I heard from a couple of co-workers saying that it wasn't her outfit that was the problem, the problem was that she was wearing no underwear and it could be clearly seen.
During the television interview, the dress was tame while she was standing, but when she sat down there was a clear view to the crotch. I am also of the opinion that if she was really traumatized by this, she would have changed for the return trip.
Tell you what. Try boarding with a short Scottish kilt with the traditional undergarments: nothing underneath. Make sure someone notices, and get yourself kicked off the plane. Then sue Southwest for sex discrimination of one sort or another. Just be sure to exclude me from the jury.
People who set out to cause a disruption have no business complaining when they succeed. It used to be that such anti-social behavior was not rewarded in any way.
There was an Airline episode where a guy was stopped by WN in the waiting area. He had on revealing shorts and no underwear.
Why does WN need to win any PR battle? They say that any publicity is good publicity, and in this case, I don't see how WN is going to come out the loser. What, is it going to jeopardize its standing with the client base that is scantily clad exhibitionists?
Mark my word: there will be no lasting repercussions from this incident. Kyla Ebbert has got her moment in the sun, and soon she can retreat to a life of serving up inedible hot wings to leering men. Or move onto bigger and better pursuits such as . . . cough, cough . . . porn.
People will keep on flying WN. Maybe not while wearing nothing but a Wicked Weasel ensemble, but otherwise life will go on. And the notion of a lawsuit is a non-starter as it was from the day it was first conceived.
I'm fairly certain that WN will win in court (providing their lawyers know what they're doing).
However, the PR battle is important. How they handle themselves is very important. If people feel as though they are being profiled at the gate and onboard as to what they are waering, and I'm not talking about the terrorist liking type, people will start going else where to avoid the hassle. If it is less of a hassle to fly AA or UA or whomever at $50 or so more, they'll do it to avoid being hassled or the perception their of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorygrady
I dunno, but if we find out maybe we can have a SWA FT DO there..............
In the mean time, who's up for a FT Do? We'll do one each weekend 'til we find her.
Regardless of what people think of this girls dress attire, she was let through security, a SW gate agent let her into the jetway, and a SW flight attendant let her onto the aircraft (she probably also passed numerous LEOs as well). None of the above stopped her for inappropriate public dress. So, by default it would seem to me her dress attire is entirely appropriate and meets acceptable public standards.
There is no excuse (unless there was a behavioral problem that resulted in a "security threat") for a SW employee to have deplaned this girl or to have discussed the situation with her for others to hear.
TalkBoard Member/Moderator: Southwest and JetBlue forums
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, CO Lifetime Presidents Club
Posts: 9,246
I wonder whether the people who say that Southwest's customers are low-class are the same ones or different from the people who complain when Southwest requires a passenger to clean up his act in consideration of fellow passengers. Just wondering.
Regardless of what people think of this girls dress attire, she was let through security, a SW gate agent let her into the jetway, and a SW flight attendant let her onto the aircraft (she probably also passed numerous LEOs as well). None of the above stopped her for inappropriate public dress. So, by default it would seem to me her dress attire is entirely appropriate and meets acceptable public standards.
There is no excuse (unless there was a behavioral problem that resulted in a "security threat") for a SW employee to have deplaned this girl or to have discussed the situation with her for others to hear.
Ahhh - but perhaps your senario is a clue to what really happened. So she sits in her (asile?) seat and decides to give someone a Sharon Stone. She's likely capable of this, given her myspace pics. Her previously appropriate attire is now a real problem for many of the other passengers...
Like others, I've seen tramps/hookers in the gate areas and boarding Vegas flights on many occasions. Why would "Keith" suddenly start giving this woman a hard time when he's likely seen far worse in the past?
I'd like "Keith" to go on Today and tell Matt she was showing the goods. Now that would get the blogs going!
PS: we need to start a contest to guess how long before she's in Playboy...
PS: we need to start a contest to guess how long before she's in Playboy...
She should go for it...after watching the replay of her interview on "Today", it's pretty obivious the poor traumatized thing will have to maximize her earnings potential with her body (just like she is already doing), not her brains ( but then, she IS a waitress at Hooters). If she's got half a brain, she'll make as much as she can while she's young and has something to leverage.
...Why would "Keith" suddenly start giving this woman a hard time when he's likely seen far worse in the past?
PS: we need to start a contest to guess how long before she's in Playboy...
Who knows why he started giving her a hard time. Exert his authoritah. Jealousy. Genuine concern about the supposed other pax complaint. Whatever the case, it does not sound like he did it with any tact by chiding her within public view and earshot.
As far as Playboy, I say all the more power to her. To each his or her own; something the the complaining pax must not understand.
