 1 seat and the two employees with higher priority traveling together passed on the space. The next year I paid for a seat.
But boy do I miss that deal now.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts).... for my own ticket. But that was so I wouldn't have to worry about traveling stand-by; not attire related.
Some times stand-by was too much of a hassle. I would often have to travel at early times to have a sure bet to get on a flight. There was no leaving at 2 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon from most popular cities. Leaving San Francisco at 8am on a Sunday when you were out boozing all night is no fun.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Doreen
(11,686 posts)If they frisk easier to "accidentally" touch them. Make all women look womanly for their pleasure ( remember trump and his expectations? ) This is nothing but sexist. If they are talking about the probability of a woman having something up her vagina then we need to make the men take their pants off also because there is a chance they have something shoved up their asshole. What is this with some of these men wanting to control woman's lives completely?
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)There are dress codes. When I flew this way, as a guy I could not wear shorts or sneakers. Is that sexist?
Doreen
(11,686 posts)If the men are allowed wear pants then the women should also. I do not even own a fllippen dress and I am not the only woman who does not own one.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)And if you think the rules are ridiculous when you get to fly for free, then pay the price of the ticket. This is so ridiculous that people are calling this an outrage or sexist. Too much boredom and not enough information
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)My heart goes out ... I'd imagine must be hard, going through life, feeling that way, all the time. Scary, even.
I think you meant to say 'fine', not 'dine'.
As in, the women did not HAVE to wear 'dresses', actual PANTS would've been totally okay. Just not 'leggings'. The 'policy' is not 'women must wear traditional female garb', but rather, PEOPLE (male or female) can't look disheveled ... when availing themselves of free or discounted tickets provided by the airlines.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Or at least a little more understandable. Similar to the to the idea that sex is dirty and the slightest hint of something that could be considered of showing sexual content is impolite. The real implication is just like any other thing in the male oriented strata comes in contact with. It is the idea that thing either must be controlled by them or eliminated if it is within the range of the senses.
Just like hippies or anything else that upsets the apple cart, if it doesn't fit this society monkey trained envisioned model it must be pushed aside
rdking647
(5,113 posts)one of the rules is you agree to follow the dress code. it doesnt matter if you agree or disagree with it,you agree to it when you decide to use the pass.
if you dont want to follow the dress code you need to buy a ticket..
and this wasnt about pants. it was about leggings....
mackdaddy
(1,528 posts)Maybe he can now write a song about Yoga pants too...
larry budwell
(50 posts)not to fly United or to fly.
I always have problems with TSA at the airport.
Crappy airline anyway.
cagefreesoylentgreen
(838 posts)I've seen entire soccer teams come straight off the field and board a plane. Sans shower, a change of clothes, and a reapplication of deodorant. And they're allowed on the plane but the girls with leggings are disruptive?
Hmm.
(Yes, I work in an airport and seen all sorts of skeezy, questionable shit be allowed to fly. Girls in leggings are one of the least hazardous things I can think of.)
iluvtennis
(19,871 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)When you fly for free, you have conditions to abide by, including a dress code.
red dog 1
(27,849 posts)"I don't make the rules, I just enforce them."??
That type of stupid remark reminds me of what many German political leaders, industrialists & financiers said at the Nuremberg trials after WW2.
So what if the women were flying on "passes" - why should that matter?
How about a BOYCOTT of United Airlines?
nini
(16,672 posts)Way to diminish the horror of all that.
The fact is there is a strict dress code for the employee type passes - they have to agree to that when they accept the tickets. If you choose to take advantage or a company perk like that you need to follow their rules.
United Airlines has many more reasons to boycott them but this is not one of them.
red dog 1
(27,849 posts)In my opinion, that United Airlines employee who caused this mess was being a "good Nazi"
And, in my opinion, that doesn't diminish the horror of what Hitler did at all.
(I fucking hate the word "hate"..even when it comes to describing how I feel about Drumpf)
JI7
(89,264 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Hitler plotted and committed mass murder. That's why "Nazi" is used as such a term of opprobrium. If Nazi Germany had concentrated on dress codes rather than killing all those it considered undesirable, millions would still be living and Nazis would be a joke instead of a tragic chapter in western history.
Catholic schools, many private schools, and most public schools have dress codes. Are they Nazis?
The military has a dress code (in and out of uniform). There are unofficial dress codes in most churches. Most workplaces have dress codes. Many restaurants have dress codes.
I don't even know how that comparison registered in your brain, to be honest. Maybe you don't realize how crass and contemptuous it is, but it is truly offensive.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)People were tortured and killed by the Nazis. Being denied boarding by somebody just 'following the rules' is not even the same and diminishes what happened to countless victims in Europe.
LeftInTX
(25,551 posts)My brother worked for AA and got us passes and told us that my husband had to wear a suit and I had to wear a dress. If I didn't like it, I could pay like everyone else.
MountainFool
(91 posts)So how would the paying customers know these folks are pass passengers? It's not like they're wearing anything that associates them with UA.
I could understand a dress code if they somehow represented UA visibly to the public, but this? Just stupid.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)I'm thinking that a number of people working at the airport (unlike "Joe Other Passenger On The Flight" ... become aware at some point that folks are flying on a 'pass' from the airline.
Some of those folks are probably employees of the airline itself (like the flight attendants on the flight, for example).
It may seem 'stodgy' if you will, but you're enjoying a benefit provided by a family member's employer. It's a privilege, not a right. And they most likely 'have their reasons', and those reasons should be respected, even if they seem 'stupid' ... to you.
Doitnow
(1,103 posts)any dress code while flying on passes in those days.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Now days, people wear jeans and flip flops to church, unheard of in recent history. Dress code is standard for airline employee travel benefits.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Everyone put on nice clothes when taking a trip on a plane. It was The Done Thing.
Grammy23
(5,813 posts)It was in 1968 on the now defunct airline Southern Airways. I dressed in my Sunday best with stockings (panty hose) and dress shoes. It was a very big deal to fly in those days. I was 17 and could barely conceal my excitement at getting to fly!
As for the stink being raised about the girls and their leggings, someone should have informed their parents of the dress code and probably did. My husband worked for Fed Ex and got the employee benefit of flying stand by or jump seat. The dress code was mentioned every time we got tickets that way. They usually were at a huge discount (90% less) or were free. The dress code was not unreasonable but was strictly enforced. We were told if they had a lot of problems from the non-revenue (free or nearly free) passengers, it jeopardized flying privileges for everyone in the company. So we did our best to comply and never had an issue. Once in a while, if there was space, we'd get bumped up to first class, so it was not all bad. If you treated the gate agents nicely, they had the power to reward you as a fellow airline employee.
The parents were at fault because it is plainly stated that the codes apply to children, too. No, they don't need a coat and tie, but slacks and shirts with regular shoes (not athletic shoes) are fine. Girls can wear dresses, pants and tops, too. Just no ragged clothes or too casual. The leggings were probably regarded as "too casual" especially if they wore a regular length tee shirt that made the outfit more like athletic wear.
If you don't like the rules, buy your ticket the regular way and stop bellyaching about it.
mn9driver
(4,428 posts)Pass riding privileges can be revoked at any time for any reason. Being the source of embarrassment will almost certainly cause their privileges to be revoked. They will be buying tickets from now on.
Any of the major airlines would do, and have done, the same thing. It doesn't matter what is fair.
Langkous
(36 posts)Actually disenrolled my 13 year old daughter from a "free" charter school for the very same reason, sent home for wearing leggings .... and it was one teacher that seemed to have a particularly sharp eye for the girls attire. Just because it's "free" does not mean blind obedience to discriminate based on gender
Langkous
(36 posts)How's the burka rank in the companies guidelines?
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)People need to dress appropriately.
nitpicker
(7,153 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,182 posts)restaurants. My GF was 15 and her mother took her to a restaurant, only to be advised that her pants suit was not allowed due to its dress code. Her mother sent her to the restroom where my GF removed her pants, leaving the top that barely covered her ass and was allowed to enter the restaurant to eat.
Demonaut
(8,926 posts)stupid decision on United, should reprimand the employee after the fact and let them fly
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Good grief! Is everything a corporate act of aggression these days?
The fact is United workers and their guests are expected to look nice and presentable when traveling. They can even dress very casually, but they do need to follow a dress code.
Leggings look nice with longer tops, but I've been seeing severely overweight women in leggings with tops that don't cover their crotch and butt and expose rolls of fat. They look sloppy. (I am included in the quite overweight category, and would never dress like that.)
So, I suppose it's better to enforce the dress code for all body types and ages. Or do we have a special dress code for women who don't look good in leggings? United expects their employees and guests to look nice - even if dressing very casually - when traveling on free passes. I see nothing wrong with that.
crim son
(27,464 posts)I'd make sure they were dressed as required. What is the argument here? There is none.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)But even as a child I knew a free flight was a free flight.
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)The new insta-outrage culture is irritating, and it's often over selectively edited crap like this story.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)You'd think they would make certain they were following the rules in order to do that, especially since the next flight might be overbooked.
How many seats are appropriated for nonrev, anyway? Every flight I've been on has been full.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)IT'S JUST SO HARD!!!