LessO2

Personally, I remove my shoes when the double chime goes off for the electronics. I put them on at the double-chime on descent (or sooner), and if I go to the lav (or just walk up and down the aisle). Safety issue; I want to get the hell out of the plane fast enough in case we need to evacuate, and I do not want to be a hindrance.

As for the OP: now that's it's been exposed as an AA CoC, it really boils down to whether you want to complain about the source of this. In other words, are there bigger fish to fry? Also, is whether an FA's cited source (AA CoC or FAA) is really worth it to complain? Personally, I'd actually be a little happy that the FA is that rigid on safety. Again, boils down to whether you want to complain about the citation.

Don't know if the OP regularly gives feedback to AA (commendations or complaints), but another thing to remember is that you probably don't want to be seen as a chronic complainer (not accusing, just something to consider for big picture purposes).

MaximumSisu

+1

PhlyingRPh

I rather think it's other people that may perhaps have a problem with the barefoot thing. I do, if they are going to be lifted off the ground for any reason. A couple of years ago, I recall sitting in my seat working away on my computer when I felt something touching the back of my arm just above the elbow. I turned and it was the undersole of the right foot of the passenger sitting behind me, who had decided to put his feet up. Slight altercation ensued when I asked him to either move his feet or have them smashed with a laptop battery. But all ended well.

TXagogo

I think you and I should get together and discuss fluoroquinolone antibiotics LOL

Wally Bird

Word your complaint carefully. As others have posted AA (and other airlines) have a dress code and you can be ejected/denied for not following it.

If the FA did indeed quote a non-existent FAA regulation, that in itself is cause enough for complaint. But it happens all the time and I very much doubt that AA cares.

I'm not sure that the threat of being 'met' upon arrival is tantamount to a threat of arrest, unless that actual word was used. Interfering with a crew member in the execution of their duties is a FAR violation (121.580):I expect AA will simply cite this and imply that you 'misunderstood' the conversation, but were interfering as that can be interpreted to mean anything at all.

Do it anyway.

jbdk

Before AA starts enforcing (g) barefoot, can they first start enforcing (e) Have an offensive odor not caused by a disability or illness...

PhlyingRPh

yeah, and antifungal agents.

jbdk

No.. but as a business, they can refuse to transport you in the future.

Tizzette

I for one appreciate would appreciate the enforcement of decent standards of dress upon people who think it is fine to go barefoot, wear sweat shorts and wife beaters, and in general expose the rest of us to the lowest common denominator. Sitting beside bare feet and armpits is unpleasant. If you are coming from Africa and have never worn shoes, that is one thing (and I know refugees who have arrived in my city that way).
But some barefoot clown showing off his personal style? Check that.

TXagogo

I disagree - even after recently suffering on a AA regional jet with an extremely pungent body odor, I believe there is WAY too much room for an airline to get itself into an unenforceable debacle that would turn into a PR nightmare.

As much as I would love to not have to deal with seeing what I see on airplanes, I do recognize that it is "public" transportation being run by a private company. If someone's dress offends me I just pull out my book or put on a movie. If an airline decided to chastise me for my choice of clothing it would be the last time they would ever get my business again.

There are some roads one should just not go down.

bocastephen

Wow, adding a barefoot clause to the CoC? That is pretty odd. Somehow I think the point of that clause was to prevent customers from flying who are boarding the aircraft without shoes - not those who board with shoes and then remove them during flight.

The FA was being a b**** and needs to be reported nonetheless.

djjaguar64

I would be very careful to walk into the loo without shoes as once I saw a piece of poo on the w/c floor on an airplane wich was no easily visible. You must have been really luck so far.

PhlyingRPh

It is a society we live in after all, and one way to look at it (albeit not a very appealing view), is that if one is going to use public transportation, one is occasionally going to be pressed up against someone with different standards of personal hygiene - nothing that can't be cured with a polite chat of course, or in my case a blunt threat.

Tizzette

I too sat by somebody with extreme body odor recently, on a transatlantic flight. Just grinned and beared it, don't see what what the airlines could or should do about body odor.

But I do not understand why you see requiring passengers to wear shoes and sleeves as an infringement on personal liberty. There is plenty of room for
personal choice in what to wear within that minimum standard of decency.
Don't see how flight attendants could abuse that, since you either have on shoes and sleeves or you don't.

cardiomd

+100. I can't understand somebody getting in a pissing match around putting shoes on?? It is for your own good. If somebody takes off their shoes, puts their bare feet on the floor, I don't think ANYBODY would have a problem with it. Go ahead, that is fine. However, it sounds like the offender was walking around extensively without shoes and became annoyed when somebody corrected them and wants to complain?

Companies and society makes broad rules for the safety of everybody, including the offender. I see many, many, many feet with open ulcers, with active (contagious) infections, bacteria and fungus, or slight release of blood. Making a blanket rule protects us all from having to walk in slightly bloody carpets, or making the carpet more of a cesspool of bacteria.

If the rule isn't there, then it would have to be MORE of a case-by-case which is potentially more offensive, TXagogo. I mean, there are some feet I could show you, and that I see every day in clinical practice, that you would always want covered, and I would say is medically necessary to be covered. 99% of people would agree with those feet. The feet of the 19 year old college female volleyball team might not be like that.

However, rather than turn FA's into foot inspection patrol, they make a blanket rule. I agree with it. The vast majority of reasonable people agree with it.

Don't waste your energy on stupid battles like that (whether AA or FAA), but concentrate on important, actual civil liberties, such as the body scanners.

I would agree with you if the FA said you had to put on a long sleeve shirt, etc. But, this simply is not the case, and to compare the two is nonsensical hyperbole.