Stupid NRSA tricks
 

I normally don't have any issues with NRSAs (I feel they earn the flight benefits they get), but I just have to report this event from last Wednesday at SFO.

We're sitting at the gate waiting for UA 837 SFO-NRT, when this guy approaches another passenger and asks to "rent" his shoes for the flight. Apparently he's a NRSA (from UX we learned) sitting in Business Class, and didn't have the right shoes to match the dress code. After five minutes of cajoling, the passenger eventually refused and the employee went away. Then, two minutes later, he approached another passenger with the same scheme. At this point, someone reported him to the gate agent, who downgraded him back to Coach.

Isn't there a code of conduct for NRSAs? Shouldn't he have known better to (a) have the right shoes in the first place, or (b) not bother paying passengers because of his oversight of (a).

You gotta wonder what the offered price was..... :)

If someone tried to do make that deal with me, I'd give 'em my shoe.....right up their a**....... ;)

While its pretty dumb what the guy did I also think the dress code is pretty outdated and dumb as well. If the whole idea is NRSAs should blend in and not be noticed then the current situation is perfect for 1975 but no so much today. I have only once ever worn dress shoes on an international flight and that was only due to the fact I ended up out way way too late in Munich and had no time to change before running to the airport and even then the shoes were on only until takeoff and them my sleeper suit and slippers were on in a flash. While I understand they should have some dress code it could use an update IMO and should be more inline with what most pax wear, and to that end tennis shoes aren't exactly outside the norm.

A few years ago, on a flight BUR-SFO, a mother and her son quietly approached me, asking if they could borrow a button down/collared shirt from me to wear to get on the plane. I was surprised, but I quickly understood, and since they were quietly very polite about it, and didn't seem like they were trying to take advantage of the situation as NRSAs, i.e. just trying to get home in coach, I agreed. Must have been because I was one of the few people standing around with a rollaboard, and looked approachable (for various reasons).

I wouldn't give shoes though... ugh. or to an NRSA who had a "bad attitude"... or who was pestering people.

Also, you've seen the freakonomics-type observation that suggests that when people are paid a low amount for something, they are even less willing than if it's for free/charity?

Candid camera? Pre-flight entertainment?

Bizarre...

While I do appreciate and understand the dress code (and see no need to have it changed).....

I think the NRSA's only poor choice in this "scheme" was to solicit the rental/purchase from people at that gate.

As long as he/she had the correct attire on (for the entire flight, not just to board), I see no problem.

While much more expensive, I am sure there had to be at lease one store at SFO with mens shoes?

$75 was the number I heard.

Tells us what the employees think and UFC is worth.

Well, while certainly it was very poor form of the employee to pester people around when he well should know the rules beforehand. Do you really think somebody on a United Express salary can afford much more ?

I am shocked the employee would try this, as it could jeopardize his flight benefits if the gate agent reported him.

Honestly, though, with the way people dress on planes nowadays it would seem silly for UA to continue a dress code. I have the information somewhere around here, but I think it goes something like this:

No jeans, no shorts, no tee-shirts.
Must wear leather shoes.
No sneakers.
No flip-flops.

NRSA?

I guess I am still a newbie here! Humor me ;)

And I was beginning to think that I've been on FT long enough to have heard everything...

Non Revenue Space Available (employee travelling for free or for a small free)

NRSA = Non revenue, space available -- the status of airline employees/family traveling for pleasure at free or very, very low charge. (When I was a kid it was $1 per time zone -- double that for first class!)

The answer patrol got to this one before me, twice!

I have no issues with dress codes being enforced. I also don't think there's any reason why dress codes should be lightened up.

My previous place of employment required interfacing with business people; everyone dressed business-like as it's part of the culture. Clients who came in with sandals, shorts and t-shirts could because they were paying us, and they can wear what they like (within reason). UA (and it's employees) is basically a service industry and needs to consider the image the employees projects (on the clock, or taking advantage of a perk). I know the last sentence will get chuckles from bitter/embattled UA flyers but really, they are technically a service based industry :)

Why some think that they can dress whatever they want baffles me, considering they are taking advantage of a perk under the policy of their employer. The NRSA's should follow the prescribed dress code. It's not an unreasonable dress code either.

As to the OP's posting, if the NRSA was willing to rent, he might as well just gone to one of the stores in the airport and bought a cheap pair of appropriate shoes... at least he'll get something for it, AND fly in business.

Thanks peeps! Now how do I get me one of those for life without opting for UA slave-labor?

Become a UX (or other regional) employee... Skywest, Mesa, and Air Whiskey get travel perks on several US based airlines (I think even part time qualifies, but DON"T hold me to that).

Also, remember NRSA/employee travel does NOT earn miles/status.

Marry UA "slave labor"? Make your kids work for UA as "slave labor"? ;)

Date slave-labor!

Wow. $75 for shoe rental? Now had the NRSA wanted to bestow some buddy passes on me, I might have considered it. :)

I hope the GA reports this. Pretty low form. Not dressed right, go sit in Y. Are you sure it was a UX "employee"? This sounds more like one of the buddy pass stories I hear every now and then.

The Continental Airlines employee store at IAH used to sell T-shirts that said Marry Me and Fly Free ;)

Well, our kid's a captain on another airline with a dress code, and we fly NRSA all the time. Here's what I've learned over 10 years of pass flying about being a happy camper, and making everyone else happy too. . .

1. Considering what NRSA privileges amount to, adhering to a dress code is a small--no, miniscule--price to pay. Anyone taking advantage of these privileges and complaining about or trying to circumvent the dress code is a fool. It is simply not worth arguing about whether the dress code is "up to date" or not. For value received, the task is simple: read it, do it, get over it.

2. For NRSAs to hassle revenue passengers in any way is equally foolish and selfish at the same time. Those who do this should have their privileges revoked, end of story. At "our" airline, the NRSA rules even forbid such minor requests as asking paying pax to switch seats. This is as it should be.

3. When we first started pass flying, I thought that airline staff would be generally surly and dismissive of us, because of the NRSA status. We've found just the opposite to be true, and we've figured out why: every employee also has family members who fly on passes, so the Golden Rule tends to kick in. Whether they think about it or not, most of them treat us they way they'd like their colleagues to treat their families. Our job, in return is to treat them like we'd want our son to be treated (even though he's mostly behind the cockpit door). Amazing how well smiles and adhering gladly to the rules work, even with harried airport staff. When they see we've got the right attitude, there's little they won't do for us that's within the rules.

Life can be relatively simple, straightforward and pleasant if you let it be. Of course I know that flying is generally a matter of survival of the fittest, but we can hope that most of us are still courteous, decent and helpful people.

Thanks for the insider's info.

One minor point. I take it that your son, when he is flying the plane, is positioned "on the other side" of the cockpit door. I don't know why but for me "behind" the cockpit evokes the pax sitting area, which is "behind" the seats reserved for pilots.

Ha! Yes, while he's only flown me once in an airliner (quite by chance), I believe you are quite right that "on the other side" would have been the proper description of his location. The other alternative would probably give new meaning to the term "deadheading." But I must say that my flights with him in small planes when he was a flight instructor and a check airman were much more enjoyable. No doors at all.

Why does it not surprise me that this was a United employee?

It may well not have been. Different airlines have various schemes for accommodating families and friends, as well as the employees themselves. You are jumping to a conclusion by saying that.

This sounds like a companion pass traveler to me. Everyone knows that policy is strict and very enforcable on international routes, so I really can't imagine someone would be wearing sneekers and then would start asking around to rent shoes. Companions are entitled to business if they are dressed correctly.

In my 10 years as airline employee, it would never have crossed my mind
to ask another passenger to rent his/her shoes for the flight. Most airlines
do have a dress code for flying NRSA and it is the employees responsibility
to comply with those. Of course like some of you mentioned this could have
been a companion. While working at an airport, I have encountered passengers
holding buddy passes who had no clue what standby travel was about.

What's a buddy pass?

The employee could very well lose their travel privileges for this type of behavior.

That's bizarre.
 

I never knew there was a NRSA dress code, and I have traveled more than 95% of passengers for 25 years. Proceeding from this premise, it seems to me, having worked in a uniformed service in a former life, who (of the audience, because a dress code presumes an audience) is going to know? You're either in uniform or you're not. When you're not, no one knows you from a hill of beans. And, given the collegiality reported above, why would a GA want to enforce it -- e.g., rat out an employee or family?

Of course I'm not doubting the story. I just don't get having a dress code for this. Tell employees never to be out in a partial uniform, period, full stop. Because that's disrespecting the uniform. (Though I always see dead-heading pilots without their bars on their epaulets.) (And I don't have a problem with it.)

traveling on a buddy pass, i was once denied boarding for wearing peep-toe high-heel shoes. The GA interpreted the dress code of "covered shoes" to include 100% of the foot. He deemed my slight peep of a toe unacceptable. since I had my other shoes in checked luggage and he was boarding me as the last person before the gate closed, i didn't have time to buy/get other shoes. never mind that i was hanging around the gate for the previous 1 hr. oh well, lesson learned. i now always travel in completely closed shoes (when on buddy pass), which is a pain in the summer in tropical areas.
in that case, i had to go back and travel next day (this was in LHR).

1) Don't think I've ever heard that term of art before... :o

2) Seriously, aren't the gate/ticketing et al staff contract at LHR? That might explain the lack of the collegiality that was described above... IME, it explains a lot of instances in which there is no flexibility at LHR.

I often travel wearing my leather dress shoes and have tennis shoes in my bag. I would have been happy to rent them to the NRSA provided he's ok with a size 13...how come this stuff never happens to me?

We bow to your extraordinary record of achievement, but all of us still occasionally learn something new.

There is a difference between a dress code and a uniform. . .a big difference. The point of a uniform is to make it possible to specifically identify you; the point of a dress code is to present a certain "look," which in this case the airlines prefer their pass flyers to transmit. The dress code is not in place to identify people as non-revs, but simply to "class up" the front of the plane a little (and the rear too). You may argue until you are blue in the face about whether this policy is necessary, good, smart, whatever. But as I said earlier, if you're the one flying on passes--and if you've got any sense at all--you simply shrug and comply. In return you get a nearly free ticket, possibly in the front of the plane, to the corners of the world. This is not a situation about which bright people complain.

It is a fascinating society in which those who enforce simple policies are seen as "ratting out." Assuming you're referring to my earlier post, I spoke of the collegiality that exists when the NRSA flyer does his part cheerfully, and the airport staff does their part cheerfully. Never did I say that we try to get them to wink at the rules. I said that we observe them, and enjoy the mutual respect that ensues from that.

It's simple: the airlines institute the policies and charge the airport staff with enforcing them. The reason the GA would want to enforce them is because it is part of his or her job.

We're so glad you're not doubting the story. And since you apparently don't fly on passes, whether or not you "get" the dress code idea is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? Oh, and if a pilot removes the shoulder boards, ID tag and wings from his shirt, takes off his hat, tie and jacket, he's not out of uniform. He's a guy in black pants and a white shirt.

Oh, I thought they were FO's who were "de-badging" themselves...sorta like some BMW drivers with the bottom-feeder models in a series, i.e., 550, 545 and 540 owners do not debadge...525 (eeek!) and 528 drivers usually do.
:)

Actually, I would never consider flying in anything but fully closed shoes.... NRSA or not. If you have to evacuate or there is an accident, you want to be able to step and climb over anything. Likewise, I would not wear anything synthetic either.