So how do you feel about the reports that he forcibly shoved past the GA? Was that justified because the GA was just trying to enforce a PERSONAL OPINION on fashion? Because, of course, you seem to know for certain exactly what the airline's internal guidelines state.

Bart in his shorts; now there's a scary visual! :eek::p I need to bleach my mind with the following:

You haven't heard about the women getting kicked off of WN for revealing outfits? Even stranger considering this:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...7/337a547b.jpg




Gold watch, diamond ring,
I ain' missin'not a single thing.
And cufflinks, stick pin
When I step out I'm gonna do you in.
They come runnin' just as fast as they can
Coz' every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man

-ZZ Top

That "brief scuffle" injured a LEO.

Excuse me but we are not discussing that we ARE however talking about the fact that the GA wanted him to pull up his pants and it looks like he / she did a power trip item on him because of it. While we are at it when did you last see some FF Status junkie (and there are more out there than you would believe) push through and subsequenbtly get arrested?

INTERNAL guidelines - sorry you cannot apply guidelines to paying guests without telling them that you apply them and expect them to follow them.

You will get no argument from me that it may not be the most sensible fashion trend but it is a trend amongst a certain age group wether YOU like it or not and you most certainly cannot go about having people arrested for being a fashion victim - at least the last time I looked THAT wasn't illegal in the US yet!

Oh BUT YOU CAN BE arrested: http://www.masscops.com/f79/police-s...derwear-93572/

Fashion trends or not, wearing underwear in public is an offense in many places.

Regarding guidelines - I doubt US Airways has a specific guideline prohibiting a passenger from intentionally throwing up his lunch over his table tray and his seat, repeatedly and intentionally. But I can guarantee you that passenger would be asked to get off the plane, or be sequestered to an area away from other people in flight. Just because there's no "written" guideline does NOT MEAN YOU GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING YOU PLEASE.

I have already said it - this fad is not pretty or nice BUT to date IT IS NOT ILLEGAL so where are the grounds for arrest?

The other point is - as it isn't illegal that is one heck of a slippery slope. The next time a GA is having a bad day he / she might find your loosened and not correctly pulled up tie offensive and pull the same number on you.....

Just to proof a point I checked the majority of major airlines websites today and NOT ONE has ANY sort of indication they might have some sort of dress code. The only place they might say anything about clothing is in the segemnt about flight health where they suggest you wear loose and comfortable clothing.

[QUOTE=UALOneKPlus;16594452]Oh BUT YOU CAN BE arrested: http://www.masscops.com/f79/police-s...derwear-93572/

The way I understood it he wasn't wearing "skimpy underwear" of showing anything other than some material worn under another layer of material...... otherwise you would have to ban all skin tight outer wear too since that is too graphic...... back to the potatoe sacks it is...:D oh no maybe you would prefer another kind of full body cover currently in use in many Islamic countries...:(:td:

Story headline is "SKIMPY UNDERWEAR".

If a FA asked me to not show my underwear, I would immediately comply, understand this to be a reasonable request. In fact, if a FA or TSA asked me to show my underwear, I would be outraged.

The FA's on an airplane are akin to "mall guards". They are there for passenger's safety, since there are not cops in all planes at all times. They can enforce public decency issues like lewd dress.

Showing your full underwear is a lewd behavior. It is perfectly reasonable for the FA's to object, and escalate to official police. When the perp attempted to resist the police's efforts to get him off the plane, he got in more trouble. The FA's didn't get him in trouble, the perp's behavior got him in trouble.

FAA rules require passengers to comply with FA's requests. If a passenger fails to comply, he is breaking FAA rules and subject to penalties. If the perp though what he was doing was just, he should have STILL complied with the FA's request, and then sought remediation after landing, through the appropriate channels, by going to the press, filing a complain with US Airways, the FAA, hiring a lawer yet. The perp chose NONE of those options, instead choosing to ignore the FA's request, thus bringing the results on his po' self. (like my slang bro?)

Life is full of slippery slopes. This story, ain't one of them. It's an open and shut case. Show your underwear in public, get unwanted attention. End of story.

Trespassing and battery was the reason for arrest.

If you feel that way, you will have to write your elected representitives to change the law to suit your weird obsession/pet peeve.

1: When the TSA does it, they are forcing someone to show something against his or her will under color of law. I don't want people to see my underwear and don't dress so as to show it (despite your assumptions); I would be offended if the TSA were to force me to display it to them or others. What he did was voluntary; he doesn't care if people see his underwear and displays it (over your and the airline's objection). Can you not see the difference-- are you that blind in your zeal?

1: You keep saying we advocate it; I don't and I don't see that anyone else does. We just don't think it is illegal (it isn't) and I don't advocate delaying a planefull of people 90 minutes to deal with this.

If you google anti sagging laws, you will find that it is indeed illegal in several places and the number of those are increasing. In most cases, it has been made illegal by local ordinance with a small fine. It really doesn't matter in this case. He was not arrested because of his pants or under ware if he was he would have been charged with indecent exposure or something similar. He was arrested because the airline decided to refuse him service. He was told to remove himself from the airlines premises (the aircraft). He refused and the police were called. He was given the standard trespass warning and he still refused to leave. He was then placed under arrest and removed from the aircraft. In the course of being taken into custody and removed from the aircraft, it is reported that he resisted arrest.

FB

Firstly, it isn't illegal in that particular jurisdiction and secondly, you made my point about the fact that UALOKP should lobby if he wants to make it illegal in general. I was responding to the reduculuous notion that "[h]e should be labeled a sexual pervert, sexual predator, perhaps, exposing his underwear in public."

None of that is in dispute.

However the one thing that got this ball rolling seems to be the sagging pants. The GA insistance on him pulling up the pants and the fellows ingnoring the GA...... they turned this ant hill in to Mount Everst that culminated in the fellow getting arrested.... In my opinion someone should have taken a DEEP breath and called upon common sence before delaying a whole aircraft full of people for 90 min and in this particular case it should have been the guy with the most power - the Pilot!! THINK before you ACT.

Assault & battery for pushing past a GA!?! Come on have they learned nothing from the Mickey D case with the cup of coffee. Come Assault and battery is if he slugged the GA and in that case he would never have made the aircraft door never mind the seat without someone - probably fellow guest - ponce on him.

All I am suggesting is that a little bit of realism and common sence could have defused the whole event from the get go. Yes sure the youngster could have complied BUT the ONLY person who could esculated the whole event to such an extent was the GA - who should have let it go and be done with it. He / she (not sure) was however out to make a point at the cost of the airline and the other passengers.

Once again, the battery charge is a result of the LEO sustaining an injury.

Allegedly.