jumbojet wrote:

UA easily could have made this a non event by saying something to the tune of, "We will review this policy as is evident, the wearing of yoga pants doesn't necessarily make for inappropriate attire'. Instead, they come out sounding like complete buffoons. Meet the new UA, same as the old UA. A lot of women like to wear yoga, or stretchy pants, you think they might think twice about booking a flight on UA? You bet.

Where I work nonrev (which isn't really nonrev) is not a right it is a privilege that you are extended if you follow the rules they put in place. Dress code is one of them, moving to a seat for a full fare pax, not getting the first meal choices etc are part of the deal. If one of my companions failed to follow the rules, the form I nominated them on clearly states an implication of that is I can have the previlages revoked.

If I were to get in an argument over the rules with a gate agent, or tweeted about a gate agent following company policy that I disagreed with it could cost me my job.

What Jetmatt777 said is exactly what I would do, tell them to be humble, get changed, and apologies to the gate staff. They have enough to do without having to police hundreds of staff each day.

Can those who states non story pls understand some corporate reality. When a story reaches the main media channels and paints the brand in a poor light it is a HUGE story and the PR department will have crisis meetings. Thats not a non story thats as bad as it gets for one corporate function at UA...
We have celebrities commenting and ridiculing UA. We have the worlds largest media-houses showing UA in poor light (The BBC has an active poster on Anet by the way).

How a ten year old girl in leggings can not be deemed appropriate dressing is beyond anyone. I dress professional, always, but I am an adult. You can not state that a girl age ten should dress in anyway different than the image of this little girl shows and thats where UA will loose on this. Everyone that doesn't have a vested interest and looks at the images and sees the dress of the girl will state UA are wrong. And they are, thats a proper attire for a ten year old.
What her (assume it was) mother wore will not be considered and I truly hope for UAs sake that the issue was with her mother and not the child

What we have learnt is that UAs digital marketing team is poorly trained. Whoever handles twitter for UA needs to be taught how not to cause an issue over what appears to be a non story. A professional would have stated thanks for bringing this to our attention, we will investigate immediately.
Then it might have been a non story.
Instead UA twitter decides to be cocky and attempt to call out the original poster, trying to make fun of her saying thanks for being our eyes etc. Bad bad move, no professional organisation communicates in that way to a paying customer and definitely not in public. That is inexcusable for a professional, it escalates a situation rather than limit the potential damage.
In my organisation whoever was on twitter for UA would never ever be on it again after today.

I may not agree with my company's policy on half the stuff they do, however, my job is not to make up my own policy to combat it. I do the job I'm paid to do and I follow the rules set forth by my company. If you're using a benefit of the airline, which they were, you have to follow the rules of the airline.

jumbojet wrote:

sixtyseven wrote:

Either way if she broke the rules tough cookies. Who cares what social media says. Think it will effect united bookings? Social media will forget this in three minutes. WHOGAF

Its an outdated rule and UA deserves all the bad publicity it gets. Its social media that actually might get UA to change this policy so its very important.

Remember when DL got slammed for making some military guys pay for a 3rd, or was it a 4th checked bag? These military guys went to social media to complain and even though the DL agent was following policy, you got a much different response and outcome from DL management. Its the little things like this that matter, not just the big fancy new planes with a fancy new Polaris name.

Meet the new united, same as the old united.

What one airline does with their non-rev policy is their choice. Is it outdated? Probably. Is non-reving a right? No. You don't get to just throw out policy simply because you don't agree with it. If you want to not follow the dress code that badly, fly on DL. If you want a free ticket, then suck it up for 4 hours and follow the dress code. Simple as that. Gosh, people these days..

alfa164 wrote:

tlecam wrote:

To me, the issue isn't whether the dress code is appropriate or not, it's about how to handle the situation. As an executive, I would not be happy with the publicity about this. Right, wrong or otherwise, this is not a good look. The general public doesn't care about non-rev and dress codes - all that will play is a girl wearing spandex was denied boarding. In the future, I would remind them about the policy and let them board and then follow up with whoever got them the non-rev passes to begin with and address the issue that way.

And if the reports are correct, these were not UA employees; they were from another airline, which may have a very different dress code.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you travel under a nonrev agreement on another airline, you respect their rules. You don't go over to someone else's house expecting them to live the way you do, or travel to another country expecting everyone to abide by your own beliefs and customs. That's just common sense. Your airline extends those privileges to you as a benefit, and likewise, other airlines extend those same priveleges to other airlines in the same manner.

If these people were indeed OAL pass riders, you can bet there will be some blowback to that agreement considering how much traction this is getting. Years ago a bunch of US FA's commuting on WN made so much trouble for the WN agents there that WN terminated the station ageeement they had with US at PHL, and IIRC threatened the entire ZED agreement as well.

The only standard that is being enforced here is the image of the company. Airlines also expect their front line employees to wear a uniform; is that uncalled for as well? When you travel at the benefit of the company, it is entirely reasonable that you may be expected to be held to a standard of dress. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen a bunch of flight crew or rampers complaining about not being able to wear leggings to work.

wn676 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

tlecam wrote:

To me, the issue isn't whether the dress code is appropriate or not, it's about how to handle the situation. As an executive, I would not be happy with the publicity about this. Right, wrong or otherwise, this is not a good look. The general public doesn't care about non-rev and dress codes - all that will play is a girl wearing spandex was denied boarding. In the future, I would remind them about the policy and let them board and then follow up with whoever got them the non-rev passes to begin with and address the issue that way.

And if the reports are correct, these were not UA employees; they were from another airline, which may have a very different dress code.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you travel under a nonrev agreement on another airline, you respect their rules. You don't go over to someone else's house expecting them to live the way you do, or travel to another country expecting everyone to abide by your own beliefs and customs. That's just common sense. Your airline extends those privileges to you as a benefit, and likewise, other airlines extend those same priveleges to other airlines in the same manner.

If these people were indeed OAL pass riders, you can bet there will be some blowback to that agreement considering how much traction this is getting. Years ago a bunch of US FA's commuting on WN made so much trouble for the WN agents there that WN terminated the station ageeement they had with US at PHL, and IIRC threatened the entire ZED agreement as well.

The only standard that is being enforced here is the image of the company. Airlines also expect their front line employees to wear a uniform; is that uncalled for as well? When you travel at the benefit of the company, it is entirely reasonable that you may be expected to be held to a standard of dress. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen a bunch of flight crew or rampers complaining about not being able to wear leggings to work.

This x1000. Follow the rules and you can fly. That simple.

jumbojet wrote:

UA easily could have made this a non event by saying something to the tune of, "We will review this policy as is evident, the wearing of yoga pants doesn't necessarily make for inappropriate attire'. Instead, they come out sounding like complete buffoons. Meet the new UA, same as the old UA. A lot of women like to wear yoga, or stretchy pants, you think they might think twice about booking a flight on UA? You bet.

She's a non rev. Rules are rules. Her attacking the rules will hopefully lead to suspension of benefits and in this case termination. She should know better.

At this point we're talking past each other.

It's obvious that the people shaming the person for "attacking" the rules by going on Twitter to complain haven't bothered to look on Twitter. It wasn't the person who was denied boarding that posted, it was someone else, a paying customer, that witnessed the incident, totally unrelated to the non-rev pax.

Guys, we KNOW the rules and we KNOW that UA is enforcing them. No one here (that I've seen) is disagreeing with the fact that they have the right to enforce a dress code on non-rev fliers. One set of us is arguing that this is bad PR for UA not because they enforced the rules but to how they chose to respond on Twitter to this uninformed lady who didn't have all the facts in a flippant and confrontational matter and in doing so blew the whole thing out of proportion, to the point that it's now going to make the nightly news, celebrities are coming out against UA, and it's going to be a PR disaster for UA with long term consequences.

This is a case study in how NOT to respond on Twitter.

I'll give you an example: I was recently flying LH back from Africa. You know what I heard from more than one person? Don't fly LH, they always have strikes.

The point is, perception is reality. People are mostly ill-informed and rely on what are essentially half-formed opinions they hear from the media or from their friends.

You know what I'm going to hear a year from now? Oh, don't fly UA, I heard they are sexist and don't allow women to wear leggings.

-IR

Maybe the Miami municipal bus company could learn something from this and refuse to let passengers board if they don't smell of alcohol. That would show that they also have standards to maintain.

mcdu wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

UA easily could have made this a non event by saying something to the tune of, "We will review this policy as is evident, the wearing of yoga pants doesn't necessarily make for inappropriate attire'. Instead, they come out sounding like complete buffoons. Meet the new UA, same as the old UA. A lot of women like to wear yoga, or stretchy pants, you think they might think twice about booking a flight on UA? You bet.

She's a non rev. Rules are rules. Her attacking the rules will hopefully lead to suspension of benefits and in this case termination. She should know better.

But arent you forgetting the tiny information about the girl being ten years old here?
What are the rules for children? The rule UA posted surely made no explicit mentioning about it and it fails to mention leggings as well. We are talking about trousers that cover the full lengths not a miniskirt here.

However the rule discussion is only important for a few that work in the aviation industry.
A much more important fact, the brand UA as been ridiculed in almost every world media. How can a ten year olds leggings be worth the price?
If it was an adult of course she should dress according to the rules (still struggling to understand how males in shorts are ok but women in leggings aren't, but thats another debate). But its a ten year old and if yo ask any parent, the most common trousers sold for ten year old are leggings.

Hmm and if UA staff finds ten year olds in leggings to sexy, Id like them to get treatment very quickly, that is not normal.

irelayer wrote:

Haha the funniest thing is the "I am a 1k/Plat/Gold/I fly for work twice a month is this how you treat your customers?" people who are outraged...and they are all dudes. Hahaha.

#1 I have nothing to do with UA
#2 These girls are "not customers", they are representing "someone in UA".

Their age and an activist of another worthy cause taking this to twitter complicated things.

32andBelow wrote:

It's 2017 no one enforces pass dress code. Jesus. The whole point is to blend in.

Actually, yeah, they do enforce it. I've seen it enforced,and they have every right to enforce it.

First of all I have to say that I hate Twitter for the reason of bashing anything because someone stupid is posting something.

A non rev should know there are certain rules when flying free. It's like the holding up standards.

I wish there would be a dress code for everyone. I mean at least a minimum.

I have seen woman wearing leggings where the camel*** was clearly visible and not a joy to look at. People in general have less and less standard when being in public and that needs to change. I am working as a cabin attendant for about 20 years and it's getting worse and worse. That's why non revs need to have a dress code , that at least some people are decent dressed.

irelayer wrote:

it's going to be a PR disaster for UA with long term consequences.

This is a case study in how NOT to respond on Twitter.

I'll give you an example: I was recently flying LH back from Africa. You know what I heard from more than one person? Don't fly LH, they always have strikes.

The point is, perception is reality. People are mostly ill-informed and rely on what are essentially half-formed opinions they hear from the media or from their friends.

You know what I'm going to hear a year from now? Oh, don't fly UA, I heard they are sexist and don't allow women to wear leggings.

-IR

I VERY much doubt that. As I pointed out earlier, the outrage machine has a short memory. This story will be dead and buried within 24-48 hours. Remember the Muslim prankster at who staged his "racist" removal from a DL flight, or the "racist/sexist" DL flight attendant who didn't let a black female doctor treat a patient onboard because she didn't have credentials, or the other "racist" incident with Mo Farrah's wife, or the incident at US where they denied boarding to someone because of their saggy pants? All of these stories made the national news cycle, all inspired social media and celebrity backlash and #boycott hashtags, and none of them made a lick of difference at the end of the day. It'll be a pain for UA for sure for the 24-48 hours, after that though, the story will be dead and people will have moved on. If all the celebrities and "outraged" people of Twitter were true to their word for all the airlines they're supposed to be boycotting, they'd be taking Amtrak everywhere.

All airlines have strict clothing standards that must be adhered by all employees and those that are travelling under staff travel privileges especially if seeking an upgrade.
If staff do not like those conditions of employment then they should pay the commercial rate. Staff Travel is a privilege not a right at most airlines.

The nosy and outraged twitter poster created this firestorm. She didn't know the rules as they applied to these nonrevs. In the instance of everyone being outraged all the time this is a perfect example of someone flying off the handle when they haven't a clue about what is actually taking place. In fact she must be an anet member because this place is filled with those people.

If the employees highlighted themselves to the boarding area for their reaction to the agent enforcing the rules then they need to be reprimanded with suspension of passes or termination.

This new generation has everyone believing rules don't apply to them in any situation.

MillwallSean wrote:

mcdu wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

UA easily could have made this a non event by saying something to the tune of, "We will review this policy as is evident, the wearing of yoga pants doesn't necessarily make for inappropriate attire'. Instead, they come out sounding like complete buffoons. Meet the new UA, same as the old UA. A lot of women like to wear yoga, or stretchy pants, you think they might think twice about booking a flight on UA? You bet.

She's a non rev. Rules are rules. Her attacking the rules will hopefully lead to suspension of benefits and in this case termination. She should know better.

But arent you forgetting the tiny information about the girl being ten years old here?
What are the rules for children? The rule UA posted surely made no explicit mentioning about it and it fails to mention leggings as well. We are talking about trousers that cover the full lengths not a miniskirt here.

Been a while since I've non reved (over 15 years ago) but while there were relaxed rules in place for children spandex/tights (which would cover leggings) were not allowed for adults or children. Gym gear, which is what leggings were originally, was specifically banned.

IIRC business casual was required for F/J and jeans or cargo/golf shorts were only allowed if you were traveling in Y. Shirts needed to be either a polo or button down...ie just a T-shirt was not allowed. Please keep in mind that UAs dress code has evolved quite a bit from when I started non-revving with dad/mom nearly 40 years ago so current policy may be a bit different than what I posted.

Funny it happened in DEN as when I was around 10yo mom and me were connecting through DEN and I ended up having to put on a pair of slacks vs the shorts I was wearing. At that time UA (and I think most airlines) required non-revs to be dressed rather formally and while young children were allowed shorts apparently in the gate agents eyes I was no longer young... That would have been the mid 80's and it was easy to spot the non-revs as the men would be in suits and ties and ladies in their Sunday best.

UA could have handled this on social media better, however the activist who started this also jumped to a conclusion without knowing all the facts. Bottom line it's a work perk and UA has the right to set the rules regarding pass travel.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Thank you to anyone who can point us to the relevant part of UAL's dress code policy.

See Post #29

jumbojet wrote:

Here is a pic of a recent United advertisement of a woman performing yoga with tights. How stereotypical of United. Maybe they should redo the advertised piece and have the woman wear her best Sunday church outfit.

https://twitter.com/subzerov690/status/ ... 12/photo/1

You are aware that DL has a non-rev dress code as well right?

DL
Appropriate
Overall appearance should be well-groomed, neat, clean, safe and respectful, from head to toe.
Clothing should be respectful of fellow passengers.
Footwear – shoes are required unless the pass rider is not able to wear footwear due to a disability or physical condition.

Not appropriate
Passenger that is (or appears to be) intoxicated
Passenger whose dress violates public decency laws and or community standards (examples include clothing that is sheer or inappropriately revealing or is designated as sleepwear, underwear, or swim attire)
Bare feet
Clothing that is excessively dirty, stained or torn
Clothing that is vulgar, offensive or suggestive]

AA
Employees are asked to always wear clothing that is clean and neat.
Jeans and athletic shoes are acceptable in any cabin.
Shorts may be worn in the economy cabin only.
Employees may not wear clothing that is torn, dirty, or frayed, clothing that is distracting or offensive to others, anything revealing (e.g., extreme mini-skirts, halter and bra-tops, sheer or see-through clothing), or visible swimwear, sleepwear, or underwear.
Clothing that is vulgar or violates community standards of decency is also never appropriate, including items that have words, terms, or pictures that may be offensive to others.
Bare feet are also not permitted.

UA
Dress code
Pass riders’ overall appearance should be well-groomed, neat, clean and in good taste.
Attire should be respectful of fellow revenue passengers, employees and pass riders.
Pass riders may wear denim attire (such as jeans), shorts that are no more than three inches above the knee and athletic shoes when traveling in Coach or Business cabin.

The following attire is unacceptable in any cabin but is not limited to:
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

Courtesy http://www.flyzed.info/

johns624 wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Thank you to anyone who can point us to the relevant part of UAL's dress code policy.

See Post #29

Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. the major problem is with the way UA handled it, all the way from the gate agent to UA's public relations department. A major fail.

I hate leggings and cargo shorts. You look like a slob. Dress with a little class when you non rev.

jumbojet wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Thank you to anyone who can point us to the relevant part of UAL's dress code policy.

See Post #29

Nobody is disputing that the rule exists. the major problem is with the way UA handled it, all the way from the gate agent to UA's public relations department. A major fail.

The folks that run Uniteds twitter and facebook pages need to be replaced. All they ever do is quote the contract of carriage at upset passengers. Never any empathy. This is why people are so upset as this whole dustup could have easily been avoided.

United1 wrote:

Been a while since I've non reved (over 15 years ago) but while there were relaxed rules in place for children spandex/tights (which would cover leggings) were not allowed for adults or children. Gym gear, which is what leggings were originally, was specifically banned.
.

That was my point. I guess even a normal T and track pants. The point is, SJWs take offense to things believing that rules are being targeted at a specific group ignoring that blanket rules apply to anyone.

How would allowing a 10 year old not to comply teach a young person about respect in any way? No it's not her fault her parents let her dress incorrectly but it's still an important lesson.

15 years ago, I'd say a female wearing leggings on a plane was probably a very rare occurrence and it would make sense, 15 years ago, to ban them as part of non-rev attire. Fast forward to today. Leggings are increasingly popular, comfortable and completely proper attire (yes proper, attire as is evident by the UA advertisement of the yoga girl doing stretches in front of a bunch of idle UA planes on a tarmac) for wearing on a plane. Imagine this scenario, half the passengers on a plane are wearing leggings yet a 10 year old trying to board this plane, also wearing leggings, is denied due to the non-rev policy. It makes absolutely no sense. Now queue in the same 10 people that will chime in and say, policy is policy. Its a dumb policy, its an outdated policy and UA could have and should have handled this in a completely different manner. Now, United is going to be stuck in this PR nightmare. No going back now. MTNU-SATOU.

Feels like a generational disagreement. People of my age are used to rules, younger people are less amenable to rules. Should we eliminate rules completely, or just let everyone follow their own instincts, trusting they will be OK at least 50% of the time. Rules were comforting, outlining what was acceptable and what was not. As I got further into my career, my family was frequently the best dressed people on the plane. I for one enjoyed it, made the trip feel a little special too. All nostalgia all the time is not good, and not everything was better just because it happened a while ago. Too bad how a trivial event like this can assume massive proportions.

Half of the time I fly ZED on OAL the dress codes are never enforced. But they do exist. Many ban jeans and t-shirts still. And I always follow them even when I stick out big time in economy wearing my slacks and nice shirt LOL.

One time on Emirates I kindly asked the flight attendant if I could change into shorts an hour before landing, and she said it was fine.

But man, UA should have not reacted like that. All the GP is going to think about is how dumb the idea of banning leggings is regardless of who is traveling.

jumbojet wrote:

15 years ago, I'd say a female wearing leggings on a plane was probably a very rare occurrence and it would make sense, 15 years ago, to ban them as part of non-rev attire. Fast forward to today. Leggings are increasingly popular, comfortable and completely proper attire (yes proper, attire as is evident by the UA advertisement of the yoga girl doing stretches in front of a bunch of idle UA planes on a tarmac) for wearing on a plane. Imagine this scenario, half the passengers on a plane are wearing leggings yet a 10 year old trying to board this plane, also wearing leggings, is denied due to the non-rev policy. It makes absolutely no sense. Now queue in the same 10 people that will chime in and say, policy is policy. Its a dumb policy, its an outdated policy and UA could have and should have handled this in a completely different manner. Now, United is going to be stuck in this PR nightmare. No going back now. MTNU-SATOU.

US airlines in general have a fairly relaxed dress code for non-revs but they all have a dress code and you have to follow it when non-reving or risk being denied boarding. There is quite a range of whats acceptable worldwide and you need to be aware of that specific airlines policy...ie Jeans are fine on UA but not on NH.

UA is not going to be stuck in any PR nightmare...remember how outraged people were when DL suffered an IT meltdown a few months ago? People move on and are outraged at the next most annoying thing in their life.

Back in the day Men wore jackets and ties. Women wore dresses. Now most passengers look like they put on anything looks clean. It's just the times we live in. It's ultra casual.

jb1087xna wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

There has been a steady downward coarsening of social mores in this country (the USA) and much of the world over the last 50-60 years. Ugly dress, body piercings, tattoos everywhere, T-shirts bearing filthy language, anything goes in emails and in postings/comments on supposed news or social media sites.

Lots of personal opinion/peanut butter spread in there. "Ugly"? Who determines if something is ugly? "Body piercings"? Does a woman (or man) with pierced ears falls into that category?
I get supporting a stated rule of a company, but not shoveling everything else in with it.

I was addressing the downward spiral in acceptable social behavior in the USA over the last 50 years. It takes far more shoveling than I have done so far.

Examples of "ugly dress": Jeans purposely torn to shreds. Skin tight pants accentuating every ounce of flab, including gross obesity. Since you can't ban the flab, ban the pants. Immodesty is ugly, that's why the term modesty exists.

The wearing of ear jewelry has been a practice for many centuries, if not millennia, whether clip-on or via pierced lobes. Piercing of lips, noses, eyelids is revolting to many, many people. It is an example of immodest excess. I would never hire such a person who has so little respect for his/her appearance and permit them to represent my business before the public. It churns my stomach to see young women with such piercings as check-out clerks at supermarkets. It is not daringly beautiful. It is ugly and stupid.

There have been many posts above saying, in effect, that modern fads and indiscretions should become the new norms. I say no.

Expecting polite behavior at all times, adhering to standards of acceptable dress codes, maintaining standards of business and personal conduct, the recognition that free speech should also require civil speech, free from vulgarities, and, yes, even holding doors for women and the next person, are the kinds of things that unify society and make life pleasant.

Lots of people here have been defending the race-to-the-bottom, the anything goes attitude, the don't-expect-me-to-live-by-the-rules generation.

Thank goodness that United is willing to lead in this area, and to not follow Delta in succumbing to the coarsening of America.

In its early days, Southwest Airlines required flight attendants to dress in short, tight hot pants. Almost like Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. They realized that they were shooting themselves in the foot and sensibly adopted proper uniforms. Then, they made the mistake of painting one of their planes in full "swimsuit livery." That lasted about three weeks after the public outcry that resulted.

We now have a "culture" that is wired (in more ways than one) and so obsessed with tweets or whatever that they can't observe where they are going and avoid bumping into people.

By the way, I agree with others who have commented that inappropriate dress for teens/adults might still be OK for younger children. Common sense ought to allow some leeway for pre-puberty kids.

MillwallSean wrote:

Can those who states non story pls understand some corporate reality. When a story reaches the main media channels and paints the brand in a poor light it is a HUGE story and the PR department will have crisis meetings. Thats not a non story thats as bad as it gets for one corporate function at UA...
We have celebrities commenting and ridiculing UA. We have the worlds largest media-houses showing UA in poor light (The BBC has an active poster on Anet by the way).

How a ten year old girl in leggings can not be deemed appropriate dressing is beyond anyone. I dress professional, always, but I am an adult. You can not state that a girl age ten should dress in anyway different than the image of this little girl shows and thats where UA will loose on this. Everyone that doesn't have a vested interest and looks at the images and sees the dress of the girl will state UA are wrong. And they are, thats a proper attire for a ten year old.
What her (assume it was) mother wore will not be considered and I truly hope for UAs sake that the issue was with her mother and not the child

What we have learnt is that UAs digital marketing team is poorly trained. Whoever handles twitter for UA needs to be taught how not to cause an issue over what appears to be a non story. A professional would have stated thanks for bringing this to our attention, we will investigate immediately.
Then it might have been a non story.
Instead UA twitter decides to be cocky and attempt to call out the original poster, trying to make fun of her saying thanks for being our eyes etc. Bad bad move, no professional organisation communicates in that way to a paying customer and definitely not in public. That is inexcusable for a professional, it escalates a situation rather than limit the potential damage.
In my organisation whoever was on twitter for UA would never ever be on it again after today.

Exactly right. For the record I agree with UA's rule and I appreciate tradition and proper clothing. But I am not in charge. What I want is not what matters. This carries to social media. It's not about truth. It is about psychology and popular sentiment. The average opinion of 1,000,000 people.

Many of these consumers are women under 30. If they bark at you, you listen. Especially on Twitter. And people that age have a mortifying amount of power in the business, legal and medical worlds AFAIK. Oh, forgot about the government sector. To discount the opinions of young women would be a career ending mistake for most of us. For a social media pro, it is job 1, and missteps are inexcusable.

When I travel on an ID90, I'm on my best behavior AND I dress business casual. Not only is another airline providing me ridiculously cheap travel, albeit space available, but appearing professional, whether me, my wife or our daughter are traveling gives the other airlines a positive image and will go a long ways in ensuring that we will have a zed agreement in the future. United is right regardless of all the SJW's opinions.

jumbojet wrote:

UA easily could have made this a non event by saying something to the tune of, "We will review this policy as is evident, the wearing of yoga pants doesn't necessarily make for inappropriate attire'. Instead, they come out sounding like complete buffoons. Meet the new UA, same as the old UA. A lot of women like to wear yoga, or stretchy pants, you think they might think twice about booking a flight on UA? You bet.

If its next week, maybe..Next month it will be oh wait United is $12 cheaper and they'll be clicking buy ticket faster than you can say Snapchat.

So all this was started by a nosy bystander who didn't understand the rules of non-rev?

A lot of the furor on this "dress-code" seems to be instantly quelled when people realize this was a free/discounted ticket. Most likely, the person travelling on this pass was aware of the dress code (as are 99%) of non-revvers. It is possible, the father did not expect the leggings to be a factor since these were children. Airlines generally have a far relaxed policy when it comes to governing what non-rev children wear.

And as for people arguing about archaic rules, every company maintains minimum levels of standards when it comes to how it presents itself in the public. Non-rev travel attracts unwanted attention/scrutiny from people who may be paying a lot more for that ticket. Any airline would want the person to be dressed respectably - just in case he/she ends up in the limelight.

As many have put it here, pass travel is a privilege. Not a right.

wn676 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

tlecam wrote:

To me, the issue isn't whether the dress code is appropriate or not, it's about how to handle the situation. As an executive, I would not be happy with the publicity about this. Right, wrong or otherwise, this is not a good look. The general public doesn't care about non-rev and dress codes - all that will play is a girl wearing spandex was denied boarding. In the future, I would remind them about the policy and let them board and then follow up with whoever got them the non-rev passes to begin with and address the issue that way.

And if the reports are correct, these were not UA employees; they were from another airline, which may have a very different dress code.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you travel under a nonrev agreement on another airline, you respect their rules. You don't go over to someone else's house expecting them to live the way you do, or travel to another country expecting everyone to abide by your own beliefs and customs. That's just common sense. Your airline extends those privileges to you as a benefit, and likewise, other airlines extend those same priveleges to other airlines in the same manner.

If these people were indeed OAL pass riders, you can bet there will be some blowback to that agreement considering how much traction this is getting. Years ago a bunch of US FA's commuting on WN made so much trouble for the WN agents there that WN terminated the station ageeement they had with US at PHL, and IIRC threatened the entire ZED agreement as well.

The only standard that is being enforced here is the image of the company. Airlines also expect their front line employees to wear a uniform; is that uncalled for as well? When you travel at the benefit of the company, it is entirely reasonable that you may be expected to be held to a standard of dress. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen a bunch of flight crew or rampers complaining about not being able to wear leggings to work.

You (and many other people in this thread) are missing (or intentionally ignoring) the fact that the passenger denied boarding was a child--ten years old, if I read correctly. If you seriously expect a 10-year-old to review UA's nonrev policy and adhere to a vaguely-worded dress code, well, you must know some pretty precocious 10-year-olds.

jumbojet wrote:

Delta apparently figured this dress code thing out 10 years ago by virtually eliminating a separate set of standards for non revs and the general flying public. major egg on UAs face right now

DL Virtually Eliminates Non-rev Dress Code

viewtopic.php?t=450763

Back in the 90's, no matter what DL flight you were on, jacket & tie, with dress slacks & appropriate shoes only. Flying out of HNL was always a hot afternoon, but AD100 in F, one doesn't complain. I stood out so badly with what the rest of my fellow passengers were wearing & I flew them at least 5-6 times a year.

United1 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

15 years ago, I'd say a female wearing leggings on a plane was probably a very rare occurrence and it would make sense, 15 years ago, to ban them as part of non-rev attire. Fast forward to today. Leggings are increasingly popular, comfortable and completely proper attire (yes proper, attire as is evident by the UA advertisement of the yoga girl doing stretches in front of a bunch of idle UA planes on a tarmac) for wearing on a plane. Imagine this scenario, half the passengers on a plane are wearing leggings yet a 10 year old trying to board this plane, also wearing leggings, is denied due to the non-rev policy. It makes absolutely no sense. Now queue in the same 10 people that will chime in and say, policy is policy. Its a dumb policy, its an outdated policy and UA could have and should have handled this in a completely different manner. Now, United is going to be stuck in this PR nightmare. No going back now. MTNU-SATOU.

US airlines in general have a fairly relaxed dress code for non-revs but they all have a dress code and you have to follow it when non-reving or risk being denied boarding. There is quite a range of whats acceptable worldwide and you need to be aware of that specific airlines policy...ie Jeans are fine on UA but not on NH.

UA is not going to be stuck in any PR nightmare...remember how outraged people were when DL suffered an IT meltdown a few months ago? People move on and are outraged at the next most annoying thing in their life.

I know, its my Delta fanboy-ism that people just hate but in actuality, DL's popularity actually increased during the big August IT meltdown. Hard to believe but it did. For United this is a PR nightmare Have you googled anything United lately? Tomorrow it may still be but by Tuesday it will no longer be. As for now, you cant escape it and you will be hard pressed to find someone taking UA's side. My beef with UA is not the policy (although it is outdated and should be changed) but how their PR folks handled the matter.

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

wn676 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

And if the reports are correct, these were not UA employees; they were from another airline, which may have a very different dress code.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you travel under a nonrev agreement on another airline, you respect their rules. You don't go over to someone else's house expecting them to live the way you do, or travel to another country expecting everyone to abide by your own beliefs and customs. That's just common sense. Your airline extends those privileges to you as a benefit, and likewise, other airlines extend those same priveleges to other airlines in the same manner.

If these people were indeed OAL pass riders, you can bet there will be some blowback to that agreement considering how much traction this is getting. Years ago a bunch of US FA's commuting on WN made so much trouble for the WN agents there that WN terminated the station ageeement they had with US at PHL, and IIRC threatened the entire ZED agreement as well.

The only standard that is being enforced here is the image of the company. Airlines also expect their front line employees to wear a uniform; is that uncalled for as well? When you travel at the benefit of the company, it is entirely reasonable that you may be expected to be held to a standard of dress. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen a bunch of flight crew or rampers complaining about not being able to wear leggings to work.

You (and many other people in this thread) are missing (or intentionally ignoring) the fact that the passenger denied boarding was a child--ten years old, if I read correctly. If you seriously expect a 10-year-old to review UA's nonrev policy and adhere to a vaguely-worded dress code, well, you must know some pretty precocious 10-year-olds.

was the 10 year old traveling on standby alone?

jumbojet wrote:

United1 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

15 years ago, I'd say a female wearing leggings on a plane was probably a very rare occurrence and it would make sense, 15 years ago, to ban them as part of non-rev attire. Fast forward to today. Leggings are increasingly popular, comfortable and completely proper attire (yes proper, attire as is evident by the UA advertisement of the yoga girl doing stretches in front of a bunch of idle UA planes on a tarmac) for wearing on a plane. Imagine this scenario, half the passengers on a plane are wearing leggings yet a 10 year old trying to board this plane, also wearing leggings, is denied due to the non-rev policy. It makes absolutely no sense. Now queue in the same 10 people that will chime in and say, policy is policy. Its a dumb policy, its an outdated policy and UA could have and should have handled this in a completely different manner. Now, United is going to be stuck in this PR nightmare. No going back now. MTNU-SATOU.

US airlines in general have a fairly relaxed dress code for non-revs but they all have a dress code and you have to follow it when non-reving or risk being denied boarding. There is quite a range of whats acceptable worldwide and you need to be aware of that specific airlines policy...ie Jeans are fine on UA but not on NH.

UA is not going to be stuck in any PR nightmare...remember how outraged people were when DL suffered an IT meltdown a few months ago? People move on and are outraged at the next most annoying thing in their life.

I know, its my Delta fanboy-ism that people just hate but in actuality, DL's popularity actually increased during the big August IT meltdown. Hard to believe but it did. For United this is a PR nightmare Have you googled anything United lately? Tomorrow it may still be but by Tuesday it will no longer be. As for now, you cant escape it and you will be hard pressed to find someone taking UA's side. My beef with UA is not the policy (although it is outdated and should be changed) but how their PR folks handled the matter.

Your beef with United seems to be everything ever.

RWA380 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Delta apparently figured this dress code thing out 10 years ago by virtually eliminating a separate set of standards for non revs and the general flying public. major egg on UAs face right now

DL Virtually Eliminates Non-rev Dress Code

viewtopic.php?t=450763

Back in the 90's, no matter what DL flight you were on, jacket & tie, with dress slacks & appropriate shoes only. Flying out of HNL was always a hot afternoon, but AD100 in F, one doesn't complain. I stood out so badly with what the rest of my fellow passengers were wearing & I flew them at least 5-6 times a year.

you sure about that? I borrowed the below from a post made 10 years ago by DL757md.

For those of you who non-rev on DL. Effective April 15, 2007 non rev pax on DL will enjoy a very lenient dress code policy.

Overall appearance should be well-groomed, neat, clean, safe and respectful, from head to toe.
Clothing should be respectful of fellow passengers.
Footwear -- shoes are required unless the pass rider is not able to wear footwear due to a disability or physical condition

Attire previously not acceptable that is now allowed includes shorts, T-shirts, Jeans (in all classes), flip flops, ball caps, tank tops, tattoos, body piercings, and extreme hairstyles.

From the DLNet site,"if the attire is appropriate for a revenue passenger to wear, then a non-revenue passenger can wear the same attire."

One clear benefit for Delta's operations will be the elimination of dress code enforcement from the job description of the CSA allowing them to concentrate their resources on customer service of the fare paying customers.

Thanks DL757Md

Apparently, DL made it very clear, 10 years ago, that attire appropriate for a revenue passenger is also appropriate for a non-rev passenger. Time for UA to get their head in the game.

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

You (and many other people in this thread) are missing (or intentionally ignoring) the fact that the passenger denied boarding was a child--ten years old, if I read correctly. If you seriously expect a 10-year-old to review UA's nonrev policy and adhere to a vaguely-worded dress code, well, you must know some pretty precocious 10-year-olds.

No I don't expect a 10 year old to review and understand UA's non rev policy but I do expect that these children have parents or guardians or someone responsible for them. Or can we not have rules for children anymore. I was just talking to a coworker one who jokingly asked "Are we there yet?" to which I responded "Don't make me turn this car around". Then I said and apparently I am right "Today, it would be child abuse if someone were to turn the car around"

To Jumbojet, you question someone talking about what the policy was in the 90s by quoting a new policy from 2007???

jumbojet wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Delta apparently figured this dress code thing out 10 years ago by virtually eliminating a separate set of standards for non revs and the general flying public. major egg on UAs face right now

DL Virtually Eliminates Non-rev Dress Code

viewtopic.php?t=450763

Back in the 90's, no matter what DL flight you were on, jacket & tie, with dress slacks & appropriate shoes only. Flying out of HNL was always a hot afternoon, but AD100 in F, one doesn't complain. I stood out so badly with what the rest of my fellow passengers were wearing & I flew them at least 5-6 times a year.

you sure about that? I borrowed the below from a post made 10 years ago by DL757md.

For those of you who non-rev on DL. Effective April 15, 2007 non rev pax on DL will enjoy a very lenient dress code policy.

Overall appearance should be well-groomed, neat, clean, safe and respectful, from head to toe.
Clothing should be respectful of fellow passengers.
Footwear -- shoes are required unless the pass rider is not able to wear footwear due to a disability or physical condition

Attire previously not acceptable that is now allowed includes shorts, T-shirts, Jeans (in all classes), flip flops, ball caps, tank tops, tattoos, body piercings, and extreme hairstyles.

From the DLNet site,"if the attire is appropriate for a revenue passenger to wear, then a non-revenue passenger can wear the same attire."[/b]

One clear benefit for Delta's operations will be the elimination of dress code enforcement from the job description of the CSA allowing them to concentrate their resources on customer service of the fare paying customers.

Thanks DL757Md

Apparently, DL made it very clear, 10 years ago, that attire appropriate for a revenue passenger is also appropriate for a non-rev passenger. Time for UA to get their head in the game.

Many people feel wearing clothes so tight that everything is on display is not appropriate.

Again, the policy does not matter. It is not the issue in this case, it is the response by the company. You can be right or you can be successful. Which do you want? Successful business is always a balance between the rules and how you manage them and adjust to the reality of the world in relation to the rules.

Tugg

The ultimate story here is that while UA was within their right to have and enforce their dress code (which I continue to agree with), social media is the new mob justice and if you don't respond to the mob you get trampled. Not only did the not respond, but their initial response was hostile. Ultimately the response need to be:

* This passenger was nonrev and not compliant with our policy which you can find at: http://blah.blah
* We apologize we weren't clearer initially and we will be looking at how our non Rev policy compares to other airlines over the next 30 days.

That's it. But they need to sack the entire PR org at this point based on how bad the response was. Ultimately if they'd approached as above they wouldn't have even needed to make a change bc the mob justice internet would have moved on to their next manufactured crisis.

jumbojet wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Delta apparently figured this dress code thing out 10 years ago by virtually eliminating a separate set of standards for non revs and the general flying public. major egg on UAs face right now

DL Virtually Eliminates Non-rev Dress Code

viewtopic.php?t=450763

Back in the 90's, no matter what DL flight you were on, jacket & tie, with dress slacks & appropriate shoes only. Flying out of HNL was always a hot afternoon, but AD100 in F, one doesn't complain. I stood out so badly with what the rest of my fellow passengers were wearing & I flew them at least 5-6 times a year.

you sure about that? I borrowed the below from a post made 10 years ago by DL757md.

For those of you who non-rev on DL. Effective April 15, 2007 non rev pax on DL will enjoy a very lenient dress code policy.

Overall appearance should be well-groomed, neat, clean, safe and respectful, from head to toe.
Clothing should be respectful of fellow passengers.
Footwear -- shoes are required unless the pass rider is not able to wear footwear due to a disability or physical condition

Attire previously not acceptable that is now allowed includes shorts, T-shirts, Jeans (in all classes), flip flops, ball caps, tank tops, tattoos, body piercings, and extreme hairstyles.

From the DLNet site,"if the attire is appropriate for a revenue passenger to wear, then a non-revenue passenger can wear the same attire."

One clear benefit for Delta's operations will be the elimination of dress code enforcement from the job description of the CSA allowing them to concentrate their resources on customer service of the fare paying customers.

Thanks DL757Md

Apparently, DL made it very clear, 10 years ago, that attire appropriate for a revenue passenger is also appropriate for a non-rev passenger. Time for UA to get their head in the game.

Yes I'm certain! I said the 90's in the first sentence of my post. Not 2007.

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Good for United. Standards need to be upheld.

Oh yes, I am sure all the negative PR they are getting right now is good for United. After all, United has been seen by the general flying public as a pinnacle of customer-friendly airline, isn't it?

Thousands of tweets ridiculing United ("United Airlines" is trending worldwide right now), dozens of media articles that have picked up the story, but hey f**k yeah we upheld our standards! Marketing is so gonna love this!

(And if you think Twitter and social media is just a fad and it doesn't really affect an airline, it must be comfortable living under a rock)

Who gives a crap about tweets? SWA required people to cover up and they sputtered and their supporters sputtered and people still flew them. It is real simple: If you do not like the rules, start your own airline and make your own rules.

SFOtoORD wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Delta apparently figured this dress code thing out 10 years ago by virtually eliminating a separate set of standards for non revs and the general flying public. major egg on UAs face right now
,,
DL Virtually Eliminates Non-rev Dress Code

viewtopic.php?t=450763

Who cares what Delta did? Delta's actions put no "major egg on UAs face right now." There is nothing wrong with having these rules. At a minimum it's a good reminder to employees about the expectations of decorum when flying for free.

Except when a dress code is used to put people in their place. I remember flying non-rev once and being denied boarding because, in spite of the very nice clothes I was wearing, I was in jeans, so I couldn't fly up front where everyone else had shorts and jeans on. At that point, the dress code basically tells the employee, "You're not the caliber of our passengers, so you'll need to dress up since you obviously live in rags".

jumbojet wrote:

United1 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

I know, its my Delta fanboy-ism that people just hate but in actuality, DL's popularity actually increased during the big August IT meltdown. Hard to believe but it did.

Bwahahahahhahahahahahahahaha.....oh you are serious.

and your source for that particular factoid is?

I suspect that most business travelers, who don't get caught up in stupid social media nonsense, would actually applaud United's stance, pass rider or not. That people actually have to try to justify their appearance on Maury suggests that their appearance is a lot more borderline than they think. I actually think it is helpful in retaining people of substance as regular passengers to show a little moxie occasionally, and say "Enough!" to those who don't have enough self respect to comport themselves at least a little reasonably when traveling in a tiny tube shoulder-to-shoulder with others. May I never have to fly with the "Cash me owsiii how bow dah?" urchin.

Moreover, I suspect that the nitwit who didn't use good judgment in allocating a pass to someone will indeed have their privileges revoked. Plainly, he/she did not explain UA's rules with the seriousness and intensity that such rules were explained to me the first time I rode on a buddy pass. My buddy made it clear that it was her ass if I was an ass, and that being an "ass" meant anything other than saluting and saying "yes, Ma'am, sorry" to anything that anybody from the airline asked of me. She made clear that this was a privilege, and one that the airline planned to take back if a paying passenger showed up to the flight 3 seconds before the door closed, and that that was the deal, take it or leave it. I was absolutely understanding and grateful for the opportunity, and everything from then on, on every pass I have ever ridden, went fine.

The kind of entitlement mentality shown by whomever made a stink about this on social media is disgraceful, and that pass rider should be pilloried.

Tugger wrote:

Again, the policy does not matter. It is not the issue in this case, it is the response by the company. You can be right or you can be successful. Which do you want? Successful business is always a balance between the rules and how you manage them and adjust to the reality of the world in relation to the rules.

Tugg

But that creates a terrible precedent. United, in no wrong doing to any customer, enforced a rule that is enforced daily to employees and those using the privilege of non-revenue space-available travel. A bystander who took it upon herself to cause a social media frenzy over a subject she was not a part of, nor did she have any knowledge of. The gate agent was doing her job, and there is no evidence to support that the persons denied boarding caused any scene -- this was all brought about by a bystander.

This isn't about the gate agent trying to be right or the pass riders trying to slip by. I seriously doubt either side of those actually effected were trying to do anything to harm either side. The woman who started the social media posts was not affected by either side directly, and did not have any knowledge of who is in the right or in the wrong. Yet, she interjected on social media to place her own agenda on what was going on failing to see the points of view of those actually engaged in the disagreement or misunderstanding.

This is like if you saw a police officer writing a ticket to an elderly man for [what you assume is] speeding, going on twitter and blasting the police department calling for the officer's resignation. You tweet that you personally only saw the old man driving 1-2 mph over the speed limit. But, you were not present for when the old man ran a stop sign, hit the curb, and then crossed 4 lanes of traffic in a panic. You simply do not have the full facts from such a limited and distanced point of view to be able to interject.

She saw the people get denied boarding for attire; she did not see that they were non-revs on standby travel. She did not have any knowledge of the distinction between revenue and non-revenue travel; nor did she have any knowledge of the policies in place on such travel. She saw 5% of the whole picture, and filled in the other 95% with her own opinions colored in the tone she wanted to see. She was looking for a reason to be outraged and she found one.

I don't disagree that the handling of the situation on social media after the fact was not appropriate. But you also need to come to terms that the woman who started this was inappropriate in calling for United's head when she literally did not know any facts behind the situation. It's one of those things where really every was wrong, and no one will admit it. The pass riders were wrong in their attire; the lady was wrong in her understanding of the situation; and United was wrong in the social media handling of it.

It's much more of a story than it should be. It really shouldn't be one.

I'm very late to the conversation, but will chime in anyway. All Airlines have these rules, and they are enforced. What the heck is wrong with dressing up a little bit? That is really stretching, when I say dressing up. I think they all boil down to the same thing, make it look like you give a rats a@@ about yourself, and the Company that is allowing you to fly for free. Nothing wrong with feeling and showing a little pride. It really has little to do with whatever the "norm" is. The norm changes from town to town, country to country etc. It is much easier for an Airline to have one policy, and lets face it, they are all almost the exact same letter for letter. At our Airline, as a non rev, you are not even guaranteed any food, sometimes catering is tight if there are a lot of last min tix purchased.
Dress, that part, act the part, and help out by not being a needed passenger, the flight crew is busy enough.
Social media has its good and bad sides, what I saw today was a person thinking she was helping, but, she was actually creating more fake news! Gotta luv it!

United1 wrote:

DL
Appropriate
Overall appearance should be well-groomed, neat, clean, safe and respectful, from head to toe.
Clothing should be respectful of fellow passengers.
Footwear – shoes are required unless the pass rider is not able to wear footwear due to a disability or physical condition.

Not appropriate
Passenger that is (or appears to be) intoxicated
Passenger whose dress violates public decency laws and or community standards (examples include clothing that is sheer or inappropriately revealing or is designated as sleepwear, underwear, or swim attire)
Bare feet
Clothing that is excessively dirty, stained or torn
Clothing that is vulgar, offensive or suggestive]

AA
Employees are asked to always wear clothing that is clean and neat.
Jeans and athletic shoes are acceptable in any cabin.
Shorts may be worn in the economy cabin only.
Employees may not wear clothing that is torn, dirty, or frayed, clothing that is distracting or offensive to others, anything revealing (e.g., extreme mini-skirts, halter and bra-tops, sheer or see-through clothing), or visible swimwear, sleepwear, or underwear.
Clothing that is vulgar or violates community standards of decency is also never appropriate, including items that have words, terms, or pictures that may be offensive to others.
Bare feet are also not permitted.

UA
Dress code
Pass riders’ overall appearance should be well-groomed, neat, clean and in good taste.
Attire should be respectful of fellow revenue passengers, employees and pass riders.
Pass riders may wear denim attire (such as jeans), shorts that are no more than three inches above the knee and athletic shoes when traveling in Coach or Business cabin.

The following attire is unacceptable in any cabin but is not limited to:
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
Courtesy http://www.flyzed.info/

So it is clear that UA has the most restrictive code, with particular emphasis on restrictions that would apply to females rather than to men. Where the AA and DL codes could basically be summarized as "Use good judgment", UA heads in the direction of "We don't trust our employees (maybe for good reason, based on the bad publicity the continue to endure - on a regular basis) to use good judgment, so here are more rules".

So tell me... at what age does that start to apply? An infant can't wear anything "designed as sleepwear"? How about a 2-year-old? 5-year old? When - if ever - are gate staff actually allowed to exercise their own good judgment?

Perhaps they aren't - which explains when they really need to, they seem to be incapable of doing so...