UA Denies Boarding to Non-Rev Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

United1 · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:28 am

StrandedAtMKG wrote:
wn676 wrote:
alfa164 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.

Oh I don't expect a 10 year old to have a clue about how pass travel works...however if I read the story correctly the girls were traveling with their family. Mom/dad should have know better...

UAs policy is actually pretty specific compared to a lot of other airlines and it specifically calls out "Form-fitting lycra/spandex tops, pants and dresses" as being unacceptable.
"

wjcandee · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:28 am

jumbojet wrote:
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."

What was considered "appropriate" 10 years ago, even though very much diluted from 20 years before that, is light years less grubby than what people think they should be able to wear today.

Incidentally, I don't think gate agents should have to enforce the policy. Instead, I think they should just take a picture of the person (or video of the person acting inappropriately), and send it, along with the identification number of the pass in question, to a central repository where trained staff will determine whether to raise the issue with the pass-obtainer's supervisor. That will maintain a level of consistency in enforcement, and the employee telegraph stories of being disciplined for the conduct of their buddies will be cautionary tales for employees. Maybe even have a monthly feature with photos of unacceptable attire/behavior, and the action taken against the pass-obtainer, anonymized perhaps.

Pbb2173 · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:34 am

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.

I flew nonrev all the time when I was a child, and my parents always made sure I was dressed appropriately as per the rules. Stop using that as an excuse. I agree with the poster who said we are in a race-to-the-bottom in America. People who don't like rules whine about in on Twitter and the uninformed mob joins in. Twitter is the worst thing to happen to this world in a long time. It is a bastion for the ignorant.

And for jumbojet, nobody cares what you think. You have made your agenda clear in the past. To the point that anything you say about UA is obviously lacking in objectivity and therefore irrelevant. UA's policy is not outdated because you have decided to deem it that way. BTW, the stupid little saying (and now abbreviation - how clever) you keep putting at the end of your posts is childish. Grow up.

United1 · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:39 am

alfa164 wrote:
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...

UAs policy is basically the same as AAs or DLs....use good judgment and taste. All three also spell out a few specifics of what is and what is not acceptable attire...specifically for situations like this where non-revs from either UA or other airlines that are traveling on UA and may not be aware of what UAs policy is.

UAs policy is actually pretty liberal compared to other airlines around the world...check out LH and NH if you want examples of restrictive.

BTW...leggings won't get you onto JetBlue either....

B6
Acceptable: Attire which is clean, well maintained and in good taste. Shirts with sleeves and collars, tee-shirts, walking shorts (not shorter than 3" above the knee), nice jeans/denims, dress slacks, skirts, dresses, jogging suits, dress shoes, open-toe shoes, and nice sneakers.

Not Acceptable: Attire that is torn, ragged, slashed, dirty, frayed, low cut, skimpy, or revealing. Attire with offensive or sexually oriented inscriptions or messages, halter/tube/midriff tops, sweats of any kind, leggings, beach or swim wear, body piercing, tattoos (cover from view), and shoes that are dirty, stained, or worn in appearance.

Mir · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:43 am

The ability of United to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to PR continues to amaze.

Yes, they've got the ability to impose whatever rules they want on their pass riders. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that the dress code they imposed is out of date, and it ended up costing them far more in PR than letting the girl on the plane would have. Leggings are common attire these days, and if you want your non-rev passengers to blend in it makes sense to allow them. Otherwise you're going to have passengers questioning why the people who they believe to be dressed completely appropriately were denied boarding, and they're going to tweet about it, and it's going to spiral way out of control (which, unsurprisingly, is what happened). Then United's PR team compounds the error by having the most inept response it's possible to have until someone who knows what they're doing finally gets on the ship and puts out the explanation they did. But it was too late, and now they have to answer questions about why leggings aren't okay but shorts are, and whether the policy is sexist.

If there's a non-rev passenger who's causing trouble, by all means deny them boarding. This kid was clearly not causing trouble, so the matter should have been handled behind the scenes - gate agent makes a report, it goes to the pass travel office, they take it up with the employee in question. The fare-paying public never has to know, and United doesn't get their name dragged through the mud.

77H · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:44 am

jumbojet wrote:
The OP could have left the offending airline out of the thread title and I bet 99% of us would've guessed correctly that this was a UA sad sack story. UA will never change. Shame on UA.

This is DEN to MSP flight for crying out loud, on an A319 nonetheless. yeah, great move by the GA

Are you kidding me ? This person was a non-rev. You follow the dress code that all employees should advise their pass riders on. I have seen plenty of pass riders be asked to change on multiple airlines. Hell I had to give a stranger a pair of shorts one night leaving OGG to HNL on HA because the rider had ripped jeans. It was the last flight of the night, didn't matter.

The UA bashing is getting old sir.

77H

32andBelow · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:49 am

I've non revved out of KOA on UA in board shirts and a tank top. Get real united.

seahawk · Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:53 am

A dress code is so 1960ies. People should wear what they feel comfortable with.

CARST · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:05 am

Anything that came from Twitter should not be discussed here. There are two forms of people on Twitter, journalists and people who would like to be journalists on the one side and hipsters who have a jab which includes "something with media". Both groups have normally no clue at all about anything going on in this world and have totally given up on the good, old, reliable sequence of doing research first, then publishing a story.

I would tell any company to not run a twitter feed at all and just ignore any shit-storm there, because there are so few people on twitter that it's not worth it. The people on this plattform will get worked up about everything and will have forgotten it a day later. Like any hipster on Twitter would cancel is UA tickets now, because some girl who couldn't wear real pants...

And yeah, leggings are no pants. The way girls wear these today, without anything covering butt and front is a pure sexual provovation. And now don't give me your gender BS.

Tugger · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:09 am

jetmatt777 wrote:
But that creates a terrible precedent. United, in no wrong doing to any customer,
[...]

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

Are you implying that life isn't fair?

Tugg

irelayer · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:10 am

zone6 wrote:
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.

Do people of your age also tend to make broad generalizations about other age groups?

It's not because of rules or lack thereof that people dress the way they do nowadays...and I'm not just talking about on aircraft, but out in public. The social mores of the day dictate what is generally acceptable to wear and not to wear. In the age you are describing, you could also smoke like a chimney in front of little kids on a plane...which would be totally out of place today. So what? Things change, sir. Get used to it.

In this case, UA has every right to enforce a dress code for non-revs. No one is disputing that. The kid in question (or the other two women) didn't raise a stink about it when told the rules, someone else totally unrelated to them did. So...what exactly tells you that younger people are less amenable to rules? The women that posted this on twitter was completely ignorant to the fact that UA has a dress code for non-revs, all she saw was someone being denied boarding for wearing leggings, and thought that was totally wrong (rightly or wrongly) given that this is perfectly normal nowadays.

I just think it's an unfair assertion to make especially since you weren't there and don't have all the facts.

-IR

irelayer · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:13 am

CARST wrote:
I would tell any company to not run a twitter feed at all and just ignore any shit-storm there, because there are so few people on twitter that it's not worth it.

This is a ridiculous statement. Have you heard of Donald Trump? The President of the United States regularly posts to millions of his followers on Twitter.

Something tells me you are just trying to get a reaction, or you slept through the last 5 years.

-IR

KanaHawaii · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:13 am

1. If your given something for free, but it comes with rules, than follow the rules. That goes for anything from getting money from a grant to using a buddy pass on an airline. Don't follow the rules, and you don't get the benefit.

2. Want to have the right to dress down more for flights - buy the ticket. That is the beauty of America.

3. Want to force United to change its policies on non-rev travel attire? Unless you are intending on calling for a nationwide boycott of United and have the power to actually make it impact, the company policies will stand on this one. And even at that, the airline could just yank the entire benefit from everyone and be done with it.

irelayer · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:25 am

flyguy89 wrote:
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.

The particular REASON for it will be forgotten in 24-48 hours, but the impression will remain. And it's a cumulative effect that will carry forward to the next crisis. United Breaks Guitars. United hates yoga pants. United FAs are rude. Etc etc. Even if it's not true, this impression will remain with certain people. And it has a tendency to compound, and pretty soon the brand gets eroded and yes people will still FLY with you because they have to, but they won't prefer to do so.

You know, it's interesting that you say this because you and I both know how the public perceives certain airlines. WN is the darling of the casual traveling public. Delta is loved by business travelers. UA is...well it used to be the friendly skies. Now I have no idea what it is. I still fly them because I have some nostalgia from the 90s when they were truly awesome. When they served kids hamburgers from McDonalds. That left an impression on me. A positive one.

Point is, these companies spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and it can all be undone fairly quickly by compounding PR mistakes like this one.

If you don't believe me, go ask a bunch of people what their first choice of airline is.

-IR

irelayer · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:26 am

KanaHawaii wrote:
1. If your given something for free, but it comes with rules, than follow the rules. That goes for anything from getting money from a grant to using a buddy pass on an airline. Don't follow the rules, and you don't get the benefit.

2. Want to have the right to dress down more for flights - buy the ticket. That is the beauty of America.

3. Want to force United to change its policies on non-rev travel attire? Unless you are intending on calling for a nationwide boycott of United and have the power to actually make it impact, the company policies will stand on this one. And even at that, the airline could just yank the entire benefit from everyone and be done with it.

I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out, but the non-revs didn't take to Twitter, someone else did.

Why don't people read the source material before they comment?

-IR

ODwyerPW · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:32 am

wjcandee wrote:
Incidentally, I don't think gate agents should have to enforce the policy. Instead, I think they should just take a picture of the person (or video of the person acting inappropriately), and send it, along with the identification number of the pass in question, to a central repository where trained staff will determine whether to raise the issue with the pass-obtainer's supervisor. That will maintain a level of consistency in enforcement, and the employee telegraph stories of being disciplined for the conduct of their buddies will be cautionary tales for employees. Maybe even have a monthly feature with photos of unacceptable attire/behavior, and the action taken against the pass-obtainer, anonymized perhaps.

That's a really good idea. It would come under control in due time, while avoiding the media circus and customer confrontations.

irelayer · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:40 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
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.

I wasn't referring to you or anyone here. I was talking about the tweets.

Maybe this will help:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/845992819894321153

Does everyone just comment on stuff without reading the actual material?

-IR

B737900ER · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:42 am

irelayer wrote:

If you don't believe me, go ask a bunch of people what their first choice of airline is.

-IR

That's easy. Whichever airline is cheap and/or convenient. UA is consistently able to sell 90% of their product, despite decades of negative publicity. In the next 12-24 hours, another twitter crisis will erupt. People will claim that they are boycotting stroopwaffles because of something done in The Netherlands. The same person will then find themselves eating stroopwaffles while flying on United a few months later. Why? Because the majority of what's said on social media is fake, mock outrage, repeated to make someone look enlightened, when really they are just as unprincipled as everyone else.

ASFlyer · Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:45 am

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.

Who cares what Delta did? This post is not about Delta. Not even a little. Do you even work for an airline at all? If not, you have no skin in the game what so ever. If you do work for Delta, you should probably remember that, until they made the decision to change things 10 years ago, they were more hard core about their policies that pretty much any other airline. Ties and jackets for men and they often turned women away that didn't wear pantyhose. That was their prerogative. But again, if you don't work for an airline then you have no skin in this game so go somewhere else and talk about how great Delta is. This thread isn't about how wonderful Delta is.

irelayer · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:03 am

B737900ER wrote:
irelayer wrote:

If you don't believe me, go ask a bunch of people what their first choice of airline is.

-IR

That's easy. Whichever airline is cheap and/or convenient. UA is consistently able to sell 90% of their product, despite decades of negative publicity. In the next 12-24 hours, another twitter crisis will erupt. People will claim that they are boycotting stroopwaffles because of something done in The Netherlands. The same person will then find themselves eating stroopwaffles while flying on United a few months later. Why? Because the majority of what's said on social media is fake, mock outrage, repeated to make someone look enlightened, when really they are just as unprincipled as everyone else.

I agree, it's fake, mock outrage, but it ultimately matters in the way the general public perceives a brand and that's very real. I'm not saying that the opinion of your average Twitter user will make much of a dent in UAs bottom line, but you can be sure the public perception of UAs brand will take a very real hit with all the negative publicity generated by this and other events, because this level of incompetence makes it to the mainstream media and you can be sure they'll spin the story in a way that ignores most of the relevant facts...especially when it comes to aviation related subjects. Over time this erodes the brand.

I still stand behind my assessment. Nothing about UAs response on Twitter was good. Whoever was writing those tweets today embarrassed the company.

-IR

B777LRF · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:05 am

When I think of 'yoga' pants, I envision a 150kg pile of lard with ripples of fat pressing the garment to the limit of its abilities. Why is it that fat women think wearing tight pants does anything for them, apart from inducing vomit reactions for those who have to look at it?

Dress the part, if it's in the rules and you chose not to follow the rules, don't be a moron when someone enforces those rules. Millennials ....

N505fx · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:08 am

The irony in all of this is that most of the dust up on twitter is from outraged feminists, completely ignoring the fact that it was female gate agent enforcing a well established policy...woman on woman hate crime, yet the world is supposed to stop for this? Move on folks, nothing to see here but a bunch of women angry at each other.

SkyVoice · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:09 am

(With apologies to Mark Twain) Better to keep your phone in your pocket and let people think that you are a fool than to use your phone, send out a tweet, and remove all doubt ! ! !

seahawk · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:13 am

N505fx wrote:
The irony in all of this is that most of the dust up on twitter is from outraged feminists, completely ignoring the fact that it was female gate agent enforcing a well established policy...woman on woman hate crime, yet the world is supposed to stop for this? Move on folks, nothing to see here but a bunch of women angry at each other.

The policy was probably put in place by men. And in the end it is unacceptable, a woman should wear whatever she likes.

Olddog · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:15 am

What I fing the most worrying is that some of you seems to think that could be something sexual about a 10 year girl wearing yoga pants....

INFINITI329 · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:20 am

I get that UA is enforcing policy, but is outdated. It can't be appropriate for some inappropriate for others. You want nonrevs to blend in not stand out, 8 out 10 women on any given flight are wearing leggings of some sort. Wome's jeans are slowly going extinct

seahawk · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:29 am

Or stand up and change the rules.

CARST · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:33 am

seahawk wrote:
Or stand up and change the rules.

You can do that for political imposed rules. But we are talking about a free company here, in a capitalistic market. They can do whatever they want as long as the customers don't run away.

You can vote with your wallet if you want, but that's it. Otherwise UA will laugh this off (rightfully so)...

N505fx · Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:59 am

seahawk wrote:
N505fx wrote:
The irony in all of this is that most of the dust up on twitter is from outraged feminists, completely ignoring the fact that it was female gate agent enforcing a well established policy...woman on woman hate crime, yet the world is supposed to stop for this? Move on folks, nothing to see here but a bunch of women angry at each other.

The policy was probably put in place by men. And in the end it is unacceptable, a woman should wear whatever she likes.

You make a WHOLE lot of assumptions. Additionally, there is nothing in the policy that specifically states "women"...guys in yoga pants would not be allowed on either...now stop trying to make some big political stink out of this when its just an employee policy enforcement issue...nothing to see here.

skywaymanaz · Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:02 am

Aptivaboy wrote:
getting through TSA as quickly and painlessly as possible.

There have always been people dressed down on planes as long as I've been flying but I think this is definitely responsible for making that trend more widespread. Every time I forget to take off my sweater or sweatshirt before getting to security and shoving it in my carry on I'm always selected for a "random" screening. Even if I take it off in line before getting to the podium. I wear Birkenstocks a lot flying now because of the shoe carnival. That's something I never would have dared do when I was a pass rider as a child.

At any rate this isn't the first time social media exploded over a non rev dress code. A few years back someone pass riding on US with a buddy pass from a friend. He was upgraded to first class but told he had to wear a suit jacket. Then he posted on social media pics of other passengers in First not wearing a suit jacket and implied US was discriminating against him by requiring him to wear one because he was black. The sad thing is the gate agent was being nice bumping him up to First since a funeral was the reason for the trip. All that came out of that good deed was drama.

seahawk · Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:03 am

N505fx wrote:
seahawk wrote:
N505fx wrote:
The irony in all of this is that most of the dust up on twitter is from outraged feminists, completely ignoring the fact that it was female gate agent enforcing a well established policy...woman on woman hate crime, yet the world is supposed to stop for this? Move on folks, nothing to see here but a bunch of women angry at each other.

The policy was probably put in place by men. And in the end it is unacceptable, a woman should wear whatever she likes.

You make a WHOLE lot of assumptions. Additionally, there is nothing in the policy that specifically states "women"...guys in yoga pants would not be allowed on either...now stop trying to make some big political stink out of this when its just an employee policy enforcement issue...nothing to see here.

Why? If the day comes and 80% of the paying male customers wear yoga pants, why should they not be allowed to fly? The plane is nothing but a bus with higher speeds and longer range today.

Add to the fact that jeans often have metal buttons which then earn you the attention of the TSA agents. If you want to go through security easily as a women. Leggings, sweater, sports bra (with no metal inside), many female colleagues wear this for flights, even on business trips. (they switch to formal attire at the destination)

Sydscott · Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:14 am

seahawk wrote:
N505fx wrote:
seahawk wrote:

The policy was probably put in place by men. And in the end it is unacceptable, a woman should wear whatever she likes.

You make a WHOLE lot of assumptions. Additionally, there is nothing in the policy that specifically states "women"...guys in yoga pants would not be allowed on either...now stop trying to make some big political stink out of this when its just an employee policy enforcement issue...nothing to see here.

Why? If the day comes and 80% of the paying male customers wear yoga pants, why should they not be allowed to fly? The plane is nothing but a bus with higher speeds and longer range today.

Add to the fact that jeans often have metal buttons which then earn you the attention of the TSA agents. If you want to go through security easily as a women. Leggings, sweater, sports bra (with no metal inside), many female colleagues wear this for flights, even on business trips. (they switch to formal attire at the destination)

I say good for United. About time airlines started reminding people that they're in a public forum and should behave like it and are not in their loungeroom at home. Whats more stupid is that the people complaining were using someones buddy passes. Way to go with getting your UA employee friend into trouble.

There was a similar level of outrage when the Qantas Club changed their rules to ban flip flops etc from Qantas Clubs. But I say good for them in enforcing some standards.

BobPatterson · Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:20 am

irelayer wrote:
This is a ridiculous statement. Have you heard of Donald Trump? The President of the United States regularly posts to millions of his followers on Twitter.

Yes, he does, much to the disgrace of us all. Presidency by Twitter is ludicrous.

By the way, "regularly posts to millions" is not quite the same as "regularly lies to millions".

Think about it.

77H · Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:41 am

So let me get this straight. Several teenagers, flying on UA through an OA pass travel agreement (presumably their parents) were dropped at the airport and their parents didn't bother reviewing the dress code policy for the OA they were sending their children on ? The teenage girls, like all pass riders need to be informed by their sponsor of the rules. I have "the talk" with every person I give a pass too. I've even had someone tell me they have non-revved before and didn't need a review. I told them they can listen to what I have say or buy a ticket. At the end of the day the responsibility is on the employee to make sure their pass riders follow the rules. For them, it may be denied boarding and a ruined trip. For us employees, it could mean our jobs.

This incident will make me think twice about giving out passes to anyone but family.

77H

77H · Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:47 am

KanaHawaii wrote:
1. If your given something for free, but it comes with rules, than follow the rules. That goes for anything from getting money from a grant to using a buddy pass on an airline. Don't follow the rules, and you don't get the benefit.

2. Want to have the right to dress down more for flights - buy the ticket. That is the beauty of America.

3. Want to force United to change its policies on non-rev travel attire? Unless you are intending on calling for a nationwide boycott of United and have the power to actually make it impact, the company policies will stand on this one. And even at that, the airline could just yank the entire benefit from everyone and be done with it.

I wonder how the boycotthawaii campaign is working out for the twittertards? Maybe I'll get home from work a little faster on the H1 without all the dullards clogging the roads.

77H

flyguy89 · Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:50 am

irelayer wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
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.

The particular REASON for it will be forgotten in 24-48 hours, but the impression will remain. And it's a cumulative effect that will carry forward to the next crisis. United Breaks Guitars. United hates yoga pants. United FAs are rude. Etc etc. Even if it's not true, this impression will remain with certain people. And it has a tendency to compound, and pretty soon the brand gets eroded and yes people will still FLY with you because they have to, but they won't prefer to do so.

You know, it's interesting that you say this because you and I both know how the public perceives certain airlines. WN is the darling of the casual traveling public. Delta is loved by business travelers. UA is...well it used to be the friendly skies. Now I have no idea what it is. I still fly them because I have some nostalgia from the 90s when they were truly awesome. When they served kids hamburgers from McDonalds. That left an impression on me. A positive one.

Point is, these companies spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and it can all be undone fairly quickly by compounding PR mistakes like this one.

If you don't believe me, go ask a bunch of people what their first choice of airline is.

-IR

Not all PR incidences are the same however. An incident like this? Background noise. It's background noise because similar "controversies" happen at every single airline. Things like on-time performance and reliability have much more of an impact than the airline controversy du jour which seems to pop up every week on one of any of the airlines.

seahawk wrote:
N505fx wrote:
The irony in all of this is that most of the dust up on twitter is from outraged feminists, completely ignoring the fact that it was female gate agent enforcing a well established policy...woman on woman hate crime, yet the world is supposed to stop for this? Move on folks, nothing to see here but a bunch of women angry at each other.

The policy was probably put in place by men. And in the end it is unacceptable, a woman should wear whatever she likes.

Please. I know just as many women who wouldn't be caught dead wearing yoga pants out in public as ones that love them. Many women would agree that it's not professional attire. There's nothing unacceptable about minimum standards of dress requiring a neat or professional appearance as a representative of a company.

EA CO AS · Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:07 am

With credit to Jamie Baker; "March 26, 2017, the day the mainstream media lost its shit upon learning that airlines have dress codes for pass riders."

juliuswong · Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:15 am

Not sure why this whole legging issue blown into such a catastrophic high proportion. Airlines have their set of rules to comply with especially those on ID90. I remember one of my friends did J class non-rev on TG. He was in long jeans, was asked by the check-in staff to change, if not no barring. Fortunately he has black pants in his hand carry, which he conveniently changed. Off track a bit, TG treated him indifferently since he was on non-rev. LX, OS and LH treated him as a gem when he is on non-rev.

andrej · Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:18 am

Good to know that other pertinent topics in aviation have been solved and there is this pointless sh*tstorm over this....

UAL's rules, follow them or buy your own ticket. If 10 years old did not know the rules (no blame), their parents - or person getting them this benefit - should have known better.

UAL777UK · Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:30 am

My god I am absolutely horrified that UA is getting so much shit for enforcing rules. Unbelievable comment on here defending the party travelling on a pass for breaking those rules. Words fail me me at this point!

SomebodyInTLS · Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:37 am

32andBelow wrote:
It's 2017 no one enforces pass dress code. Jesus. The whole point is to blend in.

As someone who has always been against the whole principle of a dress code (good example: dress code for the breakfast buffet at fancier hotels in South East Asia - like I wear smart trousers and shoes during a leisure trip to the tropics!?!) I have to admit that they're using someone else's free/cheap ticket and should just have read the terms.

Yes it's ridiculous, but they've only themselves to blame.

seahawk · Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:12 am

If you get sexually aroused by a 10 year old girl, it is not the clothing of the girl that is the problem.

gunsontheroof · Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:35 am

If you're lucky enough to fly on a guest pass, you play by the rules. I flew non-rev on AS twice last week through the generosity of a friend and made sure I looked presentable. I'm not even talking "Sunday best" here, just a nice pair of clean jeans and a button-up shirt with a collar. Pay full fare if you want to dress like you're going to a slumber party.

tlecam · Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:43 am

irelayer wrote:
CARST wrote:
I would tell any company to not run a twitter feed at all and just ignore any shit-storm there, because there are so few people on twitter that it's not worth it.

This is a ridiculous statement. Have you heard of Donald Trump? The President of the United States regularly posts to millions of his followers on Twitter.

Something tells me you are just trying to get a reaction, or you slept through the last 5 years.

-IR

It would be amazing if he hasn't heard of Trump - he sounds just like him!

Ignoring twitter and social media in general is interesting advice in the digital age. Considering that the US airlines are using twitter to provide customer service, a lack of twitter presence would be...an interesting move.

Also, regardless of whether united is on twitter, the story was picked up by most of the national news outlets. Burying ones' head in the sand isn't a prudent move in this case.

treetreeseven · Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:43 am

BobPatterson wrote:
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.

[citation needed]

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.

How quickly the focus here re-centers squarely on your opinions and clutching of pearls in the supermarket, etc. Where are the rest of these "many, many people?" I see some in this thread, unsurprisingly enough. The news articles? Not so much.

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

You don't get to dictate the evolution of social norms, and neither does anybody else.

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

It's an excellent windmill to tilt at, isn't it? United eats a TON of negative press, but it's all worth it to prevent the collapse of Western civilization by banning a girl wearing leggings. :roll:

B737900ER · Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:57 am

treetreeseven wrote:

You seem to be unwilling to understand that what trends on twitter will land prominently on major media outlets. I loaded up A.net specifically to look for this thread so I could have some popcorn, after I saw the article on The Washington Post's site ... in the "most read" sidebar, not even a full scroll down from the top.

I'm sorry you dislike Twitter. I don't like it either. But reality intervenes.

True. And unfortunately journalism died with the 24 hour news cycle. So instead of investigating a story and publishing something somewhat accurate, news outlets just repost an uninformed tweet, add a few words, and people are tricked into thinking they have the whole story because they trust the Washington post. But all the Washington post cares about is the click count, instead of realizing that this isn't news.

The reality is, there are pass riders who get denied boarding for dress violations all the time. Back in the day before the relaxed policies I has denied boarding as a pass rider because I was wearing a sweater, and the policy said I had to have a collared shirt. So I changed. I wasn't discriminated against, and it didn't matter if I thought I looked just as nice in a sweater, or thought it was an outdated policy, or anything else. That was the policy. You agree to it when you accept the benefit. That's all there is to it.

BobPatterson · Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:09 am

B737900ER wrote:
.......unfortunately journalism died with the 24 hour news cycle. So instead of investigating a story and publishing something somewhat accurate, news outlets just repost an uninformed tweet, add a few words, and people are tricked into thinking they have the whole story because they trust the Washington post. But all the Washington post cares about is the click count, instead of realizing that this isn't news.

I've been reading the Washington Post for more than 65 years and know better than to "trust it."

You are right about the click bait. The story was not mentioned in today's print edition of the Washington Post.

SomebodyInTLS · Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:18 am

BobPatterson wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
.......unfortunately journalism died with the 24 hour news cycle. So instead of investigating a story and publishing something somewhat accurate, news outlets just repost an uninformed tweet, add a few words, and people are tricked into thinking they have the whole story because they trust the Washington post. But all the Washington post cares about is the click count, instead of realizing that this isn't news.

I've been reading the Washington Post for more than 65 years and know better than to "trust it."

You are right about the click bait. The story was not mentioned in today's print edition of the Washington Post.

I too am sick and tired of BBC and other news outlets reprinting tweets as part of their "news" items. That's even creeping into the main stories now, not just silly click-bait pieces. Like I need to know what various "celebrities" and politicians think about things. Gah!

And the local newspaper here is actually trawling the twittersphere for "journalism"... with the result that we get made up stories about things like "freak weather" because some idiot out there doesn't know how a rainbow works or that fog can roll off the sea on a sunny day, then posts a photo and claims it's the apocalypse. Absolutely pathetic.

Aviaphile · Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:19 am

I have non-revved on countless occasions and while the dress code rules were relaxed some time back, partly I believe, to make non revvers blend in more effectively, there is still a dress code. I always did think we stuck out like sore thumbs with our jackets and ties while everyone around us was in jeans and T-shirts. My family used to complain about having to "dress up" to travel and I always used to say, "That's the price you pay for the price you pay." In other words, you are getting this for free or at a very discounted price so to observe the dress code is a small inconvenience. Dressing smartly also increases your chance of being upgraded should the need arise to upgrade passengers to make space in an overbooked cabin of the aircraft. If you don't like it, pay the full fare and dress however you like but even then you could be asked to change or risk being offloaded if your attire is considered inappropriate.

treetreeseven · Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:30 am

BobPatterson wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
.......unfortunately journalism died with the 24 hour news cycle. So instead of investigating a story and publishing something somewhat accurate, news outlets just repost an uninformed tweet, add a few words, and people are tricked into thinking they have the whole story because they trust the Washington post. But all the Washington post cares about is the click count, instead of realizing that this isn't news.

I've been reading the Washington Post for more than 65 years and know better than to "trust it."

You are right about the click bait. The story was not mentioned in today's print edition of the Washington Post.

It takes much longer to print news on dead trees and ship it to people's driveways than it does to post it on a web site. Anyway, I'll join anybody in lamenting the effect of the "news cycle" (among other forces) on the content in many media outlets. But it's a market reality, and one that United's PR team handled about as poorly as possible.

I headed back to check this thread after the story popped up as a suggested article on USA Today's site when I was reading about something entirely unrelated. Then I took a look around online.

USA Today: above the fold right next to the top story.
New York Times: within a screen down of the top, in a timeline-style sidebar with an age of 14 hours.
Boston Globe: just over a screen down, in "Trending" right below "Featured."
LA Times: nothing.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: one of the four top stories!
Houston Chronicle: above the fold in a section called "The Lead."
Christian Science Monitor: nothing.
Miami Herald: nothing.

It's a widely-reported story at this point, regardless of which parties are right or wrong - though one party is pretty clearly in the wrong, that being United's social media sweatshop. Oops.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net