ROCAT

I know many UAL employees, I interned with the airline, none of them even care about this issue. Most are more pissed with the calls for boycotts and such that would end up hurting them more them more then this rule. If they wanted to get rid of the rule they likely could, but it simply isn't worth fighting in the negotiating room.

FlyngSvyr

This +1000. Most of these twitterverse calls for boycotts end up hurting the innocent working employees. In many cases, those that start these social media firestorms don't care. They just found an avenue to further their activist agenda, whatever it is.

aoumd

^

With the majority of UA employees covered by unions, if a preponderance of UA employees wished for a different dress code when themselves, their daughters, sons, or other friends/relatives fly on passes, they have the means to make such known. They have chosen not to so far, and if those affected by this policy change their minds, they can make such known.

halls120

Ah, but it's more important for self-appointed guardians of the one and only righteous way to advocate on behalf of the poor, downtrodden UA employee.

spin88

This WaPost article has been updated, and I think does a good job of showing how UA mishandled this with it's initial responses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.573749775233

Had United said what it now is saying, my guess is this would not have taken off.


The list as follows, with my comments:

Any attire that reveals a midriff ( I can't recall ever seeing a men's outfit that does this, outside of the folsom street fair. Defenitely directed at woman)

Attire that reveals any type of undergarments. (ditto. It does catch the "baggy pants, underwear trend" but I think we can likely agree that the real aim is to prevent woman's clothing (quite common) which allows the bra to show)

Attire that is designated as sleepwear, underwear, or swim attire. (not sure I can recall any men wearing this type of thing, expect perhaps swim wear)

Mini Skirts (I have seen mini-skirts on guys, but then I live in SF )

Shorts that do not meet 3 inches above the knee when in a standing position. (this I think hits both sexes)

Form-fitting lycra/spandex tops, pants and dresses. (this is 95+% women)

Attire that has offensive and/or derogatory terminology or graphics. (this is unisex)

Attire that is excessively dirty or has holes/tears. (the first is unisex, but the second is not. Lots of women wear jeans/pants with revealing holes/tears. I had a very nice young woman who worked in the "entertainment" industry with just such pants on a recent LAX-SFO flight on VX. )

Any attire that is provocative, inappropriately revealing, or see-through clothing. (again, I think we know who this is aimed at.)

Bare feet (is unisex)

Beach-type, rubber flip-flops (ditto)

If you think United gives a hoot about what shareholders think, think again. It cares what (a) analyists think and (b) about getting beaten over the head by the press/social media. Here UA got a two-fur.

riphamilton

i wonder whether the facepalm that oscar did when he arrived to the office this morning was audible throughout the c-suite (yes, i realize he was probably aware Sunday).

it's astonishing how his/the company's efforts to make UA more 'flyer friendly' and generate goodwill can be derailed by a misinformed tweet. i anticipate this blowing over by EOD tuesday, but the meme of "united bans leggings" with kettles and so-called activists may have staying power.

VIB

As a self-identified old white male, I had a similar experience.

I went to visit the casino in Baden-Baden, Germany and the sexist, xenophobic attendant forced me to put on a coat and tie (they had them available to borrow for fee). I was outraged by this requirement.

Then later, I went to visit the Baden-Baden spa, and they refused to admit me unless I took all my clothes off! Now, I was even more horrified and outraged!

The humanity! Shall I contact Shannon Watts and have her intervene on my behalf?

pokee

I hardly call the tweet calling out this blunder 'misinformed'. While their policy may dictate a more strict dress code for those traveling on employee passes, the fact remains that they banned people wearing leggings, when leggings are now actually considered fashion (not sleepwear or activewear) and spandex is a part of fashionable, comfortable decent-looking clothing that is frequently worn on planes by women. It's a stale rule and UA's defense of that rule, while technically in the right, was too sticky IMO. I'm in agreement that they would have been better off saying nothing at all. They dug a deeper hole for themselves.

But it goes to show you the power of social media once again...surely becoming the bane of the airline industry...

fly18725

United very much cares what shareholders think. How do you think analysts get compensated?

I very much doubt shareholders have much sway over the travel policies for pass holders. Quite frankly, the most extreme shareholder perspective could be that pass holder policies should be sufficiently restrictive to discourage use of passes, thereby freeing up additional seats for potential revenue passengers.

Of course, the only stakeholders with standing in this issue are employees. Based on the extensively negotiated collective bargaining agreements, I am confident that employees have accepted the rules set forth by United.

GUWonder

If only that were it. Rather it seems more an issue of the airline telling a child that their attire is inappropriate for them to travel but it's acceptable when others fly wearing the same thing. I'm no melting heart snowflake, but even I can recognize that this kind of incongruity is hard for a child to understand and may seem discriminatory in an unfair way to many.

A bad analogy even amongst bad analogies:

spin88

United is the airline that is late and has grouchy staff. It loves tight seats, but not tight leggins on those seats.

fly18725

I haven't seen any reporting of the age of the passholder. If the passholder was old enough to travel independent of adult supervision, then the passholder was old enough to understand the standards of appropriate dress set forth by United. If the passholder was not old enough to travel independently, then there's a reasonable expectation that a parent would have significant influence over what the minor child was wearing.

There are many issues with the situation, but none of the real ones are down the bunny trails you appear to be chasing.

Bottom line: using free travel benefits requires children and adults to follow a higher standard of behavior than paying customers.

GUWonder

There are many issues with the situation, but all of the real ones are down the bunny trails UA created on its own.

Bottom line: company's employment/employment benefit-related policies are subject to criticism by the public, and this one is no exception.

United doesn't care about what all its shareholders think. It cares about what gets it a higher share price, and that means large institutional shareholders' thoughts matter more to UA than most of its non-institutional shareholders' thoughts.

This story has legs because the leggings are accepted by UA on some legs but not on all legs.

For UA: All legs are equal, but some legs are more equal than other legs. Same for the leggings on the legs.

riphamilton

i'd actually say that the 'revealing undergarments' is probably directed towards guys, perhaps more so than women. recall the boss and jnco jeans fad of the late 90s, when these rules sound like they were written (i haven't heard the word "spandex" since then). i feel that society's views towards the baggy jeans trends are more negative than a visible bra strap. as you note, the bra strap is pretty common.

men are probably more likely to wear swim trunks aboard than women are to wear a bikini bottom or top. when flying to someplace warm, i'll often change into my trunks before landing.

the spandex top rule would apply to 'under armour' type compression/fitted tops that guys wear just as much as women. heck, even soccer jerseys (a popular item for guys to wear when traveling) would be included.

VIB

Gee, I thought it was pretty good myself.

And shouldn't it be the responsibility of the adults supposedly responsible for these children to ensure they abide by the non-rev dress code? Or do they abdicate control of their kids' dress and behavior in our anything goes society?

Of course, there may be some people at the airport who enjoy looking at people in "leggings".... but that's a different conversation.