The question is then of how thin skinned a business can be and of how this relates to the overall culture of the country the business comes from. The further question is then whether the thin skin comes from a deserved or undeserved inferiority complex, a cultural tendency of extremism or a hysterical fear of terrorism caused by cultural and geographical isolation and lack of education.

Finally, the question is whether said business is still a private business if it fulfills a privatized public transport function with no true, real public alternatives but bailed out from bankruptcy with public money.

If somebody wants to make a fool of himself in a privately owned restaurant or car dealership, give him/her the boot. No problem. An airline is a different deal.

Too much arbitrary power in the hands of uniformed people with little training and below average education (not true for all flight attendants and gate agents but there is a reason they aren't university professors or scientists) is a dangerous thing.

I would have taken strictly zero offense with the cleavage and none with the t-shirt. The young man with the pants at his knees, well that's how he likes to look. His loss. Not my business. As long as their genitals aren't showing and they don't stink (this includes stinky feet in open shoes of otherwise respectably dressed pax), they should be able to fly.

But here an FA probably felt disadvantaged in terms of cleavage and a pilot, to whom this must have been reported, acquiesced probably to the fears of those beneath him to keep the calm in the case of the t-shirt. However, there are no rules on the book and too much discretion is given to people with too little intelligence to decide these matters in a discretionary manner.

Same goes for TSA.

Till