I stumbled upon this article this morning (if it has already been covered please merge with the appropriate thread) and thought it was worth sharing, as there have been several similar accounts with airlines as well as security staff lately.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48793461.../#.UDt9RdZlSjM

As much as I am an avid supporter of dress codes and being appropriately dressed, showing cleavage as described in the article, or wearing a t-shirt with a statement (whether you agree with it or not) should not be a reason to be denied to board a plane. I am just as annoyed as anyone at people being dressed inappropriately or sloppily on planes, but when it comes down to it that is, in my opinion, a decision that's up to the individual. No shoes-no shirt-no service? Reasonable. Wrong shirt, no service? Come on now, people are trying to get places, not enter a country club. What's next, dress codes on the subway to work? What do you guys think?

I've learned to have a healthy skepticism for stories like this.

Odds are it was their attitude that was equally weighted when deciding to deny boarding.

Airlines are private businesses, they can deny service for almost any reason legally and if you come up into a lot of stores or businesses and have an attitude problem or dress like a hobo you might be asked to leave.

I have no problems with the airlines providing a comfortable and confrontational-free flying experience(for the most part).

It's funny how lopsided stories like these are, you're rarely seeing the entire picture such as all the people with cleavage that don't get denied boarding because they're not DYKWIA folk.

But hey, I'll probably be the odd man out on this for not joining on the moral outrage bandwagon based on an article that sets out to portray the airlines as being prudes.

Excluding specific cases where there are other factors (the law, religious reasons, etc.) I don't think that an airline should have the right to dictate what a customer wears, unless it's published in the Ts & Cs.

There are clearly things that are in poor taste but that's a matter of personal opinion and can't be forced onto others.

The woman in the photo is not breaking the law and isn't displaying what I would call an inappropriate portion of her breasts for the location she was traveling from/to.

If she was flying to Riyadh or Tehran, for example, it would possibly be a different matter.

I won't speak to the cleavage issue but I wonder if you actually SAW the young man, Arijit Guha, who had posted his photograph of the T-shirt in question. It is definitely not allowed and would not have been allowed any time since the 1970s, as it's a clear violation of not joking around about security. The word "BOMB" is prominent on the shirt, and while I would not have complained about it, I don't blame the passengers or the TSA or frankly anybody else who felt threatened. Guha clearly wished to make a political statement that he could not have made if he had NOT been detained, searched, and held back from his flight. In fact, he stated in his diary that he had already worn the shirt several other times, and no one noticed, and you pick up on his distinct disappointment. In this case, we have someone seeking publicity for a political viewpoint, using T-shirt humor. Like it or not, humor is not allowed at the security check, as the posted FBI warnings have informed us for DECADES.

I don't know if Guha's page is still online but if it is, and you see the shirt in question...it puts a way different spin on the story. Which is why, I think, this news article instead posted a fat lady's rack and tried to pretend that the issue is aesthetics. We all agree that the TSA and the airlines should not be the fashion police but some "fashion" actually makes a statement, and like it or not, the airport is not a Free Speech Zone. As a practical matter, when traveling, I always advise people to keep their politics to themselves unless they're willing to bear the costs of social protest. To pretend that social protest has no cost (or should have no cost) cheapens it...

Wait, so now businesses don't have the right to deny service to anyone as long as they're not breaking the law?

The day the law says businesses can't discriminate against people for what they're wearing(except in the case of religions) is the day this country has officially become [edited by Moderator] insane.

From a business point of view airlines are within their rights to deny boarding to anyone that they want to and for almost "any" reason.

That said it might not be a good business policy to not allow people in suits to fly or any other discriminatory policy that leaves people not flying.

But at the end of the day I stand by my skepticism of the original story, I'm willing to bet cash that her attitude is what got her denied boarding, not her cleavage.

My guess is she could have easily flown and them complained afterwards but that she decided to fight them at the terminal.

I see it happen way too often where stories are so lopsided that they don't bear any resemblance to the truth.

Hell I was on NBC a few months ago and they completely twisted my words in a 3 minute segment they took pieces of a 3 hour conversation and put them together to make it sound like doom and gloom.

MSNBC and NBC, journalism integrity they do not possess.

I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion from what I said, but if you reread it, particularly the points I bolded, you will see that I expressed MY opinion about what I feel SHOULD be the case. Which was either tell people what they can/can't wear or allow them to wear what they want. I never said that a business couldn't deny service to anyone (regardless of whether they were breaking the law or not).

I do think that there has to be some thought put into these rules, though. For example, I can't wear a motorcycle helmet (with the visor up) into a bank due to the fact that it "obscures my face and creates a secuity risk" in spite of the fact that the a large portion of my face is visible. However, a person (whether they be Muslim or not) can wear a burqa (which totaly covers the face) or a niquab (which does the same thing except exposes the eyes) and this is not deemed a security risk. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a Muslim woman's religious values should be ignored, I'm just pointing out an inconsistancy....
I tend to agree with you on this, but so far no evidence has been shown to show that this is the case.

Not sure if peachfront was directing their comments toward me, but yes, I did see the shirt and I do feel it was not a good idea to wear it in that situation (as does the manufacturer) but it goes back to a heated debate that was held in another thread where it was pointed out that many people feel it would NOT be inappropriate to bring a manual on "how to build a bomb and sneak it onto an airplane" onto an airplane, as books don't kill people. Using that logic, neither does clothing (except suicide bomb vests....). When I said that the TSA, etc would view the book as a threat (not that it shouldn't be allowed) I was severely flamed by several people. So, why would the book be ok but not the shirt? What is the difference between putting words on paper and putting them on cloth? Where do we draw the line between freedom of expression, personal freedoms, religious freedoms, etc and public safety?

Setting aside the TSA and First Amendment issues, does anybody else think that the woman in the article wasn't really showing all that much cle@vage to begin with?

I mean, I've been on many flights...probably Southwest flights to Dallas even...where people were a lot more skimpily dressed.

Medic, I was actually curious to know if the Original Poster had seen the shirt in question. I suspect not as the news article he posted preferred to take the cheap shot and run with a photo of boobies. (If we can say boobies on flyertalk?)

She showed more than I felt like looking at [off-topic text edited by Moderator].

So a lack of evidence means we should take a clearly biased article at face value without questioning whether it's manufactured outrage?

When I was in the restaurant business we had at least 5-10 scammers a year extort the restaurant chain for money or free food, it was incredibly hard to "prove" and not worth defending because of the possible PR backlash.

Even the most well documenting companies will have ambulance chasers and scammers knocking at their doors for publicity, cash, or just to stick it to them.

I'm not saying companies do no wrong, I am saying stories like this need to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I'd say unless she proves that she was kicked off for cleavage and not because she's a raging .... who was arguing with the employees that she was not kicked off because of a dress code.

And hell, if they want to have a dress code what's the big deal? I for one don't want to see old guys in bikinis sitting next to me and I sure as hell don't want to be sandwiched between "larger" people wearing short shorts and spaghetti straps.

[Off topic text deleted by Moderator.]

No, I never said that. I agreed with you. I just also stated that my (and from what I could see, your) feeling was based on a gut feeling (and prior experience), not the evidence presented. That doesn't mean we're wrong. It just means that there was no DIRECT evidence to support our feelings.

I'd say that, regardless of my personal feelings, the story is what it is (correct or otherwise) until more info comes to light.

I don't feel that there is a big deal about having a dress code. LOTS of places have one. I DO, however, feel that if the business has expectations of their customers that they express those expectations to their customers, particularly in industries where it isn't reasonable to expect the customer to change at the last minute. For example if your local food store had a policy that you had to wear enclosed footwear (no sandals, etc) and didn't publish it, it wouldn't be a huge deal. You live close by and there are other food stores so you could choose to go home and change your shoes or go to another store. However, if an airline had a similar policy and didn't enforce it until you got to the security checkpoint or boarding gate it would be a different story. You have already checked your bags, you most likely don't have spare shoes with you and you don't have a reasonable ability so source other shoes at that point. Therefore it would be most appropriate for the airline to notify you of their policy in advance. It's not the fact that they have the policy that is the issue, it's how, when and if it's presented to the customer.

The problem I see is the arbitrariness of giving FAs power. Put a dress code in writing, make it precise. Then make it count. I have no problem with that. It's their business. If I don't like it, I can take my money elsewhere. But don't put the passengers at the mercy of FAs after being put at the mercy of the TSA already.

And where do you draw the line? If that cleavage is not OK, how about really short skirts or tight dresses or women without bras? And then, is that more offending or less offending then a fat, stinky dude with hairy legs in bermudas and flip-flops? I know what I'd prefer.

Under these conditions one could even label crying infants a security risk. One can avert the eyes from an inappropriately dressed pax but one cannot but hear the child screaming. That causes stress, which may cause aggression. Or it could saw on people's nerves so badly, they wouldn't be concentrated enough in the event of an accident. And it might drown out security announcements. So aren't babies the bigger safety hazard?

And that t-shirt? So he's dark skinned with an exotic name and a mustache. He's even a student. Must be dangerous. The word appears very small on the t-shirt. One must really look at him quite closely to decipher that. Then how about a woman wearing a t-shirt that says "a sex bomb will kill us all"?

Here is a link to an article including photo of said t-shirt:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...TSA-shirt.html

Till

I think we need a little more arbitrariness, or at least discretion. "Zero tolerance" and "anything goes" are equally bad in my opinion. Will people make mistakes and deny boarding for having bad taste (like the Vegas woman with the poorly taste)? They like will, occasionally. To me, though, that's better than a legalistic Ts and Cs covering a dress code or allowing the culture to further deteriorate to the point where the F bomb is considered an acceptable fashion choice. (Since I was one for most of my adult life I can swear like a sailor with the best of them, but I know when and where that kind of language is appropriate. On my or anyone else's clothing in a public plce is not such a place or time.)

Edit: Just read the piece on Mr. Guha. He makes the point I was trying to make better than I can. There's a time and place for everything. This isn't a free speech or racism or whateverism issue; it's about a guy who has to make everything about himself and his issues no matter what the circumstances. In the process, he set his cause back. Very few people are going to have any sympathy for a guy who makes things harder for a bunch of people who just want to get on an airplane or do their job. The "Poop Strong" shirt he wore the next day isn't much better than the terrist [sic] "satire" shirt. Times and places, times and places.

This has happened repeatedly on Southwest Airlines and has been discussed at length in the Southwest forum. If you go over there, you will find a number of threads on this topic.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/south...-incident.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/south...ggy-pants.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/south...-fly-zone.html

The Race card gets used so often it's getting ridiculous.

He didn't get denied boarding because he's dark skinned and with an exotic name, millions of people fly daily that are dark skinned and have exotic names.

He got detained because he set out to provoke the people that would detain him, he set out to provoke the FA and pilot and anyone and everyone he could because he's a social media Twat.

People like him and the lady with cleavage intentionally go out of their way to start a scene and then act shocked when they're denied boarding.

They do it to get a rise out of people and to garner sympathy from other social media twats and to hurt businesses for the sake of hurting them.

We all know THOSE type of people that go out of their way to make life miserable for everyone around them in order to get attention. Hell I'm willing to bet a bunch of posters here will respond to defend that type of stuff.

Fear mongering is a great success story in the USA. It works 100% of the time.

The masses (minus the sensible people) will give up anything in the name of 'security'.

For how many decades will they milk this "9/11" thing? Doubt if they will ever give an answer to that one, EH....

Airline pilots in the US are scary chickens it seems. Even a shirt or boobs scare them, they won't be able to focus on the autopilot run flights anymore!

Yet another reason for people to avoid US. Spend the money in more sensible countries.