Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:23 am

usflyer msp wrote:
Imho, anything that shows a whale tail, camel toe, dick print, or titty meat should be banned, rev or non-rev. Sometimes, I want to go back to my church usher days and throw modesty cloaks over other passengers. .

Especially because most people are ugly and/or fat, me included and nobody wants to see that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:37 am

Pbb2173 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
People arguing on here are failing to realize it's possible for two things to be true simultaneously:

1) Non-rev passengers should follow the rules
2) United (or any other airline) should not have an arbitrary dress code for its non-rev passengers

The "rules must be followed at all costs" crowd on this forum get stuck on #1 and ignore #2, while the more progressive people on the forum get focus on #2. However, both are true.


Because #2 is just your opinion. Who are you to say airlines shouldn't have a right to set whatever dress code they deem appropriate for non-rev pass riders?

Oh, and I really love how you deem people who whine about rules as being "progressive". No, they are childish and the reason we are seeing such a downfall in American society.


It's funny how you say this is causing the downfall of American society when our country was founded on breaking rules deemed unfair or arbitrary. I'm guessing the British had a rule against dumping tea into Boston Harbor? It's an American tradition to protest and question authority - you seem to be forgetting that.

Rules for the sake of rules is just authoritarianism which a lot of people don't appreciate. It's bad business to alienate a large portion of the population - therefore my argument stands that UA should get rid of this rule despite their obvious legal right to keep it.
 
Pbb2173
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:40 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:45 am

DoctorVenkman wrote:
Pbb2173 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
People arguing on here are failing to realize it's possible for two things to be true simultaneously:

1) Non-rev passengers should follow the rules
2) United (or any other airline) should not have an arbitrary dress code for its non-rev passengers

The "rules must be followed at all costs" crowd on this forum get stuck on #1 and ignore #2, while the more progressive people on the forum get focus on #2. However, both are true.


Because #2 is just your opinion. Who are you to say airlines shouldn't have a right to set whatever dress code they deem appropriate for non-rev pass riders?

Oh, and I really love how you deem people who whine about rules as being "progressive". No, they are childish and the reason we are seeing such a downfall in American society.


It's funny how you say this is causing the downfall of American society when our country was founded on breaking rules deemed unfair or arbitrary. I'm guessing the British had a rule against dumping tea into Boston Harbor? It's an American tradition to protest and question authority - you seem to be forgetting that.

Rules for the sake of rules is just authoritarianism which a lot of people don't appreciate. It's bad business to alienate a large portion of the population - therefore my argument stands that UA should get rid of this rule despite their obvious legal right to keep it.


Equating protests that led to the founding and formation of the USA to pass riders wearing leggings! Wow, that is rich. In your way of thinking, we should just let people travel naked. After all, there is a rule against that. But you don't seem to think there should be rules about what should be worn (or not worn) on airlines since it is so "arbitrary". Let chaos reign the day!
Last edited by Pbb2173 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
treetreeseven
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:18 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:48 am

Pbb2173 wrote:
Oh, and I really love how you deem people who whine about rules as being "progressive". No, they are childish and the reason we are seeing such a downfall in American society.

What's the count in this thread now for ominous pronouncements on The Downfall of Western Civilization™?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5099
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:48 am

JetBuddy wrote:
Leggings only seem to be a problem in America. First time I heard about it being banned was in certain schools in the US - and now on United. I've never heard this is a problem anyhwere in Europe.

AHH! But she wasn't flying in Europe!! She was flying on United and wasn't paying a DIME!! When UAL is Wrong?? I'll be on them like "Fleas on a dog". But? In this case they were RIGHT and I abide by those rules as well, and my Kids did too.
The fault was her Sponsor's for not telling her the rules. All my pass riders follow them. Why not Her?? And if there's an objection?
The Pass Owner could LOSE their Pass privileges.. Is it worth that? NOT to Me and probably not them either...
My bet is that NONE of the people commenting even HAVE passes to LOSE!!
 
Pbb2173
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:40 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:50 am

treetreeseven wrote:
Pbb2173 wrote:
Oh, and I really love how you deem people who whine about rules as being "progressive". No, they are childish and the reason we are seeing such a downfall in American society.

What's the count in this thread now for ominous pronouncements on The Downfall of Western Civilization™?


People like you who think there has not been a major loss of common values and decency in America in the last 20-30 years are blind. Go read the trash and utter nastiness on Twitter posted on a daily basis. It is despicable.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2154
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:53 am

If you're flying on the airline's dime then you are bound under their regulations. End of story.

On an unrelated note (or perhaps it's related, I don't know) - United's advertising on Linkedin for a Social Media Assistant Manager. Anybody have any inside connection I can use to send my resume? I'm very experienced in Crisis Management on social media - I could have helped with this... :lol:
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:03 am

LMFNINJA wrote:

Whether they are paying customers or pass riders United 's policy is still absurd.

Leggings are not improper or objectionable and they are not offensive to others.

I am sure that United will lose some business over this widely publicized incident and I don't think I am being " so dramatic."

Actually I think my comments are fairly reasonable.

Flip flops aren't improper or objectionable. But as a non-rev UA says you can't wear them. So if you want to partake of the benefit you follow the guide lines. It's no different than anything else in life. If you want to stay in your home you pay your mortgage. Why? Because you agreed to it. Along with many other rules and guidelines you must follow either because you agreed to it or because it was imposed on you. It's not about what any individual thinks is proper or not. It's about agreeing to do what you said you would.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:16 am

Pbb2173 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
Pbb2173 wrote:

Because #2 is just your opinion. Who are you to say airlines shouldn't have a right to set whatever dress code they deem appropriate for non-rev pass riders?

Oh, and I really love how you deem people who whine about rules as being "progressive". No, they are childish and the reason we are seeing such a downfall in American society.


It's funny how you say this is causing the downfall of American society when our country was founded on breaking rules deemed unfair or arbitrary. I'm guessing the British had a rule against dumping tea into Boston Harbor? It's an American tradition to protest and question authority - you seem to be forgetting that.

Rules for the sake of rules is just authoritarianism which a lot of people don't appreciate. It's bad business to alienate a large portion of the population - therefore my argument stands that UA should get rid of this rule despite their obvious legal right to keep it.


Equating protests that led to the founding and formation of the USA to pass riders wearing leggings! Wow, that is rich. In your way of thinking, we should just let people travel naked. After all, there is a rule against that. But you don't seem to think there should be rules about what should be worn (or not worn) on airlines since it is so "arbitrary". Let chaos reign the day!


I'm actually fine with public nudity but that's another discussion for another time. This rule is arbitrary because leggings are acceptable for all other passengers so why not allow non-rev? It'd be like banning non-rev from wearing the color blue; there's no point except to enforce some arbitrary rule. Surely if there were something so offensive about leggings UA would also ban the general public from wearing them.
 
rta
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:21 am

Revelation wrote:
rta wrote:
I don't have a problem with UA writing their policies how they want, but they way they reacted on Twitter is absolutely horrifying.

Horrifying? You must be very sheltered if a PR reaction horrifies you.


That's clearly what I was suggesting. :shakehead:
It should have been a very easy situation to control. Instead, they responded to everyone's tweets with:

United shall have the right to refuse passengers who are not properly clothed via our Contract of Carriage


Instead of putting out a small fire, they poured gasoline all over it.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15775
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:36 am

This is why we can't have nice things.

Situations like this are easily understood and adhered to by actual employees, and usually, their dependents. It's when you start giving out buddy/guest passes that we run into situations like this. A big part of the problem is that carriers have not only made them a benefit of X number per quarter or year, but that in many cases, they're actually ticketed on the company website itself.

Here's the problem; the "buddy pass" becomes a discount code, entered in the booking path on the main company website. So your buddy, who you've given this to, goes to the same website the general public uses to buy their tickets from the carrier directly, selects their preferred flights, is given a "fare" to pay (usually 90% off the unrestricted coach fare), and they receive a ticket number and a record locator for their non-rev listing.

Thing is, in that traveler's mind, despite the warnings given them by the employee, they've 1.) paid money on the company site, and 2.) have a ticket number and a "confirmation code," so they now suffer from the delusion that they're regular customers, entitled to a seat, etc.

So things like dress code, not throwing a hissyfit when getting a middle seat and/or split up from the rest of your party, and so forth occur, it's because the airline, through it's decision to allow buddy passes AND have them ticketed in the lowest-cost distribution channel possible, accidentally creates the wrong expectation and leads to preventable problems.

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd wholeheartedly support carriers doing away with buddy passes precisely for reasons like this. Frankly, they're more headache than they're worth if you ask me.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15775
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:43 am

DoctorVenkman wrote:
our country was founded on breaking rules deemed unfair or arbitrary. I'm guessing the British had a rule against dumping tea into Boston Harbor? It's an American tradition to protest and question authority - you seem to be forgetting that.

Rules for the sake of rules is just authoritarianism which a lot of people don't appreciate.


False equivalency at its most absurd. There's a HUGE difference between pushing back against an oppressive government vs. policies regarding the use of a benefit offered as a unique perk by an employer to an at-will employee. If the employee or by extension their "buddy" don't like UA's rules, they can either opt to not work there or not give out/accept buddy passes.

And these are not rules for the sake of authoritarianism; traveling on an employee's benefit, you travel at the pleasure of that business and are subject to their rules, and one of those is to dress a certain way that reflects well on the company.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
OSUk1d
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:43 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:45 am

LMFNINJA wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
LMFNINJA wrote:
Wearing leggings is not being "properly clothed" according to United??

I am 61 years of age and I can tell you that United is full of it and is acting in an absurd manner.

I am sure their nonsensical policy will alienate numerous millenials who will take their business elsewhere.


Did you bother reading and understanding any of the situation? This was employee policy related and not paying customer related.

United in offering an employee benefit for free can dictate the attire to be worn while using that benefit.


I understand the customer was non-paying but leggings are somehow inappropriate or improper attire?? That's nonsense.

Women wear leggings and yoga pants everywhere and there is nothing improper or unattractive about them. It is not like she was wearing cut-off shorts.

Chill out.


cut off shorts show less than most of these women's leggings.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:59 am

EA CO AS wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
our country was founded on breaking rules deemed unfair or arbitrary. I'm guessing the British had a rule against dumping tea into Boston Harbor? It's an American tradition to protest and question authority - you seem to be forgetting that.

Rules for the sake of rules is just authoritarianism which a lot of people don't appreciate.


False equivalency at its most absurd. There's a HUGE difference between pushing back against an oppressive government vs. policies regarding the use of a benefit offered as a unique perk by an employer to an at-will employee. If the employee or by extension their "buddy" don't like UA's rules, they can either opt to not work there or not give out/accept buddy passes.


When did I ever equate the two? Clearly they're not the same circumstance. I was just rejecting that poster's claim that protest is un-American and "the downfall of American society."

EA CO AS wrote:
And these are not rules for the sake of authoritarianism; traveling on an employee's benefit, you travel at the pleasure of that business and are subject to their rules, and one of those is to dress a certain way that reflects well on the company.


I don't think you understand my argument. No one should expect to fly non-rev on UA while ignoring their rules. With that in mind, their rule on this matter is pointless and arbitrary. You are saying it is not authoritarian, but the only reason you cite for its existence it is because UA said so.
Last edited by DoctorVenkman on Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:01 am

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


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

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

Meet the new united, same as the old united.


I like the rule. I would rather have standards.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15775
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:08 am

DoctorVenkman wrote:
their rule on this matter is pointless and arbitrary. You are saying it is not authoritarian, but the only reason you cite for its existence it is because UA said so.


Not at all; as I pointed out, UA believes that dressing in a certain way reflects poorly on the company, hence the rule. You can disagree with it all you want, but saying it's arbitrary is hogwash. Just own that you don't like it and move on.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:33 am

Uh-oh

Discussed on The View this morning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAQjn7DKVs
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
Schweigend
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:19 am

A bit of humor and irony:

I work at IAH. In United's Terminal B, there is a Sara Blakely SPANX shop located right across from the entrance to the UNITED CLUB (it is between the Brooks Brothers Red Fleece and a Whataburger).

For those not familiar with the brand, SPANX specialises in Lycra-Spandex leggings and other female under- and foundation-garments.

http://www.spanx.com

:cool2:

The ill-informed media furore has been disappointing and disheartening. Conflating a pass-rider dress code with what a revenue pax can wear for the sake of sensationalism shows the sad state of modern "journalism".

I must say that I think the non-rev dress policy is appropriate and fine. All of my co-workers today were talking about this, and everyone agreed that the pass-rider dress code is good as is and should not be changed or relaxed. We discussed how much more stringent the dress-codes can be when we fly on a carrier other than our own, especially a foreign one.

I wish only that UA's initial Twitter responses had been more competent and nuanced.

The word "twitter" used to mean the chirping, repetitive noise of birds, and a "twit" was a stupid fool.
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:19 am

DoctorVenkman wrote:
People arguing on here are failing to realize it's possible for two things to be true simultaneously:

1) Non-rev passengers should follow the rules
2) United (or any other airline) should not have an arbitrary dress code for its non-rev passengers

The "rules must be followed at all costs" crowd on this forum get stuck on #1 and ignore #2, while the more progressive people on the forum get focus on #2. However, both are true.


No, if UA has a no pink shirt rule for non-rev males, it has to be followed because its a rule/policy no matter how weird it seems.
 
User avatar
KanaHawaii
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:39 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
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.


My answer to that: go to the Grand Hotel in Mackinac Island, Michigan in the evening and you will find that they will be sure that your in the right dress before letting you into their restaurant.
 
ASFlyer
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:25 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:32 am

jumbojet wrote:
SuseJ772 wrote:
The conclusion of this to me are:

1) Nosey people shouldn't post on Twitter

2) United has the right to enforce any policy they want on non-rev

3) United also should find a new Social Media team

4) Delta's Social Media team is hilarious I tip my hat as they win the internet today. https://twitter.com/delta/status/846393226890280966


that actually is pretty good PR work on DL's part, throwing there two cents into the fray and throwing a dig at UA...

Flying Delta means comfort. (That means you can wear your leggings. )

Retweets
20,799
Likes
65,873



ChristinaLeighBurns‏ @ChrisLeighBurns 9h
9 hours ago


More
@Delta I fly buddy pass every summer to England. Thank you for never policing my clothes. You guys are the best. Stay that way.
4 replies
0 retweets
15 likes

Reply
4
Retweet

Like
15

Delta‏
Verified account
 @Delta 8h
8 hours ago


More
@ChrisLeighBurns You are most welcome! *NW





9:07 AM - 27 Mar 2017



It's tacky. Delta isn't without their own embarrassing incidents.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:18 am

UA has an internal dress code for non rev traveller. Perhaps UA should than do their enforcement of this internal dress code not in plain sight of the paying passengers.

The people defending UA here seem to be a bit strange. UA is a business not a church, any unnecessary action that could produce a negative image is just plain stupid.
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:07 am

mjoelnir wrote:
UA has an internal dress code for non rev traveller. Perhaps UA should than do their enforcement of this internal dress code not in plain sight of the paying passengers.

The people defending UA here seem to be a bit strange. UA is a business not a church, any unnecessary action that could produce a negative image is just plain stupid.


They are not forcing morality based dress codes on non-rev people, just shabby attire is not permitted for people associated with them.
 
olle
Posts: 2487
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:48 am

Considering the article mentioned below the father was accepted with shorts...

http://motto.time.com/4714476/united-le ... d=homepage
 
Chemist
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:53 am

United's problem is that they drifted into a much-tighter-than-the-Greyhound-Bus-cattle-class airline while their policies did not change. This policy might have made some sense when flying was actually a slightly elite experience, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Time to have the same rules for revs and non-revs.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9462
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:09 am

MSPNWA wrote:
These girls sound like they have some attitude problems.


Yup. Roll out the corsets and all the other attitude adjustment tools of Victorian times.
... and Sir your fly is open. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
olle
Posts: 2487
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:26 am

Well in the article it was mentioned that the mother tried to find some cloth and solved it for one of the girls but did not have any solution for the other..

And ones more if the father was accepted with shorts? In my view that is worse then some leggings..
 
EVAInHouse
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:09 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:46 am

Recently flew Etihad on business class and many male passengers were in sweatpants attire. Although they were probably revenue paying customers, it does sort of highlight the discriminatory nature of the policy that seems to lean negatively to what female passengers wear.
 
User avatar
Aviaphile
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:27 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:53 am

When I and my family used the non-rev privilege, the process was that the passengers presented themselves at the check-in desk. The baggage was weighed and tagged and then given back to the passengers who were told to come back at a specified time to a specific check-in desk. Once the flight had closed and those being accepted for the flight were confirmed, the (usually anxious) crowd of stand-by's would have their names called, given boarding passes and their luggage accepted. After that it was usually a mad dash to get through to the gate for boarding. Where an established staff travel office existed, non-rev passengers presented themselves there, out of the public gaze and waited to hear whether they would be accepted on the flight. It was at these prior to having been accepted points that any inappropriate dress would have been pointed out and the passenger given the chance to rectify it. The general public would not have been aware of anyone being turned away due to inappropriate dress. We were similarly instructed, in addition to dressing appropriately, not to accept wash bags or sleeper suits, to move seats if requested to do so by crew, were sometimes not offered meals until other full fare passengers had been served or told that the choice of food made was not available and on occasions downgraded. If lucky we were sometimes upgraded! The whole point here is that we had to conform to the non rev policy and were bound by its conditions. It also applied to anyone of one's family who were also eligible to travel on the employee's concessions. Don't like the terms, don't use non-rev travel!
A300 310 319 320 321 332 343 346 380 ATR42 Bae146 707 720 721 722 732 733 734 735 738 741 742 743 744 74D SP 752 762 763 772 1-11400 500 Concorde DC3 DC910 30 50 DC10-30 MD11 Trident 1 2 3 Dash 7 DH6 Do228 328 F27 28 HS 748 LX45 L1011200 Viscount 700 800
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15352
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:34 am

I suspect the offers of 'buddy passes' will die off in the next few years, going the way of passenger DC-10's due to issues like what happened here and others. There are marginal benefits to the airlines, abuses by users, the pressure to increase revenues and cut administrative costs, fewer seats available, that employees may want to be paid more or have decent benefits that are more important to them than such perks.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:49 am

KanaHawaii wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
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.


My answer to that: go to the Grand Hotel in Mackinac Island, Michigan in the evening and you will find that they will be sure that your in the right dress before letting you into their restaurant.


I'm not really sure what question that is answering... I've stayed in fancy hotels - I was describing the experience of having to go back to my room to get trousers and shoes just so I could eat breakfast. Then afterwards go to my room AGAIN to change back for my trip into town in the sweltering heat (35 degrees Celsius, 95% humidity).

Snobbery at its most stupid and annoying...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
crazyplane1234
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:58 am

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:32 am

This whole incident has got me thinking about how at the end of the day, modesty standards are inherently arbitrary. I've seen a few mentions of leggings being "tacky" and "inappropriate," but I honestly don't see how this is the case, since leggings do cover up the required areas. I don't understand how leggings represent the company in a poor light. More specifically...

BobPatterson wrote:
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.


I don't understand how wearing leggings and having a lot of piercings equate to having "so little respect for his/her appearance." You might think that it is "not daringly beautiful," but these things are subjective.

CanadaFair wrote:
No, if UA has a no pink shirt rule for non-rev males, it has to be followed because its a rule/policy no matter how weird it seems.


I don't think people are necessarily saying that the rules don't apply to them, they're just saying that there is no practical reason to have that particular rule in the first place.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10103
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:30 pm

IMO, really do different from KFC.

Customers chose what they wear.

Staff wear uniform.

No requirement for the same dress code to apply to both.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:58 pm

DL smartly eased up on there dress code for non-revs 10 years ago, time for United to do the same. Times are constantly changing and we no longer live in the era when jet travel was considered to be exclusive which at the time, made sense for a dress code policy.

If UA sticks to there guns, however, simple common sense standards should apply.

DEN-MSP on a Sunday, leggings should be fine, as long as they are worn in a presentable fashion with the rest of your attire. We aren't living in the 1970's anymore. Which brings up another point. This whole dress code non-rev thing began back when air travel was more of a formal, non mainstream event. Air travel was just a completely different experience back then. You didn't have the LCC's in the 1970's that exist today. The whole air-travel landscape has changed and has changed quite dramatically and UA needs to modify its behavior and policies.

EWR-SXM/SJU/AUA etc, shorts and a Hawaiian shirt should be fine.

EWR-HKG in Polaris, business casual.

UA needs to apply common sense. We are not living in the 1970's anymore.
Last edited by jumbojet on Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:05 pm

crazyplane1234 wrote:
This whole incident has got me thinking about how at the end of the day, modesty standards are inherently arbitrary. I've seen a few mentions of leggings being "tacky" and "inappropriate," but I honestly don't see how this is the case, since leggings do cover up the required areas. I don't understand how leggings represent the company in a poor light. More specifically...

BobPatterson wrote:
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.


I don't understand how wearing leggings and having a lot of piercings equate to having "so little respect for his/her appearance." You might think that it is "not daringly beautiful," but these things are subjective.

CanadaFair wrote:


And on top of that, no one on the plane that paid for a ticket is going to know that there are non-revs on the plane, let alone what they are wearing. So the excuse of representing a company poorly is lame, very lame. In my previous example of a revenue passenger sitting between to non-rev young ladies wearing leggings, both well behaved and both otherwise dressed appropriately. Its all about the passenger experience. And lets just say that the person sitting in-between these two ladies wearing leggings somehow knew that one was a non-rev. Does that lessen his overall flight experience? How does this represent UA in a bad manner? Let me give you a hint, it doesn't, unless the non-rev gets up and runs down the aisle of the plane screaming, 'I AM A NON REV, I AM A NON REV.
Last edited by jumbojet on Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
SenrabDivad
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:07 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:16 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
A big part of the problem is that carriers have not only made them a benefit of X number per quarter or year, but that in many cases, they're actually ticketed on the company website itself.

Here's the problem; the "buddy pass" becomes a discount code, entered in the booking path on the main company website. So your buddy, who you've given this to, goes to the same website the general public uses to buy their tickets from the carrier directly, selects their preferred flights, is given a "fare" to pay (usually 90% off the unrestricted coach fare), and they receive a ticket number and a record locator for their non-rev listing.

Thing is, in that traveler's mind, despite the warnings given them by the employee, they've 1.) paid money on the company site, and 2.) have a ticket number and a "confirmation code," so they now suffer from the delusion that they're regular customers, entitled to a seat, etc.


I'm mystified, here. Having flown non-rev on at least five different airlines and distributed buddy passes on two of those, at no time were they processed through the public facing company site. All standby transactions have been handled on "behind the scenes", not visible to the public, intranet sites. I'm not saying it doesn't happen this way, just that in all my years of doing so, I've never seen it or heard of it.

That said, yes, the buddy passes are issued a record locator (commonly called a confirmation code, but when giving this information, I'm very cautious not to use the term). I've long made sure that my buddies are well aware of all the rules, oddities, and requirements of standby travel. Ultimately, the onus falls on the employee to ensure their buddies (or other pass travelers) have had their expectations managed appropriately.

Ultimately, United has their policy and has every right to have such a policy and enforce it. Is the policy unfair/inappropriate/in need of revison? Maybe, but the podium at the boarding gate is not the place to make that particular stand. Just like when the dress code required collared shirts and dress pants, you sucked it up and moved on. Just like when it was coats and ties, you sucked it up and moved on. At least, you sucked it up and moved on at the gate, then worked with and through the appropriate channels to change the policies.

Who (in my view) screwed up here:
  • The employee distributing the buddy pass: They did not communicate the dress code and the ramifications clearly enough.
  • The pass traveler's parents: They failed to follow the dress code. (If they didn't know the dress code, I'll give a pass here, and revert back to the employee.)
  • Shannon Watts: She butted into a situation in which she was not involved and in which she had no knowledge or context, attempting to wave the sword of justice at United. (Doesn't she know that sharp objects aren't permitted in the secure area? :lol: )
  • UAL: Their social media team fumbled the response to the point that the nuance that it was a pass traveler dress code has been lost or at best buried in 90% of the news coverage of the incident.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:35 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
UA has an internal dress code for non rev traveller. Perhaps UA should than do their enforcement of this internal dress code not in plain sight of the paying passengers.

The people defending UA here seem to be a bit strange. UA is a business not a church, any unnecessary action that could produce a negative image is just plain stupid.


If FA shows up with hair rollers, 1Ks defending these non-revs wouldn't mind I guess.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:51 pm

KanaHawaii wrote:
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..


Why, then, do you stay at this fancier hotel that has dress codes? Anyone force you to?

Or, why not just go to a less fancy restaurant in town?
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:15 pm

EVAInHouse wrote:
Recently flew Etihad on business class and many male passengers were in sweatpants attire. Although they were probably revenue paying customers, it does sort of highlight the discriminatory nature of the policy that seems to lean negatively to what female passengers wear.

What does this have to do with anything?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:25 pm

[quote="jumbojet"][


As has been mentioned countless times already on this thread, the rule is old and ridiculously outdated. UA is taking a lot of heat for this.


So what if its old.........its the rules. Adhere to them or face the consequences if you don't. What part of that don't you understand?

Your constant UA bashing completely blinds your common sense here!
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:37 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
KanaHawaii wrote:
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..


Why, then, do you stay at this fancier hotel that has dress codes? Anyone force you to?

Or, why not just go to a less fancy restaurant in town?


That quote is from me, not KanaHawaii.

As I mentioned later, I was staying in a "nice hotel" - and was consequently rather surprised by the anal attitude and personal inconvenience when I had dressed in (quite smart) three-quarter pants, trainers and shirt and expected to drop by the restaurant for breakfast on my way out for a day in the city. As I said, this was in an extremely hot location, so I was in no way underdressed. As for being forced to stay there - well otherwise I enjoyed my stay... but do you honestly expect that they publish details such as dress code for breakfast when you're making the booking (or that I would go into that level of research)?
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:42 pm

UAL777UK wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
As has been mentioned countless times already on this thread, the rule is old and ridiculously outdated. UA is taking a lot of heat for this.


So what if its old.........its the rules. Adhere to them or face the consequences if you don't. What part of that don't you understand?


What part of "people are discussing that the rules are outdated and should be changed" don't you understand?

(I agree that they should have stuck to the rules, but rounding on anyone wanting to discuss those rules is a bit silly...)
Last edited by SomebodyInTLS on Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
United1
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:43 pm

UAL777UK wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
[


As has been mentioned countless times already on this thread, the rule is old and ridiculously outdated. UA is taking a lot of heat for this.


So what if its old.........its the rules. Adhere to them or face the consequences if you don't. What part of that don't you understand?

Your constant UA bashing completely blinds your common sense here!


It's not old...UA last updated their dress code a bit less than a year ago. There are also a number of airlines that won't let you onboard wearing leggings so if anything UA is right in line with its peers.

Quite right that he destroys every UA/AA thread...he's the new Tommy and much like Tommy needs to be banned.

Mods this thread is going nowhere new and the trolls are out in full force can this be locked?
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
Pbb2173
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:40 am

Re: UA Denies Boarding to Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:52 pm

jumbojet wrote:
crazyplane1234 wrote:
This whole incident has got me thinking about how at the end of the day, modesty standards are inherently arbitrary. I've seen a few mentions of leggings being "tacky" and "inappropriate," but I honestly don't see how this is the case, since leggings do cover up the required areas. I don't understand how leggings represent the company in a poor light. More specifically...

BobPatterson wrote:
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.


I don't understand how wearing leggings and having a lot of piercings equate to having "so little respect for his/her appearance." You might think that it is "not daringly beautiful," but these things are subjective.

CanadaFair wrote:


And on top of that, no one on the plane that paid for a ticket is going to know that there are non-revs on the plane, let alone what they are wearing. So the excuse of representing a company poorly is lame, very lame. In my previous example of a revenue passenger sitting between to non-rev young ladies wearing leggings, both well behaved and both otherwise dressed appropriately. Its all about the passenger experience. And lets just say that the person sitting in-between these two ladies wearing leggings somehow knew that one was a non-rev. Does that lessen his overall flight experience? How does this represent UA in a bad manner? Let me give you a hint, it doesn't, unless the non-rev gets up and runs down the aisle of the plane screaming, 'I AM A NON REV, I AM A NON REV.


How many times are you gonna post on this thread saying the same crap? Go get a girlfriend and a life. I honestly think you touch yourself looking at Delta planes.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9765
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:21 pm

It is simply a lack of flexibility. I am sure that when the rules were written spandex pants were something people only wore to the gym, then fashion changed and leggings became popular and a normal clothing item. A male gate agent would probably need a 3 sided info sheet, which would help him to differentiate between skinny trousers, leggings and yoga pants.
Rules are rules, but the first rule is to do nothing stupid that will back fire on your employer. It should be easy to just let them fly with a warning about the dress code, or sent a mail to the person responsible for the tickets to remember the dress code or add a warning to the system, which would see him/her loose the privilege in case of another violation. But you do not deny boarding in public, you do not cause a scene, if you do not have to. A person which does not see that the refusal of boarding for teenage girls can only backfire, needs some serious customer training.

And, the social media team should need a new job.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:24 pm

And on top of that, no one on the plane that paid for a ticket is going to know that there are non-revs on the plane, let alone what they are wearing.


And that is the big issue. I personally have no problems with United enforcing a dress code per se and I like it when people are dressed more classily. As I said in an earlier post, I miss the good old days of dressing up for air travel. As I stare out across my classroom watching my Economics students stroll in, I'm horrified by what passes as acceptable attire these days, and I'm not that old! It's United's policy to set, it's their airline, they don't have to offer free travel for employees, and if you're going to fly for free on the company's dime, then you need to accept certain strictures. However... If the goal is also for non-revs to "blend in," as it's been said, then enforcing a strict dress code defeats that purpose.
 
WaGuy69
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:14 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:49 pm

This story just keeps being talked about, first off Shannon Watts who is the noise woman should have minded her own business and before tweeting about this she should have had her facts and story straight! Because of her she has fired up this fire storm and the airline is being grilled for something that they should not be grilled for! The girls traveling are at fault here plan and simple, I would also hope that the employee who gave them the passes would have told them the dress attire!
1. The airline employee was not at fault here.
2. The airline is not at fault here.
3. Shannon watts should just have had minded her own business.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:57 pm

WaGuy69 wrote:
This story just keeps being talked about, first off Shannon Watts who is the noise woman should have minded her own business and before tweeting about this she should have had her facts and story straight! Because of her she has fired up this fire storm and the airline is being grilled for something that they should not be grilled for! The girls traveling are at fault here plan and simple, I would also hope that the employee who gave them the passes would have told them the dress attire!
1. The airline employee was not at fault here.
2. The airline is not at fault here.
3. Shannon watts should just have had minded her own business.


Mostly true, but:
the airline is being grilled for something that they should not be grilled for


I think that there is still a disconnect between those who say "the girls should have complied with the terms" (which I think actually most people agree on), and those who say "but the dress code is stupid anyway".

These are two separate - albeit related - topics. People are getting hot under the collar because some are defending UA for one thing against people who are attacking UA over something else! The two sides are arguing about different things...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
WaGuy69
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:14 pm

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:11 pm

I don't know if you have ever flown on an airline employee ticket before but if an employee or those traveling on the passes they have to follow the guidelines set up for traveling. Years ago the airlines guild lines for employees traveling or friends/family the travelers had to be dressed up. Suits/ties/dresses so the airlines actually have changed their policies of how to dress up when flying on the planes on passes.
 
sofianec
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:39 am

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

Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:17 pm

The leggings issue is out of hand already. You fly FREE on an employee pass. There is a dress code and rules to follow. Follow it or don't fly. Simple. Let's move on. Please!
A350WARP
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos