runner450

Spelling, please.


The details you posted above are not factual and are not representative of what actually happened.

ROCAT

Lycra / spandex is on the do not wear list, was he in bicycle shorts? If not then it is not a 1 for 1 comparison.

jspira

Details? We don't need no stinkin' details

(We don't need spelling either for that matter)

But your comment is correct. The details in the post you quoted were a gross misrepresentation of actual facts. Perhaps they were "alternative facts" even.

pfpdx

While I often applaud quick action on social accounts. In this case, I think it is what helped make this a bigger issues. When @united first replied that it is at GA discretion to decide if a PAX can board, that's what really gave this story juice. I think @united should have just replied, "we are looking into it, thanks for bringing it to our attention"

I think the reason that this story got so big is pent up frustration around the double standard of women vs male dress codes. Schools often have much more strict codes for girls than boys. I am not a qualified dress code expert so I am not sure if not being allowed to wear spandex is equivalent to men not being able to wear shorts (that are too short).

On a related note, could UA even change this policy quickly if they wanted to? I imagine it might be part of multiple union contracts since it affects employee travel.

FlyngSvyr

I am pretty sure your statement above is not accurate. As the WHOLE story comes out the FACTS are definitely different.

There were TWO groups of travelers that Ms Watts observed. A group of 3 females traveling NRSA (of which 2 were described as teenagers) & a revenue family of 3 with an approximate 10 year old daughter (probably with the Dad wearing shorts). The NRSA's left the gate when they were told they were not in compliance & the revenue family overhead the conversation and put the dress on their daughter even though they did not have to. I am sure if the Gate Agent had observed them, she would have told them that was not necessary as they were doing nothing wrong. They misinterpreted what they overheard and Ms Watson misinterpreted what she witnessed.

I can't even say my interpretation of the situation is accurate either, as I have had to piece it together from several sources (a few of which are main stream media updating their stories). And to be honest, I doubt the identities of the NRSA pax and the ages of the young ladies will ever come out. I am sure the internet mob believes they are entitled to this information, but they are not. It is internal company information and I am sure the NRSA pax just want this to go away and are embarrassed at the negative publicity their actions have brought to United. They probably want their privacy protected from the maelstrom.

Allan38103

That's too bad.

Before this flap I had never even heard of Shannon Watts. She may have some good ideas. But now, I guess I will never take seriously anything I hear about her.

jspira

That would be a bad thing then.

Yes. The CoC response was simply wrong.

No, it's equivalent to men being told they cannot wear leggings and spandex. Leggings and spandex are sold by major brands for both gentlemen and ladies. And both genders do wear them. Nothing sexist there. (Please note, I did find the mini skirt reference to be more fodder for being called out as sexist but that can be fixed by saying men cannot wear Daisy Dukes.)

It's unlikely to be part of any contract. Airlines can make unilateral changes to flight benefits with relative ease. United's dress code seems to be a bit more restrictive than those of its competitors (AA, DL) but if you go back 15 years, you'd find that virtually all of the major airlines required business casual in business and first.

james dean

Unfortunately in this day and age corporations just need to be cognizant of how these incidents can get rapidly out of hand...
..and further more if leggings are A OK for regular pax, why would they be inappropriate for pass travellers, I mean really??

spin88

I think this is the key take. 10 years ago Spandex was richard simons weird, today leggins are totally kosher. And they are basically all that most girls wear. When I pick up my 10 year old, 3/4 of the girls are wearing leggins.

To the extent that United wants to enforce this policy, they ought to do so quietly. A lack of good sense by the GA in this case, a UA PR dropped the ball.

I am not so sure that it is sexist. When this was likely drafted, Leggins were basically gym clothes. On the right person, they are slightly revealing. On the wrong person they are well, ick. Shorts on men never had/have a connotation of sex. Lycra did when it first came out. What has happened is that standards of dress have changed.

As an example, my kids go to a relatively proper private school. On days I work at home, I just wear gym clothes, but I used to change and put on shorts/long pants to pick them up. 4-5 years ago only a few of the women in the middle of early midlife crisis would be seen in lycra, then it started changing, now I see many more moms in lycra/work out clothes, and a few of the dads started following. I figured what the heck, I pay enough, I can wear what I want. Now it is basically standard behavior, 2/3 of the moms are in gym clothes, and those of us dad's with scheduling flexibility do as well.

And while this may not be the norm in many parts of the US, well we are California, it will get to the rest of the US soon.

The "busybody" clearly did not know it was a pass traveler. But to answer your question yes. A good rule of thumb for any public sector company that sells to the public, is that if it makes your brand look stodgy/racist/sexist/uncaring/callus, don't do it...

morelegroom

OK true story. I was six years old in second grad In Catholic School. I went to school in blue corduroy pants. The nun in charge decided they were not "uniform pants" and ordered me to go home and change. I walked the mile back home and my mother was horrified to see me. She had no idea i was coming home. She put me in the car and drove down to the archbishops office. She was furious. he was out og town but she got to his top aide. He called the school. They said they had a strict policy that any student out of uniform would be sent home. His response was change the policy and they did. Having a right is not the same thing as being smart.

HHQX888

@spin88: Sexist was that father can enter with shorts and teenage in leggings can't enter cabin. Ridiculous is that UA used kids as company representative.

TBD

Let's be honest, everyone. There's some news. It will blow over. No one is making airline ticket decisions based on this "story".

How about for the same reason that my waiter wears a shirt + tie, but I don't have to.

Companies can dictate dress code. This isn't new.

The passenger using a pass also dropped the ball by drawing attention to an internal employee relations / HR issue.

james dean

You can bet your bottom dollar after this PR debacle United has already issued a memo reflecting this incident and how for it not to happen again..read: forget refusal to board due to leggings for pass holders!!!

Finkface

I used to work on a cruise ship. Even when we were not working, we had to be in uniform or dressed according to a very strict dress code (no jeans ever, formal wear after 6pm etc), even though the passengers were dressed like slobs. We were representing the company 24/7, regardless of whether the passengers knew we were crew or not. Mr. Fink, who was an officer, had no such choice. For them, it was full uniform, all the time. Even if they were staying only in crew-only areas, such as their own dining room (and taking crew stairs to get there) and never setting foot in a place where passengers could possibly see them.

Their ship, their rules. How is that any different from a pass-riding airline employee? Just because it is personal time, in the company's view, anyone using employee perks is representing them. Don't like the rules, don't use the passes. Simple as that.

pinniped

I still think of Spandex as Richard Simmons weird, but the modern leggings worn by teenagers and younger girls *don't* have that same look to them at all. My girls wear leggings, so do all their friends, and it never would have crossed my mind that an airline would see this as inappropriate, regardless of the fare basis of the ticket (which seems like a complete red herring to begin with).

Don't get me wrong: I still think leggings are weird, but that's because I'm not a teenage girl. Not because they're raunchy or inappropriate.