Yoshi212

https://nypost.com/2019/12/06/florid...flight-report/

Didn't know Satan worship was against the COC.

Tack

Nope. But that shirt is:

1. Dress appropriately; bare feet or offensive clothing aren’t allowed.

This reeks of someone looking for attention. And while I could give crap what another passenger wears, some will find it offensive. AA made the right choice. Like it or not, this is our world now.

OskiBear

No more or less offensive than any T-shirt proclaiming christian faith, which is regularly seen and evidently acceptable. Slippery slope if AA wants to engage in this sort of policing...

richarddd

AA apologized for making her change her t-shirt. These days everything is offensive to someone. If it's just words, unless they're curse words, fighting words or the like, they should have left her alone.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/new...irt/ar-BBXSrl6

Tack

Only a slippery slope because AA back tracked. What would you tell the mother of a 6 yr old girl when a guy sits next to them with a T-Shirt depicting a man and women having oral sex? Or to the family with small kids who had two 20 something girls going to Vegas dressed in clothes that revealed their breasts? Before retiring and starting my own company I worked for AS for 36 years. The above examples are all incidents that really occurred aboard my flights and in each case clothing changes were required for travel. What’s offensive? Lol, who knows? Neither of the above examples bugged me. But if you sell a service to the masses, at some point your company is going to have to weigh in on the acceptability of a persons behavior, wardrobe, language etc. AA made the right choice, then muddied the waters for themselves in the future.

upinsmoke

So you believe that a t-shirt saying "Praise Jesus" is offensive and AA should force anybody wearing it to change?

FlyingEgghead

Now? Are you suggesting there was a previous era when satanic worship was more accepted by the public?

Tack

Nope. Because it’s become part of acceptable norms in society. Is it fair? Nope. AA and really all airlines created this monster with the vague terms of their CoC. After the two examples I was involved in above. I spoke with our customer experience folks and suggested that they change the CoC verbiage to focus on safe footwear, clothing that covers what is traditionally private body parts and offensive smells. Admittedly still a slippery slope. After that? Don’t enforce anything else wardrobe related. If an offended customer doesn’t like the “Hail Satan”, “Praise Jesus” or “MAGA” T then try to reseat or offer them a different available flight. I do know that AS training has adopted the above. Maybe AA should too. Believe it or not I agree with you. The issue is with AA’s vague CoC that makes them have to determine what might cause offense and act. Based on their CoC the agent took an action that I can’t argue against.

Antarius

Nope. Someone at AA made a decision that corporate realized made no sense and rectified.

If AA wants to ban all religious wear, then sure, but this is an arbitrary line drawn by a front line employee purely based on their personal disagreement with the choice of words. What if the next FA is a atheist and asks someone to change their shirt with a religious saying?

Tack

nope. That there was an era when people in general didn’t wear or say things to provoke an emotion or reaction. This really has nothing to do with “Hail Satan” it could’ve easily been “Praise Jesus” or any other debated topic that offended.

No argument here. I’d suggest that AA needs to re-word their CoC because that same FA or agent is going to always interpret the vagueness of that statement using their own values., thus creating a debate. And like it or not, because of that they won’t be wrong in acting on AA’s behalf. Unless you believe that your values are correct and should apply to everyone? I mean no offense in that last line. Just pointing out how can we say anyone was wrong when it’s left up to a persons own personal values? My coffee is gone. Appreciate the debate. I respect what you’re saying. Safe travels!

davie355

I'd suggest AA change nothing. There are infinitely many ways to be an offensive passenger who deserves to be removed. The CoC can't possibly list all the ways. AA must be vague so that frontline agents are empowered to handle problems. Most frontline agents use appropriate judgment.

In this story, the agent made the wrong judgment call, but corporate made it right with a refund and apology.

This is going to happen over and over and it's just the normal course of business.

enviroian

Well in her defense she was traveling to sin city.

theshaun

If hail satan is offensive then so is this.

theshaun

When the article started of by indicating the woman was from Florida, I thought, always has to be a floridian. but not this time. I find nothing wrong with her shirt.

Tack

Did they make the wrong call? You say they did based on your values. Based on the vague CoC and that FA or agent’s values they believe they acted appropriately. I too would argue they made the right call if another customer complained and they relied on their values to make a decision. Even if I don’t align with their beliefs. But what we believe doesn’t matter. It’s what the company wants to represent to the consumer that counts.

The normal course of business is to provide employees with a clear road map on how to represent the company position. I like AA and in this instance I believe based on their poor CoC definition on what is offensive, both the employee and airline acted as they felt was right. Read the AS CoC’s. With the internal training to go along with the revision, detailing how the company interprets lewd, offensive etc. Staff has a much better tool to ensure company values are followed.

cheers!