invisible

We are going to drift into territory what companies define as dress code is 'necessary' or not. The company I work for has a strict rule that no tattoos anywhere on skin can be shown by any employee in customer-facing environment. In tattoo industry I assume opposite is true. So are we going to discuss which one is right?

spin88

+1. After the world beating CS of the last 5 years, United is getting exactly zero slack from the media. At some point they probably had to fly United.

I came to see the reaction here after seeing this on the Washington Post.

And they managed to make it sound like all of those lies we get at the gate about why our plane is late. Just inept.

My wife hates SQ... back when she worked for Levis she she flew SQ in J from a meeting in Tokyo to one in Singapore. They gave her a hard time about her torn jeans and top. She had the corporate counsel of Levis write them a nasty gram, and other than three times at my doing, has never flown them again.

Absent a safety issue (which is what the COC references) it is not the airlines business what people ware.

Agree on both points.

If United is concerned about "image" there are a lot of places more pressing to start than what a 10 year old girl wears.

Easy, just say:

"Ms. Watt. We have not heard from the involved passengers. We will obviously investigate to learn what, if anything, may have happened, and appreciate your bringing this to our attention."

And I'll even waive my usual $925/hr fee.

FlyingNone

-----------------


Shannon Watts has started an unnecessary firestorm - She was an observer/buttinsky who overheard the issue from the next gate !! How do people get the gall to start this media-riot over something they know nothing about ?....and then the NYTimes leaves out the most critical item to the story (non-rev travel dress code was violated). At least get all the facts about why before you plaster it all over the world.

jspira

In this case there was no customer, however. The only customer involved was the rather nosy person who began the tirade on Twitter on her own volition.

Hoi polloi

Agreed. If you want to wear something else, buy a ticket. Kudos to United for apparently sticking to their guns in the face of the daily outrage crowd.

KRSW

I'm for United on this one, despite me normally being the first one in line to bash United.

Yes, the media will mis-report this one and crucify United. BUT, having flown as a non-rev many times, I was always made aware of the rules. "Business casual" is how the dress code was always explained to me, so I always wore khakis or business pants, a collar shirt, and a sport coat.

FlyngSvyr

Here's your answer.

https://medium.com/@shannonwatts/leg...fce#.paa7suwbv

She is just using this situation to further her own agenda. By now she is no doubt aware of the non-rev angle to this story yet refuses to address it in her "take". Sad, but that is what the internet has become. When you look at the totality of the internet, there are really very few "useful" websites. Thankfully FT is one of them

l etoile

UA: Your Leggings Are Welcome

https://hub.united.com/our-customers...331263786.html

"Let us take a moment to explain today's news:

We care about the way we present ourselves to you, our customers, as we believe that is part of the experience on board our flights. One of the benefits of working for an airline is that our employees are able to travel the world. Even better, they can extend this privilege to a select number of what we call "pass riders." These are relatives or friends who also receive the benefit of free or heavily discounted air travel – on our airline as well as on airlines around the world where we have mutual agreements in place for employees and pass riders.

When taking advantage of this benefit, all employees and pass riders are considered representatives of United. And like most companies, we have a dress code that we ask employees and pass riders to follow. The passengers this morning were United pass riders and not in compliance with our dress code for company benefit travel. We regularly remind our employees that when they place a family member or friend on a flight for free as a standby passenger, they need to follow our dress code.

To our regular customers, your leggings are welcome."

l etoile

Sadly, UA's latest response didn't begin to go far enough. Due to much inaccurate reporting and relying on Shannon Watts, who got the situation wrong in the first place, there are now many people believing UA exhibited sexist behavior in "forcing" a 10-year-old girl to change or not fly while her adult father was fine in shorts. These two were paying passengers who appear to be unrelated to the two nonrev women and caught up in a misunderstanding.

BullishGS

+1

I agree, these overboard activists should keep their heads out of others situations. But then again, they're born as activists so they'll forever be loudmouths.

Watts didn't seem to understand much of the situation except that there was a girl who was being asked to change. She didn't know that the girl was a non-rev, nor did she know the posted rules for non-revs.


In addition, the family was probably very compliant, but now that Watts started this storm, the family will most likely receive some type of punishment for the damage that Watts has done on social media.

entropy

I think the question of whether the dress code is out of date is totally irrelevant. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.

But the dress code is part of the policy passriders are bound to, so if they don't like it they can fly as revenue pax. That United even has to defend itself in "social media" is just an illustration of how ridiculous the twitter crusaders are,

Kacee

+1

UA is properly getting killed on this.

Explorer789

Fair enough, but this wasn't an employee on the job that violated the rules. It was some non-revs, let alone a 10 year old. Which brings me back to the point before, I'm failing to see how United is trying to preserve its brand image when the public doesn't know who the non-revs are on each flight. So why are they being subject to rules that are more strict than a regular pax? The rules of about clean appearance with lack of derogatory and overly provocative clothing is standard for everyone. I fail to see how leggings are worse than tight jeans.

FlyngSvyr

No doubt, they blew it. But hopefully they have learned a valuable lesson and can build on it for the future. Some here have pointed out good recommendations on how they would have dealt with the situation & if I was United I would definitely perform an after action review on this situation to learn from it.

The United social media team needs to understand that they won't always be answering to Kettle's on Twitter. While this women was not a "celebrity" in the truest sense of the word, her twitter account show definite PR savy and possible "weight" in the media/activist world. A more measured approach when dealing with her would have probably had a better outcome. Possibly kicking it up to a higher level within their org chart to deal with it. Or maybe I am giving UA to much credit to think they have system like this in place

WIRunner

What does it matter their age. "Business casual" attire exists for nearly all ages. Heck, had they been wearing jeans this wouldn't be an issue.