Aesma wrote:

About how to call someone, my country hasn't caught up with that yet, and since I'm rather conservative regarding the French language, there will definitely be issues with all the variations. I would hope that man would accept to be called either way, and correct us if needed, but in a friendly manner.

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

Except you don't know any facts.

B6 pilots (pilots, in case you didn't know, wear the same uniforms) had to change their uniforms because they were deemed "unprofessional".

This is a slap in the face to them on top of everything else.

I don't know the facts either, do you mean pilots have to wear F/A uniforms ? If so, then male pilots can now wear a dress, what's the big deal ?

B6 pilots had blazers (unisex) as part of their uniforms, kind of like Southwest has. B6 told the pilots they had to drop them because they said passengers thought they were "unprofessional".

So blazers are unprofessional but guys can wear dresses now and that's "professional". Not a lot of critical thinking going on at B6 these days.

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

Aesma wrote:

About how to call someone, my country hasn't caught up with that yet, and since I'm rather conservative regarding the French language, there will definitely be issues with all the variations. I would hope that man would accept to be called either way, and correct us if needed, but in a friendly manner.

FlyEndeavorAir wrote:

Except you don't know any facts.

B6 pilots (pilots, in case you didn't know, wear the same uniforms) had to change their uniforms because they were deemed "unprofessional".

This is a slap in the face to them on top of everything else.

I don't know the facts either, do you mean pilots have to wear F/A uniforms ? If so, then male pilots can now wear a dress, what's the big deal ?

B6 pilots had blazers (unisex) as part of their uniforms, kind of like Southwest has. B6 told the pilots they had to drop them because they said passengers thought they were "unprofessional".

So blazers are unprofessional but guys can wear dresses now and that's "professional". Not a lot of critical thinking going on at B6 these days.

Fail to see the connection to the post in the OP, unless you have more information on the photos’ context than Cardillo provided.

Is this employee easily identifiable as a working crew member?

Can they execute the required duties of a flight attendant proficiently?

Can they deliver the level of service B6 asks of its employees?

If it's "yes" to all 3 of those, the rest doesn't matter.

If the dress is good enough for a female crew member to do their job, why can’t he use it?
And why on earth would anyone have an opinion about it?
It is simply none if your business. Let the man, or whatever he chooses to be called do his job in the same uniform that you don’t mind his peers using!

M564038 wrote:

If the dress is good enough for a female crew member to do their job, why can’t he use it?
And why on earth would anyone have an opinion about it?
It is simply none if your business. Let the man, or whatever he chooses to be called do his job in the same uniform that you don’t mind his peers using!

Precisely. It’s all much ado about nothing. People are losing it over things that literally don’t matter.

M564038 wrote:

If the dress is good enough for a female crew member to do their job, why can’t he use it?
And why on earth would anyone have an opinion about it?
It is simply none if your business. Let the man, or whatever he chooses to be called do his job in the same uniform that you don’t mind his peers using!

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

Not being professional? Your personal opinion, which you should keep to yourself, about who gets to wear what, based on your personal view on genders and morals, does not go into wether that man is a professional or not.
It is not interesting, it doesn’t enter into the discussion, why should your opinion count when all he does is wear something that his peers and colleagues doing the exact same job can wear?
How come you hold your personal clothing preferences and moral outlook so high that it should limit other’s freedom to make choices that are of no consequence? Not to you, not to others. Tell me!
This is intolerance in it’s p u r e s t form!

drew777 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If the dress is good enough for a female crew member to do their job, why can’t he use it?
And why on earth would anyone have an opinion about it?
It is simply none if your business. Let the man, or whatever he chooses to be called do his job in the same uniform that you don’t mind his peers using!

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

“would like to be able to identify what to call a uniformed member of staff on a flight by the right thing.”

Why? Who cares what they are. Why MUST you refer to them in a certain way? You don’t need to say sir or ma’am when addressing people.

drew777 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If the dress is good enough for a female crew member to do their job, why can’t he use it?
And why on earth would anyone have an opinion about it?
It is simply none if your business. Let the man, or whatever he chooses to be called do his job in the same uniform that you don’t mind his peers using!

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

M564038 wrote:

Not being professional? Your personal opinion, which you should keep to yourself, about who gets to wear what, based on your personal view on genders and morals, does not go into wether that man is a professional or not.

drew777 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If the dress is good enough for a female crew member to do their job, why can’t he use it?
And why on earth would anyone have an opinion about it?
It is simply none if your business. Let the man, or whatever he chooses to be called do his job in the same uniform that you don’t mind his peers using!

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

My opinion does matter as a paying customer. You have every right to make a fool out of yourself... On your own time.

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If the dress is good enough for a female crew member to do their job, why can’t he use it?
And why on earth would anyone have an opinion about it?
It is simply none if your business. Let the man, or whatever he chooses to be called do his job in the same uniform that you don’t mind his peers using!

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

That's for the company to decide. As others in the thread have said, if he performs his responsibilities competently in terms of getting you safely from A to B, it doesn't matter if they're in a monkey suit, dress, whatever. You're making assumptions about competence based on trivial matters. We used to make assumptions about people with tattoos - now some of them are college dropouts who run companies worth billions they created out of nothing through coding. Are they unprofessional?

At any rate we still don't know the context of the photos because it wasn't explained in the OP. And in the photos I saw, the uniform itself is clean and properly pressed, and the individual wearing it well-groomed, gender regardless. You can find European airline pilots on YouTube who are at work with wild hairstyles we would call 'just got out of bed'. Are they 'unprofessional' too?

It is only you making yourself a part of this by having, and expressing such a strong opinion about something that doesn’t concern you. What he wears doesn’t influence your life in any concieveable way, and yet you think your personal dress code should be more important to him than his own. You infringe on his freedom and liberty for no reason.

There is no logic and no shame in what you are saying.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

M564038 wrote:

It is only you making yourself a part of this by having, and expressing such a strong opinion about something that doesn’t concern you. What he wears doesn’t influence your life in any concieveable way, and yet you think your personal dress code should be more important to him than his own. You infringe on his freedom and liberty for no reason.

There is no logic and no shame in what you are saying.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

Partially right, but just to point out, 'freedom and liberty' are somewhat limited in employee context by default.

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

You can find European airline pilots on YouTube who are at work with wild hairstyles we would call 'just got out of bed'. Are they 'unprofessional' too?

Yes. And I don't recall seeing any flight attendants with facial or over the top tattoos either.

This would count as a POSITIVE company image.
In my opinion no one should go outside their house dressed in clothes bought at sporting stores or meant for sports if they do not intend to do sports. Peopke happen to infringe on this all the time. Should they care about my opinion? No of course not. And clothing-style is a trivial matter, what you are proposing is even worse, it is to limit people on what they can wear based on sex and/or gender, and you limit it to adhere to your own tradition and morals, maybe even based on your own personal religious views. We are closing in on attitudes we rid ourselves of in the west decades ago.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

Your company outfit is designed to present a professional image for your employer. It's not for you to express yourself. That's what we wear on our own time. Men walking around in dresses is not a professional image.

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

M564038 wrote:

There is no logic and no shame in what you are saying.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither is a man in a suit lying - see how that works? Oh well.

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

I take no shame in expecting a plain jane trip from A to B. I'm also not morally moved in any way by this man wearing a dress. It's just unprofessional. Do it on your own time. Dress like a damn adult at work.

drew777 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

There is no logic and no shame in what you are saying.

drew777 wrote:

You don't think company image matters in a customer facing position? I believe he has every right in the world to be a crossdresser... Off the clock. I don't want to be part of his circus. I just want to get from A to B safely.

I take no shame in expecting a plain jane trip from A to B. I'm also not morally moved in any way by this man wearing a dress. It's just unprofessional. Do it on your own time. Dress like a damn adult at work.

Again, you have no clue about the context of the picture. If you have more information than Cardillo included in the post linked by OP, let's have it. You also have no evidence the employee pictured is incompetent or incapable of getting you safely from A to B. That's HR's concern, not yours.

M564038 wrote:

This would count as a POSITIVE company image.
And clothing-style is a trivial matter, what you are proposing is even worse, it is to limit people on what they can wear based on sex and/or gender, and you limit it to adhere to your own tradition and morals, maybe even based on your own personal religious views. We are closing in on attitudes we rid ourselves of in the west decades ago.

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I'm not religious, I'm not a conservative and I'm not an enemy of the gay community. I just want a normal damn plane ride that I'm paying for!

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

There is no logic and no shame in what you are saying.

I take no shame in expecting a plain jane trip from A to B. I'm also not morally moved in any way by this man wearing a dress. It's just unprofessional. Do it on your own time. Dress like a damn adult at work.

Again, you have no clue about the context of the picture. If you have more information than Cardillo included in the post linked by OP, let's have it. You also have no evidence the employee pictured is incompetent or incapable of getting you safely from A to B. That's HR's concern, not yours.

You are correct. However I'm not responding to the OP. Only stating that I don't expect a flight on RuPaul's Drag Show

Braybuddy wrote:

What's happening here is that you now have a gender/identity obsessed demographic who see him identifying as she, and see her as courageous.

Braybuddy wrote:

But you also have other demographics who just see him as someone self-obsessed who doesn't take his job too seriously, which they wouldn't see as being very professional.

Not only does this one make the most sense, especially in the context of him posing and smiling for pictures and them somehow finding their way onto Twitter, and especially since had he shown up to his interview we would we have likely heard about him before now in the unlikely event he had no been promptly shown the door (since the last time B6 was hiring corporate America hadn't fully caved to the demands and whims of SJWs), one of his co-worker friends shares her opinion and I believe she is being sincere and is spot on:

"JetBlue does allow men and women to wear each other’s uniform pieces, but if we choose to do so, we have to wear the complete uniform and be 100% in compliance.
My male friend wore our women’s dress, and he did it more as a prank to push the envelope. Luis is a great guy, and he has a sense of humor, so I believe he did it as more of an FU to the company, rather than some kind of gender issue.
Side note: as flight attendants, we are no longer allowed to address our passengers as “ladies and gentleman”, but instead use gender-neutral terms.
I am not speaking for the company, and I love my job and I love Luis… he just has a sense of humor."

https://www.godlikeproductions.com/foru ... 847455/pg1

afcjets wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

What's happening here is that you now have a gender/identity obsessed demographic who see him identifying as she, and see her as courageous.

Braybuddy wrote:

But you also have other demographics who just see him as someone self-obsessed who doesn't take his job too seriously, which they wouldn't see as being very professional.

Not only does this one make the most sense, especially in the context of him posing and smiling for pictures and them somehow finding their way onto Twitter, and especially since had he shown up to his interview we would we have likely heard about him before now in the unlikely event he had no been promptly shown the door (since the last time B6 was hiring corporate America hadn't fully caved to the demands and whims of SJWs), one of his co-worker friends shares her opinion and I believe she is being sincere and is spot on:

"JetBlue does allow men and women to wear each other’s uniform pieces, but if we choose to do so, we have to wear the complete uniform and be 100% in compliance.
My male friend wore our women’s dress, and he did it more as a prank to push the envelope. Luis is a great guy, and he has a sense of humor, so I believe he did it as more of an FU to the company, rather than some kind of gender issue.
Side note: as flight attendants, we are no longer allowed to address our passengers as “ladies and gentleman”, but instead use gender-neutral terms.
I am not speaking for the company, and I love my job and I love Luis… he just has a sense of humor."

https://www.godlikeproductions.com/foru ... 847455/pg1

So there you have it - an employee having a little fun with the company’s policy that requires full adoption of uniform if they swap. *Much* ado about nothing. From HR point of view this is as harmless as it gets.

Guess who won’t be explaining any of that? John Cardillo

Aaron747 wrote:

So there you have it - an employee having a little fun with the company’s policy that requires full adoption of uniform if they swap. *Much* ado about nothing. From HR point of view this is as harmless as it gets.

Guess who won’t be explaining any of that? John Cardillo

It would have been nice to know this was a one-off situation from the beginning. Wouldn't have made for much of a discussion though

drew777 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So there you have it - an employee having a little fun with the company’s policy that requires full adoption of uniform if they swap. *Much* ado about nothing. From HR point of view this is as harmless as it gets.

Guess who won’t be explaining any of that? John Cardillo

It would have been nice to know this was a one-off situation from the beginning. Wouldn't have made for much of a discussion though

Agreed but that’s not how Cardillo rolls. He uses Twitter to ginny up the right wing outrage that keeps his $$$ coming.

Aaron747 wrote:

So there you have it - an employee having a little fun with the company’s policy that requires full adoption of uniform if they swap. *Much* ado about nothing. From HR point of view this is as harmless as it gets.

Guess who won’t be explaining any of that? John Cardillo

Yes, it's always nice and professional to make an FU statement to your employer. It makes a mockery of the policy and I would imagine is a slap in the face to actual transexuals. Expect more of this kind of thing in the future though as companies continue to pander to the whims of the far left. I actually think this guy would be fun to have on a long flight to make it less boring but I still think it's ridiculous and unprofessional, but B6 totally deserves it IMO.

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So there you have it - an employee having a little fun with the company’s policy that requires full adoption of uniform if they swap. *Much* ado about nothing. From HR point of view this is as harmless as it gets.

Guess who won’t be explaining any of that? John Cardillo

Yes, it's always nice and professional to make an FU statement to your employer. It makes a mockery of the policy and I would imagine is a slap in the face to actual transexuals. Expect more of this kind of thing in the future though as companies continue to pander to the whims of the far left. I actually think this guy would be fun to have on a long flight to make it less boring but I still think it's ridiculous and unprofessional, but B6 totally deserves it IMO.

There is virtually nothing to indicate any of what you say except the friend's opinion that it was an FU to the company. He and a female colleague could easily have been having a laugh at seeing one another in the opposite uniform and shared the photos with a tattle-tale who then brought it to Cardillo. This is why in HR world the full context gets investigated because people assume all kinds of things that turn out to be wrong. If you find a transsexual online upset about the photos, do let us know

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

It would have been nice to know this was a one-off situation from the beginning. Wouldn't have made for much of a discussion though

Agreed but that’s not how Cardillo rolls. He uses Twitter to ginny up the right wing outrage that keeps his $$$ coming.

My friend who is a former Delta FA sent me the tweet and I had never heard of him and I doubt she had either as she is fairly liberal. It's ironic because even though I am a conservative leaning independent (especially today), I had never heard of him. A.net is also where I first heard of Alex Jones and had no idea who you guys were talking about. My point is it seems so called extreme right wing pundits seem to be more popular among leftists than actual conservatives.

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

drew777 wrote:

It would have been nice to know this was a one-off situation from the beginning. Wouldn't have made for much of a discussion though

Agreed but that’s not how Cardillo rolls. He uses Twitter to ginny up the right wing outrage that keeps his $$$ coming.

My friend who is a former Delta FA sent me the tweet and I had never heard of him and I doubt she had either as she is fairly liberal. It's ironic because even though I am a conservative leaning independent (especially today), I had never heard of him. A.net is also where I first heard of Alex Jones and had no idea who you guys were talking about. My point is it seems so called extreme right wing pundits seem to be more popular among leftists than actual conservatives.

Unfortunately some of us have to mine Twitter for information on the regular because so many of these right wing characters make up falsehoods about company policies and executives. It's a constant battle because they will take any nugget and turn it into nonsense outrage to drive their income stream.

Aaron747 wrote:

Unfortunately some of us have to mine Twitter for information on the regular because so many of these right wing characters make up falsehoods about company policies and executives. It's a constant battle because they will take any nugget and turn it into nonsense outrage to drive their income stream.

Grifters gonna grift.

CaptHadley wrote:

afcjets,
You protesting this much is making me feel just a wee like it's hitting a little too close to home for you. Now is it?

My thoughts exactly.

" we have to wear the complete uniform and be 100% in compliance."

What does that mean exactly, in what way is he not in compliance ? Is there a rule that if you wear a dress you need to shave (including legs) ? Is lipstick also mandatory ?

Imagine that same guy, shaven and with lipstick, in the same dress, would our fellow offended people be less offended ?

afcjets wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

chimborazo wrote:

Who cares what people care… the issue comes when you don’t know what to call someone.

My daughter is 5, when she doesn’t know what to call someone (another 5year old she just met at the park) she just asks them, if you can’t grasp that same concept that a 5 year old does then I would suggest you shouldn’t be on a plane unaccompanied.

I never had that problem at 5. Your daughter might not either if she grew up in a decade where people aren't told lies like there are 72 genders.

Are you serious?.

bennett123 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I never had that problem at 5. Your daughter might not either if she grew up in a decade where people aren't told lies like there are 72 genders.

Are you serious?.

How many of these 72 genders can you actually name and definite without having to look them up or copy/paste?

Alaska Airlines has caved to the LBQTQ+±± attorneys and they're still not satisfiied and it's a good thing B6 isn't based in Washington state. According to these attorneys B6 allowing men to wear women's uniform and vice versa as long as they wear the complete uniform and don't combine them in any way would still be illegal discrimination there (assuming one of the 72 genders is where you identify as both male and female at the same time at any moment during your trip).

"“Alaska Airlines has been a longtime supporter of the LGBTQ+ community. We have been a leader in the industry when it comes to inclusivity in our uniform and grooming standards, which have been informed by our employees and developed in accordance with federal and state laws.

“We are committed to making Alaska a place where everyone feels respected and belongs and proudly celebrate the diversity of our employees this Pride month and all year long.

“Over the past year, we have introduced several new guidelines designed to give our flight attendants more inclusive uniform options. Since early 2020, all flight attendants have been able to order any pant or parka style and have been able to select the uniform kit of their choice, regardless of gender identity. Starting later this month, we are set to introduce the ability to order these items online, giving employees greater ease of choice in the uniform selection process. We will also implement new gender-neutral hair policies that will allow all flight attendants to wear their hair down when not handling food, regardless of gender. These are two of the latest policy changes we have made to make Alaska a more inclusive place to work.

“We are committed to continuing to explore uniform and grooming standards for our flight attendants. We know we cannot do this alone, and appreciate the feedback and partnership we have with our flight attendant community.”—Cailee Olson, Media Relations Manager, Alaska Airlines

Later Friday, the ACLU responded via email:

“As our letter makes clear, if Alaska Airlines continues to require that employees adhere to either a predetermined ‘male’ uniform kit and grooming standards or a ‘female’ uniform kit and grooming standards, it will be violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination and Title VII. We hope that after further consideration Alaska Airlines will work with us voluntarily to bring its uniform policy into full compliance with the law.”—Josh Block, ACLU senior staff attorney"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstacey ... s-illegal/

afcjets wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Are you serious?.

How many of these 72 genders can you actually name and definite without having to look them up or copy/paste?

Alaska Airlines has caved to the LBQTQ+±± attorneys and they're still not satisfiied and it's a good thing B6 isn't based in Washington state. According to these attorneys B6 allowing men to wear women's uniform and vice versa as long as they wear the complete uniform and don't combine them in any way would still be illegal discrimination there (assuming one of the 72 genders is where you identify as both male and female at the same time at any moment during your trip).

"“Alaska Airlines has been a longtime supporter of the LGBTQ+ community. We have been a leader in the industry when it comes to inclusivity in our uniform and grooming standards, which have been informed by our employees and developed in accordance with federal and state laws.

“We are committed to making Alaska a place where everyone feels respected and belongs and proudly celebrate the diversity of our employees this Pride month and all year long.

“Over the past year, we have introduced several new guidelines designed to give our flight attendants more inclusive uniform options. Since early 2020, all flight attendants have been able to order any pant or parka style and have been able to select the uniform kit of their choice, regardless of gender identity. Starting later this month, we are set to introduce the ability to order these items online, giving employees greater ease of choice in the uniform selection process. We will also implement new gender-neutral hair policies that will allow all flight attendants to wear their hair down when not handling food, regardless of gender. These are two of the latest policy changes we have made to make Alaska a more inclusive place to work.

“We are committed to continuing to explore uniform and grooming standards for our flight attendants. We know we cannot do this alone, and appreciate the feedback and partnership we have with our flight attendant community.”—Cailee Olson, Media Relations Manager, Alaska Airlines

Later Friday, the ACLU responded via email:

“As our letter makes clear, if Alaska Airlines continues to require that employees adhere to either a predetermined ‘male’ uniform kit and grooming standards or a ‘female’ uniform kit and grooming standards, it will be violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination and Title VII. We hope that after further consideration Alaska Airlines will work with us voluntarily to bring its uniform policy into full compliance with the law.”—Josh Block, ACLU senior staff attorney"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstacey ... s-illegal/

I think the appropriate question is: why do you care so much about people you don't know and policies in places you don't work?

I'm sure the FA's working in the eastern part of the world must be laughing at this.

US based airlines FA's, on average, are already known to be subpar in terms of their behaviour, attitude and service delivery. Their focus is more about how they feel and their mood rather than serving the customers. Rather than focussing on improving on those issues, their new focus is now on self-expression and what they should be called. And to conclude that pax don't care what the FA's wear, whether it's monkey suit or anything is an unfounded conclusion.

The world's best airlines (none of which are in the US), know how important image is whether of the brand or of their customer facing staff.
Some airlines in the east don't even hire male FA's.

Rather than the opinions of the forum members here, I'd be more interested in some actual data or survey on the opinions of their frequent flyers , typically the high paying business travelers. They are the profit centres for the big airlines, so their feedback or some survey on how they'd view this should be taken when deciding over this policy change.

Scottish men, like those in the link, have been wearing dresses for several hundred years and I presume that they have done so with great honour too.
https://youtu.be/P2gDkcpYnMc

avier wrote:

I'm sure the FA's working in the eastern part of the world must be laughing at this.

US based airlines FA's, on average, are already known to be subpar in terms of their behaviour, attitude and service delivery. Their focus is more about how they feel and their mood rather than serving the customers. Rather than focussing on improving on those issues, their new focus is now on self-expression and what they should be called. And to conclude that pax don't care what the FA's wear, whether it's monkey suit or anything is an unfounded conclusion.

The world's best airlines (none of which are in the US), know how important image is whether of the brand or of their customer facing staff.
Some airlines in the east don't even hire male FA's.

Rather than the opinions of the forum members here, I'd be more interested in some actual data or survey on the opinions of their frequent flyers , typically the high paying business travelers. They are the profit centres for the big airlines, so their feedback or some survey on how they'd view this should be taken when deciding over this policy change.

IMO he only ones who will care are narrow-minded trumpist fanatics and people of similar beliefs. I don't think the modern enlightened people will even raise an eye brow.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

avier wrote:

I'm sure the FA's working in the eastern part of the world must be laughing at this.

US based airlines FA's, on average, are already known to be subpar in terms of their behaviour, attitude and service delivery. Their focus is more about how they feel and their mood rather than serving the customers. Rather than focussing on improving on those issues, their new focus is now on self-expression and what they should be called. And to conclude that pax don't care what the FA's wear, whether it's monkey suit or anything is an unfounded conclusion.

The world's best airlines (none of which are in the US), know how important image is whether of the brand or of their customer facing staff.
Some airlines in the east don't even hire male FA's.

Rather than the opinions of the forum members here, I'd be more interested in some actual data or survey on the opinions of their frequent flyers , typically the high paying business travelers. They are the profit centres for the big airlines, so their feedback or some survey on how they'd view this should be taken when deciding over this policy change.

IMO he only ones who will care are narrow-minded trumpist fanatics and people of similar beliefs. I don't think the modern enlightened people will even raise an eye brow.

Yeah, at this rate the rest of world could be termed trumpist fanatics because they wouldn't subscribe to this nonsense. And only a section of people in the west would be the "englightened" beings, whatever new meaning that word has taken now in that part of the world.

I'd be curious to see if this would be permitted on the int'l flights of these big airlines, if it became the norm.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

IMO he only ones who will care are narrow-minded trumpist fanatics and people of similar beliefs. I don't think the modern enlightened people will even raise an eye brow.

Which is approximately half the flying public in the US.

afcjets wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

IMO he only ones who will care are narrow-minded trumpist fanatics and people of similar beliefs. I don't think the modern enlightened people will even raise an eye brow.

Which is approximately half the flying public in the US.

Sure but I’ll bet most of them want two things most: to get some work or shut-eye done en route and not be bothered by seatmates. If they have time to critique and worry about the personal expression of staff they have fleeting encounters with, they have too much time on their hands.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

IMO he only ones who will care are narrow-minded trumpist fanatics and people of similar beliefs. I don't think the modern enlightened people will even raise an eye brow.

Well... it looks like this topic was created merely as flame-bait - nothing instructive or enlightening has come out of it, not does it appear anything instructive or enlightening can come out of it. Perhaps there could be a serious discussion of whether-or-not a man appearing in a dress would be entertaining to a majority of the public, or whether most would be repelled... but that discussion clearly isn't happening on this forum, thanks in no small part to the Neanderthal-like dogma of the most argumentative poster(s).

As their narcissistic, demagogic hero would say... "Sad..." Bigly sad...

alfa164 wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

IMO he only ones who will care are narrow-minded trumpist fanatics and people of similar beliefs. I don't think the modern enlightened people will even raise an eye brow.

Well... it looks like this topic was created merely as flame-bait - nothing instructive or enlightening has come out of it, not does it appear anything instructive or enlightening can come out of it. Perhaps there could be a serious discussion of whether-or-not a man appearing in a dress would be entertaining to a majority of the public, or whether most would be repelled... but that discussion clearly isn't happening on this forum, thanks in no small part to the Neanderthal-like dogma of the most argumentative poster(s).

As their narcissistic, demagogic hero would say... "Sad..." Bigly sad...

The only thing that's flame bait about it is the male flight attendant' action who wore the dress if his friend/co-worker is to be believed. And perhaps poster (s) who attempted to make even this about a former President they hate who wasn't reelected and has been out office and social media for 6 months now. Your post is also inaccurate, I have already said there is entertainment value and would make a long flight more interesting, and serious discussion about discrimination, the law, and regional demographics, both within the US and abroad. And there's nothing preventing you from posting what you think should be discussed.

It's not going to kill anyone to wear whatever uniform the company decides, no matter how much they may dislike it. That is what they are paid to do. There are many strange and unusual uniforms out there (I'm thinking of Disney characters, etc), and the employee agrees to wear that uniform if he or she wants the job. I really don't see why there should be a problem here.

afcjets wrote:

Flight attendants are the most highly visible brand representative of the company and have the most and longest contact with the customer. My biggest issue with it is that it's tacky. The beard and masculine facial features clash with the female FA dress uniform. If he actually looked and acted feminine and attractive it wouldn't matter nearly as much if at all.

Why is it necessary to be “feminine” and “attractive” to perform the job of cabin crew? Sounds like a 1960s mentality.

Whilst some may find a beard and female clothing tacky, let me remind you that a few years ago a bearded female performer won Eurovision, Conchita Wurst. Obviously the voting public didn’t care so much for any concerns with her appearance but rewarded her for her performance, which is how any FA should be judged, not in their looks.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Flight attendants are the most highly visible brand representative of the company and have the most and longest contact with the customer. My biggest issue with it is that it's tacky. The beard and masculine facial features clash with the female FA dress uniform. If he actually looked and acted feminine and attractive it wouldn't matter nearly as much if at all.

Why is it necessary to be “feminine” and “attractive” to perform the job of cabin crew? Sounds like a 1960s mentality.

Whilst some may find a beard and female clothing tacky, let me remind you that a few years ago a bearded female performer won Eurovision, Conchita Wurst. Obviously the voting public didn’t care so much for any concerns with her appearance but rewarded her for her performance, which is how any FA should be judged, not in their looks.

I didn't say it was necessary to be feminine and attractive to be a flight attendant. I said a beard and masculinity are incompatible and tacky combined with a feminine FA dress uniform.

Good for him or her or whatever pronoun we're supposed to use. (S)he is a performer and should be judged on their talent, whereas a FA is largely a brand representative when they're not performing safety duties which is the majority of their time. I will also add that drag queen you mentioned is by definition an entertainer and we've already discussed the entertainment value of this male FA's antic, because according to his friend he has no gender identity issue.

afcjets wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Flight attendants are the most highly visible brand representative of the company and have the most and longest contact with the customer. My biggest issue with it is that it's tacky. The beard and masculine facial features clash with the female FA dress uniform. If he actually looked and acted feminine and attractive it wouldn't matter nearly as much if at all.

Why is it necessary to be “feminine” and “attractive” to perform the job of cabin crew? Sounds like a 1960s mentality.

Whilst some may find a beard and female clothing tacky, let me remind you that a few years ago a bearded female performer won Eurovision, Conchita Wurst. Obviously the voting public didn’t care so much for any concerns with her appearance but rewarded her for her performance, which is how any FA should be judged, not in their looks.

I didn't say it was necessary to be feminine and attractive to be a flight attendant. I said a beard and masculinity are incompatible and tacky combined with a feminine FA dress uniform.

Good for him or her or whatever pronoun we're supposed to use. (S)he is a performer and should be judged on their talent, whereas a FA is largely a brand representative when they're not performing safety duties which is the majority of their time. I will also add that drag queen you mentioned is by definition an entertainer and we've already discussed the entertainment value of this male FA's antic, because according to his friend he has no gender identity issue.

Which again begs the question: if this is a humorous moment between two colleagues and the airline doesn’t care, and has policies in place to cover such situations: why do you care if you don’t work there?

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Why is it necessary to be “feminine” and “attractive” to perform the job of cabin crew? Sounds like a 1960s mentality.

Whilst some may find a beard and female clothing tacky, let me remind you that a few years ago a bearded female performer won Eurovision, Conchita Wurst. Obviously the voting public didn’t care so much for any concerns with her appearance but rewarded her for her performance, which is how any FA should be judged, not in their looks.

I didn't say it was necessary to be feminine and attractive to be a flight attendant. I said a beard and masculinity are incompatible and tacky combined with a feminine FA dress uniform.

Good for him or her or whatever pronoun we're supposed to use. (S)he is a performer and should be judged on their talent, whereas a FA is largely a brand representative when they're not performing safety duties which is the majority of their time. I will also add that drag queen you mentioned is by definition an entertainer and we've already discussed the entertainment value of this male FA's antic, because according to his friend he has no gender identity issue.

Which again begs the question: if this is a humorous moment between two colleagues and the airline doesn’t care, and has policies in place to cover such situations: why do you care if you don’t work there?

I don't care as much as you think I care, but the fact that it is humorous might have something to do with it.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Whilst some may find a beard and female clothing tacky, let me remind you that a few years ago a bearded female performer won Eurovision, Conchita Wurst. Obviously the voting public didn’t care so much for any concerns with her appearance but rewarded her for her performance, which is how any FA should be judged, not in their looks.

Apples and oranges here.

When you can't sing, and you don't know decent song writers, then you have to use special effects to attract interest from the audience.

FAs are different. They are supposed to act totally professionally as a team in the interest of the employer. If they use special effects to attract attention on themselves individually, then they have misunderstood their duty. That's valid for FAs and thousands of other jobs, especially in service industries.

Employees, who misunderstand their duty, will in some cases pass as curiosities. But in most cases they will be subject to additional training, and when that doesn't work, then unemployment. Employers are constantly optimizing their workforce to maximize capability and appearance - hiring and firing. Some companies are faster than average, some are slower, but at the end of the day they are all equal.

prebennorholm wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Whilst some may find a beard and female clothing tacky, let me remind you that a few years ago a bearded female performer won Eurovision, Conchita Wurst. Obviously the voting public didn’t care so much for any concerns with her appearance but rewarded her for her performance, which is how any FA should be judged, not in their looks.

Apples and oranges here.

FAs are different. They are supposed to act totally professionally as a team in the interest of the employer. If they use special effects to attract attention on themselves individually, then they have misunderstood their duty. That's valid for FAs and thousands of other jobs, especially in service industries.

Here’s Lufthansa FAs dressing in Oktoberfest costumes, why wasn’t anyone concerned about the safety implications then about them attracting attention upon themselves?:

https://latteluxurynews.com/2019/09/19/ ... toberfest/

I could find hundreds more examples of FAs dressing in special costumes for an event or celebration. Not once were these considered a safety concern. But dress that may indicate someone is trans? Then it becomes a problem apparently.

I think some are just uncomfortable knowing that people outside gender norms exist

afcjets wrote:

Good for him or her or whatever pronoun we're supposed to use. (S)he is a performer and should be judged on their talent, whereas a FA is largely a brand representative when they're not performing safety duties which is the majority of their time. I will also add that drag queen you mentioned is by definition an entertainer and we've already discussed the entertainment value of this male FA's antic, because according to his friend he has no gender identity issue.

C’mon that’s pretty offensive. She has said she uses female pronouns when presenting as female, so you should respect that and not pretend she is a “whatever”. It’s de-humanising.

How would you like it if someone called you by an insulting term, and then you asked them to stop and they refused, saying “I’m just using my freedom of speech, don’t be offended”.

Jeez all this thread proves is we need more education on LGBT issues in society.