kellzbellz

Yes, it was relaxed, but not entirely done away with. This announcement ends a non-rev dress code completely.

formeraa

Wow, when I started at AA in the 90's, it was suit and tie in F and J (domestic and international). That was a bit tough when you were going to Hawaii. I remember several times waiting 4 hours at HNL in a suit and tie. Yes, people stared -- and it was uncomfortable.

OTOH, some people have no common sense in dressing. I agree with the shorts comment -- they don't clean those seats very often. I live in PHX and I would never wear shorts on a plane.

kb9522

There should be a dress code for revenue passengers as well... This is going in the wrong direction. Hopefully there is not a surge of (even more) inappropriately dressed passengers.

TWA884

From the most recent edition of the American Airlines Travel Guide:

DataPlumber

SpinOn2

As a former non-rev, about time. I am 100% ok with the still needing to be clean and appropriate, but I don't see what the point is treating them differently than anyone else. The goal for airlines with non-revs is to have them blend in so it's not insanely obvious who is who.

It's always been a crap shoot anyhow. On one of my last non-rev adventures in the day I was in international F, I had on a polo and dress pants, and they let another non-rev in F that had on shorts, sandals, and a tank-top. I personally don't care, but some GA's would almost faint if you showed up to non-rev in that.

Now the question is, are all GA's going to get the memo? Are we still going to have GA's that consider yoga pants a no-go, while 99% of other GA's consider them ok.

I'd say this is a nice move for AA for their employees, especially these days as seating becomes more uncomfortable and tighter year after year.

Dallas49er

I am old school on so many different levels.

Flying in the 50s, 60s, into the 70s one dressed up (Take look at the airport scenes at the end of "Bullitt". Look at how everyone is dressed).

In the mid 70s and on it got looser, probably as airfares got lower and deregulation (of the airlines). Greyhound died and their clients sprouted wings.

Most of my travel has been on business, even through this year, requiring a suit. Vacations were slacks, shirt, and jacket.

Sunday I fly back to CDG, in J. Now that I'm semi-retired, 75% of the time I wear, in Dallas, around the house and town, nice flaps (oxymoron?), nice shorts, and a nice un-golfed-in golf shirt. Sunday, you will find me in DFW in hard shoes, socks, slacks, a REALLY nice un golfed-in golf shirt, and a jacket.

I see nothing wrong with clear standards.

YMMV

aztimm

I'm very happy to see this too!!! ^

I think I've shared at some point, but I worked at the America West HQ for about 2 years in the early 2000s. I remember they had a special class to go through non-rev travel, how to book, how to manage, and what to do day of, etc. I had access to SHARES as part of my job, and my manager made sure all of us knew how to use it.

It was completely silly that we couldn't wear blue jeans if we wanted to get upgraded to F...but black, tan, or any other color was fine. And yes I invested in jeans that weren't blue.
I didn't so much mind the, "shirt with a collar," part as much.

While I did get to travel to some places that I probably wouldn't have, most notably ANC, in the end the benefit turned into not so much of a benefit at all. Crowded planes, when you did get on sitting in middle seats, and other things...all contributed fo me moving on.

Grog

SJOGuy

There's an old episode of The Andy Griffith Show. Aunt Bee and some friends go on a trip to Mexico. Andy and Opie don't go on the trip, but they both wear jacket and tie just to take her to the airport and see her off.

FlyingEgghead

Are these actually the same rules applied to revenue pax? The part specifying AA-provided pajamas seems odd. By specifying F, it ignores that pajamas are provided in J on HKG and SYD routes. Also, I did not think it would be a problem for revenue pax to wear non-AA pajamas, or AA pajamas that were not provided on that flight but saved from a previous flight.

FlyerTalker688786

I think a minimum requirement should be in force for intercontinental routes in premier cabins. Domestic should be totally free as premier seats are very difficult for non-rev. But for intercontinental routes, a minimum requirement should be there if you want to travel a premium cabin.

carlosdca

Based on this sentence on the referred text: I would safely assume those guidelines are for the non-revs, not for paying pax.

But I do find it odd too that the text seems to say that non-revs HAVE TO wear the AA provided PJs. My guess is that that's not what they were trying to say (it probably meant something like of course you can wear PJs on long haul flights with flat bed seats, and hey, BTW, AA provides you some nice ones, arn't we nice?)

And if anything, is the FA going to come and say "hey, don't wear your Minnie Mouse PJS, you have to change to the AA PJs or we will head back to the airport to deplane you"?

SpinOn2

I'd say odds of FA's caring will be about zero. They have more important things going on then paying attention to every non-rev.

It was not uncommon for me to get cleared in premium cabin wearing my nice clothes, and then once on-board hurrying into the bathroom and changing into a hoodie and jogger sweats. FA's never cared that I was not wearing business casual anymore, so I really doubt they would care now that the policy has been relaxed to be honest.

kb9522

Controversy regarding how passengers dress aside, it seems like a misguided decision. I view non-revs as representing the carrier assuming the cost for them to fly. I would not want my business to be represented by the clearance rack at Walmart. All this does is further damage the already deteriorating image of AA.