Gate Agent Denied Boarding for NonRev Women Wearing Leggings
Mar 28, 2017, 9:47 am
#271
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LAS
Programs: 1K---2,909,450 BIS miles
Posts: 214
The problem that could arise from this story is for the United employees, all of them, not just the ones involved in this incident. United might get to the point where they decide this is too much of a PR nightmare and so to prevent it from happening, they get rid of the pass benefit for non-employees. My airline has changed theirs several times, we used to be able to give passes to anyone, now we have to designate one person only to give them to. If you are married, you can't do that...but immediate family (ie. spouse, kids, parents) are all included.
So all the twitter idiots with their accusations may screw-over the very folks they claim to be supporting here.
So all the twitter idiots with their accusations may screw-over the very folks they claim to be supporting here.
Three things went wrong here ---
#1 The pass riders showed up to the gate improperly dressed to use the benefit.
#2 . The g/a somehow let it be known to the flying public, that these girls needed to change or they weren't getting on the plane.
#3 . A woman who didn't have the foggiest idea what was going on between UAL and a pass-rider, stuck her nose in it, and screwed a benefit up for thousands of employees.
Btw, any, and all, of the above posts re what is proper to wear in today's world, on a plane, has absolutely nothing to due with a policy of a particular company.
Google --- "Fake News" in a few days and this story will pop up, due to the fact that the whole (true) story was not put out there at the beginning, because that isn't necessary/honorable, or a requirement, in today's world!!!
Mar 28, 2017, 9:55 am
#272
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
You obviously don't work for an airline. The employees may value the travel benefits but the company does not. It is not part of the work contract, we are always told it is a benefit given to us by the company...that they can change at any time...and they have. We've even tried to get it codified into our labor contracts, but the company has never allowed it.
Mar 28, 2017, 10:09 am
#273
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LAS
Programs: 1K---2,909,450 BIS miles
Posts: 214
You obviously don't work for an airline. The employees may value the travel benefits but the company does not. It is not part of the work contract, we are always told it is a benefit given to us by the company...that they can change at any time...and they have. We've even tried to get it codified into our labor contracts, but the company has never allowed it.
Many, many people work for an airline for the flying benefits, NOT THE PAY, and the airlines know that. Push the company too hard, and it will be 100% part-timers from now on instead of 98%, with NO benefits, and that goes for health ins, also.
Nearly any position that an airline provides is NOT a happy experience. Why, you might ask? Because for little pay you constantly get flack from your bosses, and you can always count on having a pax ready to beef you at every turn, which includes folks on these forums!!!
Mar 28, 2017, 10:13 am
#274
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
BINGO! here's your answer folks!
Many, many people work for an airline for the flying benefits, NOT THE PAY, and the airlines know that. Push the company too hard, and it will be 100% part-timers from now on instead of 98%, with NO benefits, and that goes for health ins, also.
Nearly any position that an airline provides is NOT a happy experience. Why, you might ask? Because for little pay you constantly get flack from your bosses, and you can always count on having a pax ready to beef you at every turn, which includes someone on these forums!!!
Many, many people work for an airline for the flying benefits, NOT THE PAY, and the airlines know that. Push the company too hard, and it will be 100% part-timers from now on instead of 98%, with NO benefits, and that goes for health ins, also.
Nearly any position that an airline provides is NOT a happy experience. Why, you might ask? Because for little pay you constantly get flack from your bosses, and you can always count on having a pax ready to beef you at every turn, which includes someone on these forums!!!
And yes, the travel benefits are important, even to someone like me who uses them once or twice a year. But given a choice between having my travel curtailed or the ability to give my passes to someone who might possibly get me in trouble while they use them (and yes, this does happen), guess which option I would pick.
Mar 28, 2017, 10:18 am
#275
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York and Vienna
Programs: PA WorldPass Platinum, AA, DL, LH. GHA Black, SPG and HHonors Gold
Posts: 3,870
You obviously don't work for an airline. The employees may value the travel benefits but the company does not. It is not part of the work contract, we are always told it is a benefit given to us by the company...that they can change at any time...and they have. We've even tried to get it codified into our labor contracts, but the company has never allowed it.
And yes, airlines have kept flight benefits out of labor contracts, often citing the need to make changes based on operational needs, but in the same vein, some airlines have expanded flight benefits (AA comes to mind), which is something the airline could not have done were it codified in a contract.
Mar 28, 2017, 10:22 am
#276
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LAS
Programs: 1K---2,909,450 BIS miles
Posts: 214
Well, we don't make dirt...not all of us, LOL.
And yes, the travel benefits are important, even to someone like me who uses them once or twice a year. But given a choice between having my travel curtailed or the ability to give my passes to someone who might possibly get me in trouble while they use them (and yes, this does happen), guess which option I would pick.
And yes, the travel benefits are important, even to someone like me who uses them once or twice a year. But given a choice between having my travel curtailed or the ability to give my passes to someone who might possibly get me in trouble while they use them (and yes, this does happen), guess which option I would pick.
I FLY FOR MILES, and primarily so I can show off my Lululemon's!
Mar 28, 2017, 10:23 am
#277
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: YVR TLS
Programs: Air France Flying Blue, Altitude SE-100k, AAdvantage, United Mileage Plus, WS rewards, BonVoy Titan
Posts: 912
the best result for United is for this story to fall off the news cycle BUT be aware that another incident even remotely similar to this one will resurrect this bad PR again. I cannot see United playing around with employee pass privileges because of this as this would become another news story over what..leggings??? really!!!
Mar 28, 2017, 10:33 am
#278
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
the best result for United is for this story to fall off the news cycle BUT be aware that another incident even remotely similar to this one will resurrect this bad PR again. I cannot see United playing around with employee pass privileges because of this as this would become another news story over what..leggings??? really!!!
Mar 28, 2017, 10:43 am
#279
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
(1) I agree that certain type of clothing are NOT appropriate. Not for passengers, and to the extent pass travelers are more w/i UA's control, certainly not them. The bans on ripped clothing, wearing underwear, etc, make perfect sense. Here is how Delta cheekly tweated out their policy:
"@fredericl We don't have an item-specific clothing policy, but we encourage no swimwear, sleepwear or underwear as your outerwear. ��"
https://twitter.com/Delta/status/846393226890280966
I don't see anyone defending employees wearing rap style clothing with their underwear showing...
(2) The nub of the dispute is "leggins" You suggest (and many people here assume) that they are banned. Yet the policy is no " Form-fitting lycra/spandex tops, pants and dresses." My SO - who has worked for many years in marketing in the fashion industry says that there is no way that leggings are any of those things. She says that leggings are not made of lycra/spandex as it does not form the outer part of the fabrique, and that they are a different area of clothing in the industry, designed for casual wear, not athletics. She never would have seen leggings as banned, even reading the policy.
There is a subconscious view by some on this board that "united makes the rules" so when they interpret them, they are correct. My lawyerly side says that its not so clear that the pass holders would have seen an issue, and I suspect if they were actually leggins, not "spandex/lycra tights" that many GAs would not have had an issue either. I don't know what the team was actually wearing.
(3) lawyerly responses, like quoting the CoC got UA into trouble here, and then they got sucked into a cultural war over women's clothing. Anyone who has ever dated/been married, hell even been a (non-gay) male friend of a woman, knows "don't comment on what a woman wears" @:-)@:-)@:-) It never, never, never ends well.
My guess is that United's twitter staff is male, I get a feeling that Delta's is more mixed, its is IMHO part of why Delta does better at social media
No, Delta used social media exactly how it is supposed to be used. For those not following the link, Delta tweated out:
"Flying Delta means comfort. (That means you can wear your leggings. ��)"
then when a UA flier/loyalist said "cheap shot" delta responded:
"@fredericl We don't have an item-specific clothing policy, but we encourage no swimwear, sleepwear or underwear as your outerwear. ��"
then someone says:
"@Delta love the joke but comfort...im 6 foot tall and my knees touch the front seat not too comfortable. Don't look forward to this flight."
Delta asked for his flight details, and then posted this:
"@Julio_Party_Boy I was able to assign both of you emergency exit row seats with a little more leg room."
The contrast with United's frequently bot like defensiveness on Twitter is very stark.
This was the big, big mistake. United's first response is to defend themselves with anything that is lying around. It does not end well.
"@fredericl We don't have an item-specific clothing policy, but we encourage no swimwear, sleepwear or underwear as your outerwear. ��"
https://twitter.com/Delta/status/846393226890280966
I don't see anyone defending employees wearing rap style clothing with their underwear showing...
(2) The nub of the dispute is "leggins" You suggest (and many people here assume) that they are banned. Yet the policy is no " Form-fitting lycra/spandex tops, pants and dresses." My SO - who has worked for many years in marketing in the fashion industry says that there is no way that leggings are any of those things. She says that leggings are not made of lycra/spandex as it does not form the outer part of the fabrique, and that they are a different area of clothing in the industry, designed for casual wear, not athletics. She never would have seen leggings as banned, even reading the policy.
There is a subconscious view by some on this board that "united makes the rules" so when they interpret them, they are correct. My lawyerly side says that its not so clear that the pass holders would have seen an issue, and I suspect if they were actually leggins, not "spandex/lycra tights" that many GAs would not have had an issue either. I don't know what the team was actually wearing.
(3) lawyerly responses, like quoting the CoC got UA into trouble here, and then they got sucked into a cultural war over women's clothing. Anyone who has ever dated/been married, hell even been a (non-gay) male friend of a woman, knows "don't comment on what a woman wears" @:-)@:-)@:-) It never, never, never ends well.
My guess is that United's twitter staff is male, I get a feeling that Delta's is more mixed, its is IMHO part of why Delta does better at social mediaNo, Delta used social media exactly how it is supposed to be used. For those not following the link, Delta tweated out:
"Flying Delta means comfort. (That means you can wear your leggings. ��)"
then when a UA flier/loyalist said "cheap shot" delta responded:
"@fredericl We don't have an item-specific clothing policy, but we encourage no swimwear, sleepwear or underwear as your outerwear. ��"
then someone says:
"@Delta love the joke but comfort...im 6 foot tall and my knees touch the front seat not too comfortable. Don't look forward to this flight."
Delta asked for his flight details, and then posted this:
"@Julio_Party_Boy I was able to assign both of you emergency exit row seats with a little more leg room."
The contrast with United's frequently bot like defensiveness on Twitter is very stark.
This was the big, big mistake. United's first response is to defend themselves with anything that is lying around. It does not end well.
Mar 28, 2017, 10:49 am
#280
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: YVR TLS
Programs: Air France Flying Blue, Altitude SE-100k, AAdvantage, United Mileage Plus, WS rewards, BonVoy Titan
Posts: 912
It's not "playing around with" the benefit. They change all the time. In my 26 years at my airline, I think they've been changed about 5 times, only once for the better. They might not change it now, but next time corporate decides to review the policy, they might then. From a PR perspective, they would probably want to wait anyway.
Mar 28, 2017, 10:59 am
#281
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,575
Because United invoked the Contract of Carriage, not some union agreement or whatever, in their response to this situation.
Others upthread have clarified that miles/voucher tickets count as revenue travel, but I can see how this might not be obvious to everyone. When they refer to CoC and then in some articles a reference is made to a "non-revenue" ticket (as opposed to employees traveling, deadheading, jumpseating, or one of those other terms), I can see where some might wonder if a FF ticket is different than a paid one.
Others upthread have clarified that miles/voucher tickets count as revenue travel, but I can see how this might not be obvious to everyone. When they refer to CoC and then in some articles a reference is made to a "non-revenue" ticket (as opposed to employees traveling, deadheading, jumpseating, or one of those other terms), I can see where some might wonder if a FF ticket is different than a paid one.
Mar 28, 2017, 11:01 am
#282
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
I'm not talking about changing the clothing policy, I'm talking about changes to the benefit as in who can use it...I can easily see the next time contract negotiations happen with one of their biggest unions they do it then, that's when my airline usually does it.
Mar 28, 2017, 11:06 am
#283
Join Date: Aug 2008
Programs: HHonors Gold, Marriott Lifetime Gold, IHG Gold, OZ*G, AA Gold, AS MVP
Posts: 1,874
#3 . A woman who didn't have the foggiest idea what was going on between UAL and a pass-rider, stuck her nose in it, and screwed a benefit up for thousands of employees.
Well, I don't know where I heard this from, but someone once told me "Perception is reality". But to say any more would be venturing into OMNI territory.
Mar 28, 2017, 11:21 am
#284
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LAS
Programs: 1K---2,909,450 BIS miles
Posts: 214
It was none of anyone else's business, nor decision, how someone should be dressed.
Mar 28, 2017, 11:27 am
#285
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Easy to understand and still maintains a baseline of "decent dress" as far as I'm concerned. If you don't draw attention to yourself in a bad way ("just got out of bed" look, showing too much, etc), you're cleared to fly non-rev. That's reasonable. The average paying passenger wouldn't even know a given passenger was traveling non-rev, let alone assume that they're "representing the airline"; as far as I'm concerned they only draw attention to that fact by shaming passengers like this. If they hadn't, then this media blow-up wouldn't have happened. And heaven knows I'll catch some flak for this opinion, but I agree with a comment made way back near the beginning: