I like the male FA aprons

Okay, sorry but the female maternity uniform looks really sloppy. Just because you may be pregnant, is no excuse for not tucking in your shirt.

TVNWZ wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Overall they’re not bad, nothing groundbreaking, but also not awful, other than that FA blouse thing. That thing is hideous. I agree the color palette is sort of all over the place, which Amy point to a new livery.

Antarius wrote:

What the heck is this?

Seriously, what the hell is this? It appears to be some sort of blouse, and boy is it ugly!

What do you expect pregnant FA’s wear?

Whatever they want when they retire from being an FA at 32 because they are pregnant and should be home with their family. Pregnant flight attendants? This world has gone insane.

IMHO....the new plane livery will debut on UA's first A359's

Antarius wrote:

What the heck is this?

Reminds me of the old US sweaters, if they were designed by an elder Aunt. This isn't maternity wear, it's for the larger girls, no?

Fly the colourful(?) skies

airzim wrote:

I suspect the picture of the flight attendant with blouse is throwing everyone off. If you look at the picture of the FA wearing the trench coat, you can see the same pattern blouse underneath. If that blouse was better fitting/tucked in, it’s not nearly as off putting.

The ramp and catering uniforms look great. I’m not sure about the Green in the ground crew uniforms, but perhaps more of that color is coming in other aspects of a new livery.

As for the FA uniforms, they immediately reminded me of Qantas. Generally not too bad. Although I agree the male uniform needs to be toned down, a lot! The piping is too much and unnecessary.

I’m glad they didn’t go the Delta route. Almost universally, the DL female uniforms look terrible. The red suit is an eyesore and looks terrible on anyone with extra weight. The purple with the blouse with bow makes them look like clowns. This UA design is more conservative and safe. Just mixing up the color combinations.

I was with you until the DL comment. Again as I've stated before IDK what Delta people you've seen at DL majority of people I see look good in their uniform (especially compared to what they looked like before). The cut and Design in the DL uniform gives most bodies a boost. Whereas these are more conservative and plain cut which means your body has do most of the work on it's own. Basically saying for DL if you were average before you probably look decent in their new uniforms and if you look bad you will most likely look bad in both DL and UA designs.

RyanairGuru wrote:

airzim wrote:

As for the FA uniforms, they immediately reminded me of Qantas.

Agreed, that was my first thought as well.

Incidentally that's why I disagree with many other posters saying that there must be a new livery in the works. Qantas have had that uniform for five years now, and launched a new brand/livery in that time, but the pink (sorry, fuscia) makes as little sense to the Qantas brand now as it did when it was introduced. While much newer, the same applies to Delta and plum. IMHO United will be the same. The big difference to QF and DL being that the colors used are actually part of United's brand identity with the new colour palette, as opposed to totally random.

Google "Delta Branded Boarding" - I am sure DL new secondary colors will be more apparent and common by the time United add it to their branding. BTW does anyone find it ironic that they re-leased their new uniforms the week before DL implements their new Branding that is anchored with Passport plum (purple) and (fuschia). Take a stroll through DL Hubs next week on the 23rd .

LawAndOrder wrote:

airzim wrote:

I suspect the picture of the flight attendant with blouse is throwing everyone off. If you look at the picture of the FA wearing the trench coat, you can see the same pattern blouse underneath. If that blouse was better fitting/tucked in, it’s not nearly as off putting.

The ramp and catering uniforms look great. I’m not sure about the Green in the ground crew uniforms, but perhaps more of that color is coming in other aspects of a new livery.

As for the FA uniforms, they immediately reminded me of Qantas. Generally not too bad. Although I agree the male uniform needs to be toned down, a lot! The piping is too much and unnecessary.

I’m glad they didn’t go the Delta route. Almost universally, the DL female uniforms look terrible. The red suit is an eyesore and looks terrible on anyone with extra weight. The purple with the blouse with bow makes them look like clowns. This UA design is more conservative and safe. Just mixing up the color combinations.

I was with you until the DL comment. Again as I've stated before IDK what Delta people you've seen at DL majority of people I see look good in their uniform (especially compared to what they looked like before). The cut and Design in the DL uniform gives most bodies a boost. Whereas these are more conservative and plain cut which means your body has do most of the work on it's own. Basically saying for DL if you were average before you probably look decent in their new uniforms and if you look bad you will most likely look bad in both DL and UA designs.

The gate crew at RDU. The purple suit with the white shirt and the bow thingy. She looked like Austin Powers, with some other rude remarks I'll keep to myself. The red suit might be even worse, even on the men. Red is nearly impossible for anyone to pull off. I'm embarrassed for them. What Zac Posen tried to do is noble, but it's way over styled. It's turned into a parody of what a glamorous uniform looks like on a size zero 19 year old cabin crew from the 60s, but instead you stuffed in a size 14 from today at put it on SNL. Sorry just my opinion.

Now, AA needs to recall their toxic uniforms and hire IZOD to introduce new uniforms for them.

questions wrote:

The male FA uniform looks like something Liberace would wear as a flight attendant. I’m sure The Gays are going to get a good chuckle out of seeing The Straights wearing that uniform. Gurl just needs to accessorize with a lavender boa and she’ll be ready for the Polaris Cocktail Service. Cosmos? Cosmos?

Haha. Agree. They’re hideous looking!

It's funny how UA tried so hard to be politically correct with their model selections ... apparently they rarely hire white men.

ozark1 wrote:

From the new aircraft color scheme to the uniform fiasco, to the removal of all IFE on narrowbody planes, AA seems to need help in the decision making department.

AA’s decision-making is quite simple and, from a leadership perspective, culturally ingrained — “Will it advance us in the race to the bottom?” If the answer is yes, they go with it.

gaystudpilot wrote:

questions wrote:

The male FA uniform looks like something Liberace would wear as a flight attendant. I’m sure The Gays are going to get a good chuckle out of seeing The Straights wearing that uniform. Gurl just needs to accessorize with a lavender boa and she’ll be ready for the Polaris Cocktail Service. Cosmos? Cosmos?

Haha. Agree. They’re hideous looking!

Wow ever heard about stereotyping. “ the gays”.....unreal.

These uniforms look like what you’d find on the clearance rack at Sears....on finally markdown and still no takers.

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

gaystudpilot wrote:

questions wrote:

The male FA uniform looks like something Liberace would wear as a flight attendant. I’m sure The Gays are going to get a good chuckle out of seeing The Straights wearing that uniform. Gurl just needs to accessorize with a lavender boa and she’ll be ready for the Polaris Cocktail Service. Cosmos? Cosmos?

Haha. Agree. They’re hideous looking!

Wow ever heard about stereotyping. “ the gays”.....unreal.

These uniforms look like what you’d find on the clearance rack at Sears....on finally markdown and still no takers.

That isn't stereotyping. It's a benign epithet, used properly when you know you have the support of "the gays". See Kathy Griffin.

Otherwise, the Sears' reference is funny, because it could very well be true.

ldvaviation wrote:

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

gaystudpilot wrote:

Haha. Agree. They’re hideous looking!

Wow ever heard about stereotyping. “ the gays”.....unreal.

These uniforms look like what you’d find on the clearance rack at Sears....on finally markdown and still no takers.

That isn't stereotyping. It's a benign epithet, used properly when you know you have the support of "the gays". See Kathy Griffin.

Otherwise, the Sears' reference is funny, because it could very well be true.

Equating “the gays” with Liberace, lavender boa, and cosmos isn’t stereotyping? This gay begs to differ. Not into any of those yet I’m “a gay’.

Antarius wrote:

What the heck is this?

Completely atrocious. Does not look flattering, elegant or professional.

That dress for the more voluptious ladies is atrocious, looks frumpy and wrinkled. The blouse was bad enough but the dress takes the cake. Not understanding the outdoor winter type sweater for inflight, that looks very informal and clashes with other pieces.

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

Equating “the gays” with Liberace, lavender boa, and cosmos isn’t stereotyping? This gay begs to differ. Not into any of those yet I’m “a gay’.

I think you are over-reading.

He was suggesting that "the gays" would be in on the joke.

The joke is that the male FA uniform looks like something that Liberace might wear. If he is stereotyping anyone, it is Liberace, not gays. Liberace does not represent all "the gays".

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

ldvaviation wrote:

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

Wow ever heard about stereotyping. “ the gays”.....unreal.

These uniforms look like what you’d find on the clearance rack at Sears....on finally markdown and still no takers.

That isn't stereotyping. It's a benign epithet, used properly when you know you have the support of "the gays". See Kathy Griffin.

Otherwise, the Sears' reference is funny, because it could very well be true.

Equating “the gays” with Liberace, lavender boa, and cosmos isn’t stereotyping? This gay begs to differ. Not into any of those yet I’m “a gay’.

Relax. It’s totally benign. Known gays having fun.

I’m about as straight acting as a gay guy can be. I did not for a second believe Questions was steroyping by equating Liberace and lavender boas with the global gay population. However I have been known to enjoy a good Cosmo with the girls — male and female. I’m far from offended.

I agree with Questions that the male FA uniform looks like something Liberace would wear... that the straight male FA’s are not going to like it... The Gays probably aren’t going to like it either! LOL... and that the uniform could be camped up with a lavender boa and a Cosmo in each hand.

Perhaps some design changes will be made based on feedback from the wear tests.

ldvaviation wrote:

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

Equating “the gays” with Liberace, lavender boa, and cosmos isn’t stereotyping? This gay begs to differ. Not into any of those yet I’m “a gay’.

I think you are over-reading.

He was suggesting that "the gays" would be in on the joke.

The joke is that the male FA uniform looks like something that Liberace might wear. If he is stereotyping anyone, it is Liberace, not gays. Liberace does not represent all "the gays".

Well said ldvaviation. Thanks.

Euch....UA really has no originality any more, do they? Just rip off DL and AS and hope you don't end up in a situation like AA.

I guess my wife and I are the oddballs. We both like the new look and find it welcoming and relaxing.

airzim wrote:

LawAndOrder wrote:

airzim wrote:

I suspect the picture of the flight attendant with blouse is throwing everyone off. If you look at the picture of the FA wearing the trench coat, you can see the same pattern blouse underneath. If that blouse was better fitting/tucked in, it’s not nearly as off putting.

The ramp and catering uniforms look great. I’m not sure about the Green in the ground crew uniforms, but perhaps more of that color is coming in other aspects of a new livery.

As for the FA uniforms, they immediately reminded me of Qantas. Generally not too bad. Although I agree the male uniform needs to be toned down, a lot! The piping is too much and unnecessary.

I’m glad they didn’t go the Delta route. Almost universally, the DL female uniforms look terrible. The red suit is an eyesore and looks terrible on anyone with extra weight. The purple with the blouse with bow makes them look like clowns. This UA design is more conservative and safe. Just mixing up the color combinations.

I was with you until the DL comment. Again as I've stated before IDK what Delta people you've seen at DL majority of people I see look good in their uniform (especially compared to what they looked like before). The cut and Design in the DL uniform gives most bodies a boost. Whereas these are more conservative and plain cut which means your body has do most of the work on it's own. Basically saying for DL if you were average before you probably look decent in their new uniforms and if you look bad you will most likely look bad in both DL and UA designs.

The gate crew at RDU. The purple suit with the white shirt and the bow thingy. She looked like Austin Powers, with some other rude remarks I'll keep to myself. The red suit might be even worse, even on the men. Red is nearly impossible for anyone to pull off. I'm embarrassed for them. What Zac Posen tried to do is noble, but it's way over styled. It's turned into a parody of what a glamorous uniform looks like on a size zero 19 year old cabin crew from the 60s, but instead you stuffed in a size 14 from today at put it on SNL. Sorry just my opinion.

There is nothing that will look good on a size 0 to a size 19. Delta has enough options for the older and thicker ladies. Most of them just chose the wrong uniform for their body type. Even the look book suggested which would look good on the different body types. I do not think the answer is to go to all black blue or dark grey material in hopes that everyone's flaws become invisible. I've spoken to ladies that say the shirt and vest just doesn't work so they wear the twin sweater option which mimics something they would wear. Then I've seen ladies that look amazing in the shirt and vest and they say they love the look as it is classy yet form fitting. Exhibit A look at United crazy shirt. In the latest set of pictures they feature another lady wearing it tucked in and it looks a whole lot better.

If you put a lady thats a size 0 in somethign that was designed for a size 18 with curves it's most likely not going to look good and the same with the inverse. United's collections seems to have some decent pieces if they edit them down. I would have kept the flight attendant and customer uniforms similar and just changed the supporting colors. My issue is that it isn't cohesive.

chepos wrote:

That dress for the more voluptious ladies is atrocious, looks frumpy and wrinkled. The blouse was bad enough but the dress takes the cake. Not understanding the outdoor winter type sweater for inflight, that looks very informal and clashes with other pieces.

That is meant for the outdoors as an outerwear piece. Underneath is the standard FA dress shown in the first picture.

DarthLobster wrote:

Euch....UA really has no originality any more, do they? Just rip off DL and AS and hope you don't end up in a situation like AA.

I didn’t realize Delta and Alaska invented the colors purple & teal respectively.

The look of the uniforms is not bad, BUT, these could be uniforms on ANY airline. Nothing about them feels United and nothing about them makes me think of the United brand.

airzim wrote:

LawAndOrder wrote:

airzim wrote:

I suspect the picture of the flight attendant with blouse is throwing everyone off. If you look at the picture of the FA wearing the trench coat, you can see the same pattern blouse underneath. If that blouse was better fitting/tucked in, it’s not nearly as off putting.

The ramp and catering uniforms look great. I’m not sure about the Green in the ground crew uniforms, but perhaps more of that color is coming in other aspects of a new livery.

As for the FA uniforms, they immediately reminded me of Qantas. Generally not too bad. Although I agree the male uniform needs to be toned down, a lot! The piping is too much and unnecessary.

I’m glad they didn’t go the Delta route. Almost universally, the DL female uniforms look terrible. The red suit is an eyesore and looks terrible on anyone with extra weight. The purple with the blouse with bow makes them look like clowns. This UA design is more conservative and safe. Just mixing up the color combinations.

I was with you until the DL comment. Again as I've stated before IDK what Delta people you've seen at DL majority of people I see look good in their uniform (especially compared to what they looked like before). The cut and Design in the DL uniform gives most bodies a boost. Whereas these are more conservative and plain cut which means your body has do most of the work on it's own. Basically saying for DL if you were average before you probably look decent in their new uniforms and if you look bad you will most likely look bad in both DL and UA designs.

The gate crew at RDU. The purple suit with the white shirt and the bow thingy. She looked like Austin Powers, with some other rude remarks I'll keep to myself. The red suit might be even worse, even on the men. Red is nearly impossible for anyone to pull off. I'm embarrassed for them. What Zac Posen tried to do is noble, but it's way over styled. It's turned into a parody of what a glamorous uniform looks like on a size zero 19 year old cabin crew from the 60s, but instead you stuffed in a size 14 from today at put it on SNL. Sorry just my opinion.

Other than DL's new uniform colors not matching up to anything in regards to branding, they are somewhat poorly fitted (baggy, bulky, very large buttons, etc) compared to the former. I recall after DL announced them, cabin crews were really slow to adapt to the new uniform and kept wearing the old ones for a while.

I care about fit the most. I had a Macy's 3 piece suit that was so poorly fitted after alterations that I tossed it out, yet I have an H&M suit from 2012 that still fits great (even though the material is subpar). The current UA uniforms fit OK, ditto AA for that matter.

Considering DL kept the same uniform from 1983-2001 (ugly) and only had the last version for about 10 years, I think it's a waste of money they released this new version. There was nothing wrong with the old uniforms, IMHO.

"I do NOT like the new male FA jacket. All that white piping looks very nautical. I imagine a lot of (heterosexual) males will argue that it looks too dandy. (I'm saying this as a gay man--don't write me

As I recall, Air Canada had something similar on mainline International cabin crews about a decade ago.

But the piping was bright red and there was a vest and a red maple leaf on the right pocket flap.

This is to say it's been done before. It's not original.

But that's okay.

airportugal310 wrote:

Those "Aloha" shirts (no self respecting person living in Hawaii would call it a "Hawaiian" shirt, but I digress...) almost look Reyn Spooner like. Not bad really...

They look like Trader Joe's employees

ual763 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

Euch....UA really has no originality any more, do they? Just rip off DL and AS and hope you don't end up in a situation like AA.

I didn’t realize Delta and Alaska invented the colors purple & teal respectively.

No they did not invent the colors. But cohesive branding is a thing. Yes these are all “official” United colors, but when I’m in an airport and I see someone walk by in Purple, they are DL. Purple has become a part of DL’s brand. Ditto for teal and AS.

While these colors are officially United, they have nothing to do with United’s public image. Maybe they will five years from now. But right now nobody who doesn’t know UA said “these are now our official colors” would say Teal and Purple are United colors. Purple is a Delta color. Teal is AS/WS. Several of these uniforms contribute nothing to UA’s brand. An agent wearing teal will look out of place behind a United desk. Behind a WS desk, that same agent would look professional, put together, and contribute something to the image of the airline.

I like UA. They’re my second most flown airline as of late, but these colors have nothing to do with UAs public identity. To the public’s perception, these are DL, AS and WS colors, regardless of the fact that they are technically United colors.

QXAS wrote:

ual763 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

Euch....UA really has no originality any more, do they? Just rip off DL and AS and hope you don't end up in a situation like AA.

I didn’t realize Delta and Alaska invented the colors purple & teal respectively.

No they did not invent the colors. But cohesive branding is a thing. Yes these are all “official” United colors, but when I’m in an airport and I see someone walk by in Purple, they are DL. Purple has become a part of DL’s brand. Ditto for teal and AS.

While these colors are officially United, they have nothing to do with United’s public image. Maybe they will five years from now. But right now nobody who doesn’t know UA said “these are now our official colors” would say Teal and Purple are United colors. Purple is a Delta color. Teal is AS/WS. Several of these uniforms contribute nothing to UA’s brand. An agent wearing teal will look out of place behind a United desk. Behind a WS desk, that same agent would look professional, put together, and contribute something to the image of the airline.

I like UA. They’re my second most flown airline as of late, but these colors have nothing to do with UAs public identity. To the public’s perception, these are DL, AS and WS colors, regardless of the fact that they are technically United colors.

Ridiculous double standard. Did you have equal criticism of Delta when they introduced purple for the first time several years ago? Or when Qantas introduced fuscia? United appears to be the only carrier not allowed to adjust their corporate branding.

airzim wrote:

QXAS wrote:

ual763 wrote:

I didn’t realize Delta and Alaska invented the colors purple & teal respectively.

No they did not invent the colors. But cohesive branding is a thing. Yes these are all “official” United colors, but when I’m in an airport and I see someone walk by in Purple, they are DL. Purple has become a part of DL’s brand. Ditto for teal and AS.

While these colors are officially United, they have nothing to do with United’s public image. Maybe they will five years from now. But right now nobody who doesn’t know UA said “these are now our official colors” would say Teal and Purple are United colors. Purple is a Delta color. Teal is AS/WS. Several of these uniforms contribute nothing to UA’s brand. An agent wearing teal will look out of place behind a United desk. Behind a WS desk, that same agent would look professional, put together, and contribute something to the image of the airline.

I like UA. They’re my second most flown airline as of late, but these colors have nothing to do with UAs public identity. To the public’s perception, these are DL, AS and WS colors, regardless of the fact that they are technically United colors.

Ridiculous double standard. Did you have equal criticism of Delta when they introduced purple for the first time several years ago? Or when Qantas introduced fuscia? United appears to be the only carrier not allowed to adjust their corporate branding.

Again, the first major mover can do whatever they want. If Delta decided to paint a large semi-abstract American flag on their tail, they'd get similarly lambasted for copying American. If Alaska went with a heart for a logo, the same. If American put a globe on their tail, a.net would be losing its mind.

The whole point of branding is to differentiate and create an identity. This does the opposite.

QXAS wrote:

ual763 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

Euch....UA really has no originality any more, do they? Just rip off DL and AS and hope you don't end up in a situation like AA.

I didn’t realize Delta and Alaska invented the colors purple & teal respectively.

No they did not invent the colors. But cohesive branding is a thing. Yes these are all “official” United colors, but when I’m in an airport and I see someone walk by in Purple, they are DL. Purple has become a part of DL’s brand. Ditto for teal and AS.

While these colors are officially United, they have nothing to do with United’s public image. Maybe they will five years from now. But right now nobody who doesn’t know UA said “these are now our official colors” would say Teal and Purple are United colors. Purple is a Delta color. Teal is AS/WS. Several of these uniforms contribute nothing to UA’s brand. An agent wearing teal will look out of place behind a United desk. Behind a WS desk, that same agent would look professional, put together, and contribute something to the image of the airline.

I like UA. They’re my second most flown airline as of late, but these colors have nothing to do with UAs public identity. To the public’s perception, these are DL, AS and WS colors, regardless of the fact that they are technically United colors.

When Delta introduced their new uniforms (which was only last year) nobody, and I mean nobody, associated the colour purple (plum) with Delta's brand. It was totally left field. Your argument makes no sense, brands can adapt and evolve. At least at United their Premium Plus cabin is purple.

RyanairGuru wrote:

When Delta introduced their new uniforms (which was only last year) nobody, and I mean nobody, associated the colour purple (plum) with Delta's brand. It was totally left field. Your argument makes no sense, brands can adapt and evolve. At least at United their Premium Plus cabin is purple.

Exactly. When NK went with the bright yellow, it similarly was out of left field, but it became their identity.

If Delta went with yellow now, it would be akin to UA going purple. Too late.

airzim wrote:

Ridiculous double standard. Did you have equal criticism of Delta when they introduced purple for the first time several years ago? Or when Qantas introduced fuscia? United appears to be the only carrier not allowed to adjust their corporate branding.

The real problem is that there are too many colors. I see various shades of light and dark blue, gray, purple, maroon, teal.

RyanairGuru wrote:

When Delta introduced their new uniforms (which was only last year) nobody, and I mean nobody, associated the colour purple (plum) with Delta's brand. It was totally left field. Your argument makes no sense, brands can adapt and evolve. At least at United their Premium Plus cabin is purple.

You’re mixing marketing terms. Brand and branding are different.

Delta’s new uniforms, including Passport Plum, are consistent with the Delta brand. Otherwise the uniforms would not have been approved by the executive suite. To understand this, we’d need the help of Delta’s Marketing team. We’d also need to understand the target — which the vast majority of people on this forum are not.

The visual elements of branding support and reinforce the brand. Delta’s Passport Plum is inconsistent with the current color palette of Delta’s branding, blue and red. We don’t know to what degree the current palette will evolve or change. And we don’t know to what degree this even impacts the Delta brand.

airzim wrote:

QXAS wrote:

ual763 wrote:

I didn’t realize Delta and Alaska invented the colors purple & teal respectively.

No they did not invent the colors. But cohesive branding is a thing. Yes these are all “official” United colors, but when I’m in an airport and I see someone walk by in Purple, they are DL. Purple has become a part of DL’s brand. Ditto for teal and AS.

While these colors are officially United, they have nothing to do with United’s public image. Maybe they will five years from now. But right now nobody who doesn’t know UA said “these are now our official colors” would say Teal and Purple are United colors. Purple is a Delta color. Teal is AS/WS. Several of these uniforms contribute nothing to UA’s brand. An agent wearing teal will look out of place behind a United desk. Behind a WS desk, that same agent would look professional, put together, and contribute something to the image of the airline.

I like UA. They’re my second most flown airline as of late, but these colors have nothing to do with UAs public identity. To the public’s perception, these are DL, AS and WS colors, regardless of the fact that they are technically United colors.

Ridiculous double standard. Did you have equal criticism of Delta when they introduced purple for the first time several years ago? Or when Qantas introduced fuscia? United appears to be the only carrier not allowed to adjust their corporate branding.

Funny you should ask. I did have the same criticism of Delta. Brands are certainly allowed to change. But they should evolve rather than throw out something that looks exactly like what their competition did a couple of years ago.

Okcflyer wrote:

I guess my wife and I are the oddballs. We both like the new look and find it welcoming and relaxing.

Count me in that camp! I think they look very nice. Not too casual, not too stuffy.

The uniforms are ugly, and if that billowy sack blouse thing is allowed for all female FAs regardless of maternity status, you will see it a LOT because despite being very unprofessional and ugly, it will be the most comfortable. Kind of like Southwest allows those ugly shorts paired with a pull over shirt and sneakers and so that is what you see most their FAs wear.

Delta did a good job with their uniforms. The current UA uniform is just fine, and this new set is a serious downgrade and very unflattering on all those models.

Anyways, mark my words and be prepared to see half of all your female FAs on future UA flights wearing that fugly muumuu on a flight near you.

Most of the cabin crew uniforms look like they were designed by somebody that designs tents for a living.

Christian LaCroix needs to design the new UA uniforms... these images are absolutely hideous. How can someone take one of those flight attendants seriously in these clown costumes as they threaten to remove you from the aircraft for looking at a crew member cross-eyed? There is absolutely nothing elegant about these pieces. I need to grab some popcorn. What a joke.

I recently transited at MAN. I saw a bunch of FAs from different airlines passing by while I was waiting to board my flight, among them Cathay, Singapore, Thomson, Virgin. The FAs all looked very well groomed and well coiffed and their uniforms were distinct and stylish. Then came the UA FAs... Now, looking at these new uniforms, it certainly wouldn't help their image.

CobaltScar wrote:

The current UA uniform is just fine, and this new set is a serious downgrade and very unflattering on all those models.

The current uniform is made of the cheapest, thinnest material that Cintas could find to make it out of. There are maybe 2 or 3 pieces of the Customer Service uniform that are worth anything.

Now, color scheme wise, yes, it looks very nice. But an upgrade in material and styling was sorely needed.

United has started wear testing the new uniforms. These employees debuted the wear testing at LHR. Is it just me, or is this completely different looking than the ones revealed last week? These look eerily similar to Lufthansa. Especially that yellow scarf! But, it does look a million times better than the ones we saw at the beginning of this thread.

ual763 wrote:

Is it just me, or is this completely different looking than the ones revealed last week?

The initial (current) wear test is for fabric quality, fit and functionality. The proposed colors are not being tested at this time, rather these test pieces are meant to blend into the current uniform colors.

The plan is to have an additional wear test later in the year to reflect input from the current wear test and to include the proposed color scheme.

I fully expect there will be a few significant changes to what has been proposed, based on the vociferous reaction from the UA staff.

ual763 wrote:

United has started wear testing the new uniforms. These employees debuted the wear testing at LHR. Is it just me, or is this completely different looking than the ones revealed last week? These look eerily similar to Lufthansa. Especially that yellow scarf! But, it does look a million times better than the ones we saw at the beginning of this thread.

I actually think the female uniform looks nice in that shot. Is there any colour differences in the new uniform for premium services?

Male uniform looks too casual- what is American carriers obsessions with Cardigans, Sweaters and zip up vests? They look cheap and lack uniformity. Why not have professional suited items to layer for all climates. Outside the US these are far rare and only seen onboard during rest times.

I’d say ‘vociferous’ sums up the employee reaction quite nicely.

I can't understand the Yellow for maintenance is for unless it's just a signal color to identify the Maintenance supervisor. I once got into a heated argument once when I got verbally attacked by a flight attendant and a CSR for a missing food cart. They made a big deal of whatever they were having a Hissy fit about when the REAL ramp supervisor came up to tell them they had to replace the cart because the Brake was broken. Oh yeah, We were BOTH Black. I never HAD so many apoligies after the Captain came out of the cockpit to ask me about his airplane's Ground Proximity problem I was working on. The Vest seems a little much though..

OA412 wrote:

Overall they’re not bad, nothing groundbreaking, but also not awful, other than that FA blouse thing. That thing is hideous. I agree the color palette is sort of all over the place, which Amy point to a new livery.

Antarius wrote:

What the heck is this?

Seriously, what the hell is this? It appears to be some sort of blouse, and boy is it ugly!

looks more like the old continental uniform shocking