YouTube video from on board the aircraft:

Deshon Marman on US Airways flight 488, 6/15/11

Unfortunately, I am having trouble with the sound and video on my computer and am unable to figure out the problem right now. Would anybody be so kind as to give a brief synopsis of the youtube video? In exchange, here is a link (courtesy of the USAir thread on this) to an interesting slate article about this. TIA

http://www.slate.com/id/2297293/
(If the link doesn't work, the one on page 5 of the USAir thread does!)

Today's San Francisco Chronicle has a new story covering what transpired in the video. This is both text and the video.
Video: Sagging pants debate aboard Flight 488

Usually, incidents like this apply to airline employees flying non-rev or airline employee applicants flying at the airline's expense. I remember one such incident when a checked bag had to be pulled and re-screened by us. This is a rare instance because once the bag is screened and handed over to the airlines, it doesn't get pulled. But what happened is that the passenger was an airline employee flying non-rev, and she was wearing a halter top. It wasn't anything out of the ordinary. By that, I mean that is was no different than any of the other women who wore halter tops. (She wasn't busty, and it wasn't revealing.) However, it was not in keeping with that particular airline's image, so she was refused entry at the gate by the gate agent, so they had her go back to the ticket counter where she could retrieve a sweater from her checked luggage, and we re-screened the bag.

fyi WN has done this and I have no issues with it.

And for comparative purposes, this guy had his pants down to his thigh, with most of his skin tight underwear showing. If a woman came on board with most of her bra showing, you bet she would be thrown off the plane. Color would be irrelevant.

Those who think this is a racial issue must be trolling.

Thank you for posting; very interesting, particularly since it gives a version of the story as told by a presumably disinterested third-party.

Re Bart's comments ("Usually, incidents like this apply to airline employees flying non-rev or airline employee applicants flying at the airline's expense."), I thought I read somewhere that many (all? some?) airlines have explicit policies about what non-revs and employees can wear when traveling. If so, I think for a number of reasons that is a different situation, not least of all because the airline is paying and specifies clearly up-front what is permitted.

The only reason I posted that is, from my perspective, the only incidents I know of people being refused at the gate because of what they were wearing is with non-rev travelers. I don't know of any incidents that involved non-employee passengers. And, as I commented, this was for clothing that was perhaps more modest than what I've seen other passengers wear.

However, as pointed out by PTravel and others, the situation changed once the individual refused to follow instructions by airline personnel. At that point, it was criminal trespass. Technicality, I know, but a very important distinction in this discussion.

I prefer option 3: people recognize what appropriate dress is, and come to the flight dressed appropriately.

If someone comes to the flight with sagging pants, there is a potential for that person to be disruptive on the flight. I do not want the safety of my flight to be compromised because of this.

Wearing sagging pants is indicative of an anti-social behavior. I do not want an anti-social idiot on my flight who may cause harm to me or others.

Wearing sagging pants signals that you do not care about society, others, the common rules of courtesy, and that you're either entirely self-absorbed, or you're trying to send an anarchist signal. Those are red flags in security.

Sagging pants became fashionable in prison ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagging_(fashion) ) I do not want someone who takes fashion cues from prisoners to be on a flight with me. If someone wants to dress like prisoners / gangsters, then they should perhaps consider living in a prison.

Their airplane....their rules. They told him to do something so he would be able to fly....he opted to be a butthole....and got treated as such.....

Once again, the kid is a NCAA Student Athlete......he should know better. He'd never be allowed to fly like that when he was flying with the team.... Just because he's flying alone he thinks he can dress like an idiot...?

I don't buy it.....at all.....and hope they not only charge him....but ban him from the airline.....

Exactly right.

This was a private business, enforcing private rules.

Let me see if I have this figured out right: if I'm at home sitting around in my boxer shorts, and someone rings the doorbell, I should put on a pair of pants so that I avoid an embarrassing situation. However, if I put on those pants and hike them up so that most of my boxers are exposed, then I'm just being fashionable?

Slippery slope alert, although I personally agree with the sentiment in the post...a Beatles haircut.....a Beatles haircut.....a Beatles haircut.....The Beatles haircut.....England.....English rock stars.....English rock stars...... England

LOL I fail to see how a Beatles haircut = showing your underwear that originated in prisons... but ok.

So anyone who disagrees with you must be trolling? It must be nice up there.

And you are aware that there is some past history with US and alleged racism? Particularly at PHL.

At the time, Elvis' pelvis, Beatles haircuts, "the pill", rock'n'roll, bralessness, and hot rods were all claimed to be catalysts for the End Of Civilization As We Know It. And only those anarchist young folks were fans.

This fad too, shall pass. Faster if not a big deal is made over it. He's never going to get a job wearing that.