Why does it seem that only US carriers have trouble with fabrics (i.e. rashes, irritation etc.). I can't think of any non-US carrier who had to bin their uniforms for this reason, yet it's happened to all of the majors in the US? Does fabric get more 'treated' there?

I totally agree with the comments re: basic grooming and presentation standards. Customer facing employees should realise that a polished appearance adds value to their brand/makes the brand as a whole look more upmarket etc. Looking like you just rolled out of bed cheapens the brand your representing.

Noshow wrote:

I think flight crew uniforms are especially demanding. People wear them for very long workdays in all sorts of climates, need to move in tight quarters, sometimes sleep in them and work on "machinery" like galley carts, doors and such. What you need for this is good robust fabric, like wool or good cotton qualities, to make you feel comfortable. And some smart cut that lets you look sharp even with some pressurization inflicted air inflated body and similar. Uniforms need to fit people with average Joe silhouettes, not only model sized ones.
Instead, airlines love to pick cheapo plastic in short-lived fancy colours not made for the job by people that don't understand the real world requirements. So they buy two times.

So US carriers are perhaps choosing cheaper materials compared to their non-US counterparts. As a former cabin crew formiddle east and EU carriers, I never ever heard anyone complain about irritation issues with the uniform now did they complain about not being able to do their job because of the fit of uniform. And we all wore exactly the same pieces, there wasn't a 50 piece wardrobe to choose from like you see with some airlines. It actually was a uniform

Purple and Grey uniforms with jets that have red white and blue livery and interiors. Purple just let that sink in a moment.

DL757NYC wrote:

Purple and Grey uniforms with jets that have red white and blue livery and interiors. Purple just let that sink in a moment.

Red + blue = purple.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

UPlog wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

Legally prohibited.

I would love to see what the people behind these keyboards look like as they are judging these employees.

I'd venture to guess that many don't have customer-facing jobs where that matters. Stick to the subject.

socalflyer00 wrote:

Furthermore, the product is wildly inconsistent right now. Multiple different first class seat products and multiple D1 seat products. Different entertainment products varying by aircraft type. These inconsistencies didn’t exist a decade ago, or at least were less noticeable.

Bolded for emphasis

I would argue to you that the inconsistency was worse a long time ago. There used to be about 10 different 757-200 seat configurations after the merger, now it's down to 3 and will eventually be 2.

I do agree there is more that could be done with consistency such as the 738s. But that kind of change can't happen overnight and DL won't be updating the F product on the 739s/321ceo that have been delivered in the last 7ish years to what the 321neo has.

EK770 wrote:

Why does it seem that only US carriers have trouble with fabrics (i.e. rashes, irritation etc.). I can't think of any non-US carrier who had to bin their uniforms for this reason, yet it's happened to all of the majors in the US? Does fabric get more 'treated' there?

Had any party presented 3rd party testing, or just anecdotes? Without testing it's subjective. You can't design fabrices and dies to subjective standards. Subjective standards in physical goods are no standards at all.

sxf24 wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

Purple and Grey uniforms with jets that have red white and blue livery and interiors. Purple just let that sink in a moment.

Red + blue = purple.

Plus, when everyone is seated you don’t notice the color of the seats, just the sidewalls, bins and maybe carpet.

EK770 wrote:

Why does it seem that only US carriers have trouble with fabrics (i.e. rashes, irritation etc.). I can't think of any non-US carrier who had to bin their uniforms for this reason, yet it's happened to all of the majors in the US? Does fabric get more 'treated' there?

I totally agree with the comments re: basic grooming and presentation standards. Customer facing employees should realise that a polished appearance adds value to their brand/makes the brand as a whole look more upmarket etc. Looking like you just rolled out of bed cheapens the brand your representing.

I’m sure that at some foreign carriers if you complain you’re gone.

Who designs uniforms for EK, AF, AZ, QR and even SU? What fabrics do they use? Do their flight attendants gripe and bellyache about uniforms like the US carriers? Their flight attendants work harder than US attendants and maintain a professional look. Is part of the problem that US airlines insist on cheap wash-n-wear fabrics sourced from the absolutely cheapest bidder instead of a quality wool/cotton blend? Grey is bland color and lacks imagination and doesn't convey a premium brand image.

Good riddance.

Who really cares about uniforms, just be sure flights run on time, planes are safe, well maintained so there are not delays or cancellations. The flight attendants and pilots just need comfortable practical uniforms.

The Purple was aweful. I've seen the "grey" on some flight attendants. If matched with color, it works. But, the fact is - the clothes make the person (as noted as far back as 1915). Yes, there need to be grooming standards and uniform standards. You are representing the company, not your hobby time. That said - I do care more for service than the uniform. But people representing the company should project a professional, positive, brand forward uniform.

Prost wrote:

EK770 wrote:

Why does it seem that only US carriers have trouble with fabrics (i.e. rashes, irritation etc.). I can't think of any non-US carrier who had to bin their uniforms for this reason, yet it's happened to all of the majors in the US? Does fabric get more 'treated' there?

I totally agree with the comments re: basic grooming and presentation standards. Customer facing employees should realise that a polished appearance adds value to their brand/makes the brand as a whole look more upmarket etc. Looking like you just rolled out of bed cheapens the brand your representing.

I’m sure that at some foreign carriers if you complain you’re gone.

Yes maybe for SQ, GA, QR.

Pretty sure that’s not the case for QF, VA, VS, LH, AF, where I would argue labour laws are equally if not more protective of employee rights than the US. Well presented crew, well balanced uniforms, and haven’t heard of any rashes. My QF and VA uniforms never gave me any issues, but then neither did my old EK - my QR one was very hot, but just removed the jacket and was fine.

Actually loved my old QF uniform. Was always happy to be well groomed at work, and was clearly part of the job brief so was never a surprise.

FF630 wrote:

Who really cares about uniforms, just be sure flights run on time, planes are safe, well maintained so there are not delays or cancellations. The flight attendants and pilots just need comfortable practical uniforms.

If you had to wear it and there is only one choice that you hated, you would care about it.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

UPlog wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

Legally prohibited.

Nothing stops an employer from having and enforcing uniform dress standards.

Look to other industries be it hotels, or high-end retail, and they manage sharp looking customer facing staff.

I'd agree that appearances matter and sadly too many airline employees look as if they just woke up in their clothes.

I would love to see what the people behind these keyboards look like as they are judging these employees.

To be fair, I would have to agree with UPlog (in my Oxford, tie and khakis).

Jokes aside, my mom is a flight attendant of more than 20 years. She was with AA for only 5 months due to 9/11, but they had very strict standards for their uniforms and especially women's hair, which had to be out of the way; she wore it in a low bun. She's with WN now as of March 2002, and while I've seen standards loosen over time, you see a clear dichotomy in the appearances of some of these crew members. Part of the old guard, she's still more traditional in her presentation. Meanwhile, I saw much newer WN flight attendant last August in a dull green wig checking into a Manhattan hotel. And I had an Avelo steward with an ear tattoo.

As for DL, the purple itself never made a whole lot of sense to me. So visually, I welcome the grey and whatever accents come with it.

My neighbor is a DL FA. There is a problem with the purple uniforms that is making some flights attendants sick. Problem seems to be with the fabric. It is synthetic (wash-n-wear) with some kind of stain resistant repellant that may be causing the reaction. No idea where fabric was made.

cv5880 wrote:

My neighbor is a DL FA. There is a problem with the purple uniforms that is making some flights attendants sick. Problem seems to be with the fabric. It is synthetic (wash-n-wear) with some kind of stain resistant repellant that may be causing the reaction. No idea where fabric was made.

Speaking for WN, their uniforms are made from recycled plastics. Staff are still getting sick years after introduction.

jjlucash wrote:

cv5880 wrote:

My neighbor is a DL FA. There is a problem with the purple uniforms that is making some flights attendants sick. Problem seems to be with the fabric. It is synthetic (wash-n-wear) with some kind of stain resistant repellant that may be causing the reaction. No idea where fabric was made.

Speaking for WN, their uniforms are made from recycled plastics. Staff are still getting sick years after introduction.

Only a few of the pieces contained upcycled plastic/polyester blend (shorts and pants) - everything else is plastic free. rPET is actually used in a lot of garments outside the uniform industry and it typically doesn't cause any issues for most people that wouldn't have an issue with normal polyester.

cv5880 wrote:

Who designs uniforms for EK, AF, AZ, QR and even SU? What fabrics do they use? Do their flight attendants gripe and bellyache about uniforms like the US carriers? Their flight attendants work harder than US attendants and maintain a professional look. Is part of the problem that US airlines insist on cheap wash-n-wear fabrics sourced from the absolutely cheapest bidder instead of a quality wool/cotton blend? Grey is bland color and lacks imagination and doesn't convey a premium brand image.

It doesn't seem to be isolated to any particular fabric source or manufacturer (they've all had their issues) - but it almost always involves a synthetic fabric that has been treated with either an abrasion-resistance or flame-resistance coating that some people have reactions to.

MIflyer12 wrote:

nbc7 wrote:

Wednesdayite wrote:

I’ve noticed and cared when FA’s have been pleasant and/or helpful.

I’ve noticed and cared when FA’s have been rude and/or unhelpful.

I’ve never once noticed, nor cared about, what an FA is wearing or looks like.

Oh come on, looks do matter. If the flight attendants look good and put together then the airline feels professional and they're more likely to act that way too.

emphasis mine

Those arguments lost out in the mid-90s, when people recognized they were outdated. There's no objective proof. Business casual won out. Grumpy old white guys demanding suits in the office are just dinosaurs - and the asteroid already has struck.

There can be uniform standards, yes, but grooming standards can't be rigid in a multi-racial/multi-cultural world.

But that's because business casual often does look better, and thus helps people feel more confident, than over-the-top suits (men) and excessive makeup (women). It doesn't mean people can show up looking as frumpy as they want and expect to be taken seriously.

TonyClifton wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

New uniforms unfortunately wont do anything so long as appearance standards are so low. Too many employees just look so sloppy, and not sharp and crisp as intended.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of grooming and dress standards with so many looking disheveled. Appearance matters and seeing poorly presented employees reflects poorly on the brand.

I remember when working for a foreign carrier we had daily supervisory verification for all frontline employees ensuring uniforms were worn as intended and everything from nails to hair was within grooming standards.

Legally prohibited.

There aren't any laws prohibiting a business from having appearance standards. The changes have come from activist pressures and appeasing a very loud minority. That's how we've arrived at gender-neutral grooming and clothing standards.

nbc7 wrote:

It doesn't mean people can show up looking as frumpy as they want and expect to be taken seriously.

(Not) taken seriously by whom in particular?

The Delta all red uniforms i sometimes saw look like a walking billboard or sandwich board for Campbells Tomato Soup.

Vicenza wrote:

nbc7 wrote:

It doesn't mean people can show up looking as frumpy as they want and expect to be taken seriously.

(Not) taken seriously by whom in particular?

Customers. If you rock up to work looking like you’ve slept in your uniform and haven’t taken care of your appearance, it’s not a stretch for a lot of customers to think that you won’t put any effort to take care of them.

There often seems to be a defensive stance taken by some online in discussions (almost always from Americans) that any debate around grooming standards must mean the poster is sexist, ageist, ableist etc.

To me though, the debate is absolutely not about only wanting to be served by young, attractive employees in figure hugging uniforms. It’s about asking why North American airlines cannot manage uniform standards and grooming. Most European airlines - that have similar labour laws and collective bargaining agreements - prove that you can be older, have any manner of gender expression and any body shape/size and still take care of your uniform garments, comply with grooming (hair, nails, make up) standards and generally not look like you’ve been dragged through a hedge.

Why not create uniforms that are comfortable and smart to wear so that people want to wear them properly and have some pride in their appearance and their job?

TonyClifton wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

New uniforms unfortunately wont do anything so long as appearance standards are so low. Too many employees just look so sloppy, and not sharp and crisp as intended.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of grooming and dress standards with so many looking disheveled. Appearance matters and seeing poorly presented employees reflects poorly on the brand.

I remember when working for a foreign carrier we had daily supervisory verification for all frontline employees ensuring uniforms were worn as intended and everything from nails to hair was within grooming standards.

Legally prohibited.

DL has extensive written style/appearance standards for each employee group.

NWAESC wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

New uniforms unfortunately wont do anything so long as appearance standards are so low. Too many employees just look so sloppy, and not sharp and crisp as intended.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of grooming and dress standards with so many looking disheveled. Appearance matters and seeing poorly presented employees reflects poorly on the brand.

I remember when working for a foreign carrier we had daily supervisory verification for all frontline employees ensuring uniforms were worn as intended and everything from nails to hair was within grooming standards.

Legally prohibited.

DL has extensive written style/appearance standards for each employee group.

However they don’t seem to really be enforced by anyone

findingnema wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

nbc7 wrote:

It doesn't mean people can show up looking as frumpy as they want and expect to be taken seriously.

(Not) taken seriously by whom in particular?

Customers. If you rock up to work looking like you’ve slept in your uniform and haven’t taken care of your appearance, it’s not a stretch for a lot of customers to think that you won’t put any effort to take care of them.

There often seems to be a defensive stance taken by some online in discussions (almost always from Americans) that any debate around grooming standards must mean the poster is sexist, ageist, ableist etc.

To me though, the debate is absolutely not about only wanting to be served by young, attractive employees in figure hugging uniforms. It’s about asking why North American airlines cannot manage uniform standards and grooming. Most European airlines - that have similar labour laws and collective bargaining agreements - prove that you can be older, have any manner of gender expression and any body shape/size and still take care of your uniform garments, comply with grooming (hair, nails, make up) standards and generally not look like you’ve been dragged through a hedge.

Why not create uniforms that are comfortable and smart to wear so that people want to wear them properly and have some pride in their appearance and their job?

I'm American and completely agree with you. Dress to impress - I notice when people show up to work looking like a slob and it's not appealing as a customer. Take pride in how you look and groom. I know, people have lost concept what it means to dress well and appropriate for the task/job at hand and customer service as generally declined along with it.

findingnema wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

nbc7 wrote:

It doesn't mean people can show up looking as frumpy as they want and expect to be taken seriously.

(Not) taken seriously by whom in particular?

Customers. If you rock up to work looking like you’ve slept in your uniform and haven’t taken care of your appearance, it’s not a stretch for a lot of customers to think that you won’t put any effort to take care of them.

There often seems to be a defensive stance taken by some online in discussions (almost always from Americans) that any debate around grooming standards must mean the poster is sexist, ageist, ableist etc.

To me though, the debate is absolutely not about only wanting to be served by young, attractive employees in figure hugging uniforms. It’s about asking why North American airlines cannot manage uniform standards and grooming. Most European airlines - that have similar labour laws and collective bargaining agreements - prove that you can be older, have any manner of gender expression and any body shape/size and still take care of your uniform garments, comply with grooming (hair, nails, make up) standards and generally not look like you’ve been dragged through a hedge.

Why not create uniforms that are comfortable and smart to wear so that people want to wear them properly and have some pride in their appearance and their job?

One reason there seems to be better standards with European uniforms is most airlines have a single choice, perhaps the exception of pants or skirt for women. When you have a single garment, it is easier to enforce standards. US employees want choices and would like many uniform pieces to choose from.

findingnema wrote:

To me though, the debate is absolutely not about only wanting to be served by young, attractive employees in figure hugging uniforms. It’s about asking why North American airlines cannot manage uniform standards and grooming. Most European airlines - that have similar labour laws and collective bargaining agreements - prove that you can be older, have any manner of gender expression and any body shape/size and still take care of your uniform garments, comply with grooming (hair, nails, make up) standards and generally not look like you’ve been dragged through a hedge.

You (and many others) don't seem familiar with relevant U.S. law. It's near-impossible to enforce facial hair standards, for example, because Black American male facial hair often doesn't tolerate close/frequent shaving. Black hairstyles can be considered a cultural expression. Certain grooming standards are just a no-go. Even the U.S. military gets this, as conservative as it is. The Army has religious exemptions for beards.

There can't be age discrimination, so forget about having every FA be 20-35 year-old eye candy.

Michigan (as one state) prohibits discrimination based on weight, so uniforms need to be available in considerable a range of sizes. Declare all female FAs must maintain a 'healthy weight', defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a Body Mass Index under 25, and you'll have a lawsuit in a week.

5'6" (167.6cm) 155 pounds (70.3Kg) for a female gives a BMI of 25.

One difference between US and European flight uniforms may be the choice of fabric. If you look at pictures of BA flight attendants their uniforms appear to be wool blend fabric which would require dry cleaning. US carriers on the other hand are made of man made material and are treated with stain resistant chemicals so they can be washed at home. US employees don't want want to have to spend the money to have their uniforms dry cleaned. In my opinion a wool blend just looks nicer and has a more tailored look. US carriers uniforms look like crap you would order off Amazon sourced who knows where. Combine this with the US labor laws and that is why US carriers employees look so poorly groomed and act so crudely. Americans just don't care how they look or act and new FA's don't have the same pride in their appearance and job as the older FA's who left (for whatever reason) because of Covid. All part of the race to the bottom.

MIflyer12 wrote:

You (and many others) don't seem familiar with relevant U.S. law. It's near-impossible to enforce facial hair standards, for example, because Black American male facial hair often doesn't tolerate close/frequent shaving. Black hairstyles can be considered a cultural expression. Certain grooming standards are just a no-go. Even the U.S. military gets this, as conservative as it is. The Army has religious exemptions for beards.

There can't be age discrimination, so forget about having every FA be 20-35 year-old eye candy.

This is fairly similar though to much of Europe. Legislation, quite rightly, does not allow discrimination, harassment or victimisation based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, or, sexual orientation. Here, companies - usually guided by trade unions, employee affinity groups and workers councils - work together on these topics. As a result, there are still strict grooming standards (particularly - but not limited - for cabin crew, as this also ensures adherence with food safety laws), but they remain sensitive to the varied characteristics of the workforce. You therefore see employees of all backgrounds (ages, races, shapes and sizes) working for European airlines but they still look broadly well groomed and uniform when walking as a crew through an airport.

I think Americans in general just tend to be a sloppier lot. And since individualism is such a deeply cherished value in the US, getting people to actually adhere to strict uniform standards is going to be a lot harder than in many parts of the world.

In my experience, Hawaiian Airlines has always been quite strict with grooming and appearance. Most of their crews look similarly styled to publicity shots down to the flowers in their hair.
-Aloha

aloha73g wrote:

In my experience, Hawaiian Airlines has always been quite strict with grooming and appearance. Most of their crews look similarly styled to publicity shots down to the flowers in their hair.
-Aloha

Exactly and I’ve seen Hawaiian airlines crew with facial hair, and culturally inclusive hair - all neat! Variety of shoe styles that probably wouldn’t be acceptable in Australia or the EU - but much well out together

The suggestion of fabrics is an interesting one from an appearance perspective and also toxins as never heard of rashes outside US.

I think garments are also different- cardigans/sweaters are not acceptable out wear in Australia, they can only be worn inflight. Where as US this is normal.

We allow and encourage all culturaL and gender expression in AU - and balance neat appearance. I would agree however it’s a higher focus/need for individualism in US culture that drives the differences in grooming standards.

The current uniforms were a fiasco for a number of reasons.

However, there is more to this.

Uniforms are just one element of branding.

Look for other “strategic evolutions.”

gaystudpilot wrote:

The current uniforms were a fiasco for a number of reasons.

However, there is more to this.

Uniforms are just one element of branding.

Look for other “strategic evolutions.”

Could this be a new livery? I think Delta desperately needs it. Please, no more Euro White!

dca1 wrote:

gaystudpilot wrote:

The current uniforms were a fiasco for a number of reasons.

However, there is more to this.

Uniforms are just one element of branding.

Look for other “strategic evolutions.”

Could this be a new livery? I think Delta desperately needs it. Please, no more Euro White!

If there is a livery adjustment I would expect it to be more EuroWhite than the current livery, which is closer to being a EuroCream color.

Polot wrote:

dca1 wrote:

gaystudpilot wrote:

The current uniforms were a fiasco for a number of reasons.

However, there is more to this.

Uniforms are just one element of branding.

Look for other “strategic evolutions.”

Could this be a new livery? I think Delta desperately needs it. Please, no more Euro White!

If there is a livery adjustment I would expect it to be more EuroWhite than the current livery, which is closer to being a EuroCream color.

HA! You are spot on on the EuroCream... but it would be nice to see more done on the fuselage like an elegant cheat line etc.

I believe the only changes DL will make to the livery will be subtle. I.e. adding the brand name to the belly. Maybe adding a fleetwide widget to the sharklets akin to the A350.

This thread is about DL’s new uniforms, not a new or refreshed livery.

I wish they would go back to the previous uniforms. I thought the Blue with accents (Silver, gold red) looked sharp. And the colors matched the DL colors, which made some sense.

I've never thought the purple looked good. I also hope they avoid light blue (like UA went to).

I agree the preference to wash/wear makes a difference. And given that you're in uniform a long time each day, you can understand why people want to be comfortable.

FWIW, I have never seen a sloppy looking or ungroomed FA on DL. While the color choices aren't the most flattering for all, I've never seen anyone look wrinkled or unkept (except at the end of an overnight flight, and honestly, no one looks good at that point).