March 27, 2017

What's the real story of the 2 teenage girls who weren't allowed on a United Airlines flight because they were wearing "leggings"?

I see the airline is defending the decision of the gate agent that these kids didn't meet the condition that passengers dress appropriately. And I see the internet is expressing outrage. But what I don't see is a picture — or an adequate written description — of how the teenagers were dressed. The word "leggings" covers a lot of ground. Leggings can be very thick or very thin, very loose or so radically tight that they are stretched out to the point where the butt crack is fully on display.
The incident was first reported on Twitter by Shannon Watts, a passenger at the airport who was waiting to board a flight to Mexico.... Watts said the girl’s mother told her the two teenagers had just been turned away because the gate agent said their pants were not appropriate travel attire. The woman had a dress in her carry-on bag that the child was able to pull on over her pants, and the family boarded the flight.

“The girl pulled a dress on,” Ms. Watts said. “But please keep in mind that the dad had on shorts that did not hit his knee — they stopped maybe two or three inches above his knee — and there was no issue with that.”
So... maybe it's time to crack down on men in shorts getting on planes. (Sorry for the reappearance of the word "crack." That looks wrong. Crack down. Yes, my leggings are stretched to transparency but when I get to my seat, I'll crack down.)

The airline's explanation is that that the family in question were "pass travelers" — which means they were using a benefit offered to United Airlines employees and dependents that lets them fly free. These people are seen as "representing" the company and held to higher standards that specifically impose dress standards that don't apply to paying passengers.

Under the pass program, they're only flying standby anyway, so they were not missing "their" flight, only stuck waiting for another flight. In the meantime, they changed what they were wearing.

My only problem with all of this — and otherwise I'd 100% support United — is that the man got to wear shorts.

Also, here's United's Contract of Carriage, Rule 21, "Refusal of Transport," which does apply to all passengers:
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point... Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed....
Who came up with that language "at any point"? We're talking about an airplane. Scary.

103 comments:

Jane the Actuary said...

I am getting tired of all the outrage over situations where we only know part of the story. If pass travelers are held to a different standard of dress, then that is perfectly fine in my book - United gets to make their own rules.

Laslo Spatula said...

Without pictures it is difficult to comment.

Pictures of their TSA Nude Scans would help, also.

I am Laslo.

Jim said...

They were flying with a pass for relatives of United employees. As a youngster, I flew that way with my Dad, a TWA employee. Coat and tie baby. Plus, Shannon Watts is with that Crazy Moms Demand Action. So she can stay in Mexico.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I'd like to see a picture also. The desire to be "comfortable" regardless of what is appropriate has gotten out of hand.

I see people walking around, going into stores, etc while wearing pajamas!

I don't mean harried moms dropping off their kids at school who are staying in the car.

I mean any time of the day, going about their business just like wearing pajamas in a bank is perfectly normal and don't you try to impose your outdated standards on me buster!

AllenS said...

The two were described as "2 teenagers" which means under the age of 18. That's why there are no pictures of them.

MisterBuddwing said...

I try not to dress like a slob when I fly - more like business casual - but I must admit it was surprising to hear of a time when air travelers dressed in their Sunday best.

Hagar said...

I had to blink at a couple of the women (well, actually more than a couple) that I saw at the supermarket Saturday. These "leggings," or "yoga pants," are getting to be a little much of a muchness.

Michael said...

Good. They need weight limits as well. And no more pajamas, please. And no more bringing on those idiotic neck pillows that bang into every aisle sitting passenger on the way to the way back. Yes, and no more bringing on your own stinking food. We would be getting somewhere if they made women, females, trans people, wear dresses and men, males, trans people wear coats and ties and shoes that were not running shoes or sandals or flip flops. I will stop there.

Ron said...

"Chucked out the back door at 30000 ft, man in shorts was heard to yell ' Damn you, Althouse, for giving them ideasssssss!!!! Everything else was in the waassssssssshhhhhhhhh '"

Utah Chris said...

At some point, the UA employee that provided the pass to the relatives is going to have to address it directly.... i.e. "dummy, now I'm in trouble..." or "last pass for you" or "don't ask for a pass again" or "cheapskate, next time you buy your tickets".

Laslo Spatula said...

AllenS said...
"The two were described as "2 teenagers" which means under the age of 18."

Possibly. But we now have situations where people can be described as 'children' until they are 26.

I'm just going to picture that they are sixteen, myself.

I am Laslo.

Bob Boyd said...

"an adequate written description"

camel toe

traditionalguy said...

Clothes Nazis. And what's more, Yoga is a Religion and it's pants are being discriminated against.

Meade said...

@Ron, good job, well done.

TML said...

My wife's Uncle worked for United for decades. We benefitted from the buddy passes often. Dress was always an issue. I'm very surprised the man with the shorts got on. Was he the father? Usually--always, as I recall--shorts were NOT allowed for buddy pass flyers.

RoBanJo said...

OMG - SHORTS!

Meade said...

Jim said...
"They were flying with a pass for relatives of United employees. As a youngster, I flew that way with my Dad, a TWA employee. Coat and tie baby. Plus, Shannon Watts is with that Crazy Moms Demand Action. So she can stay in Mexico."

Exactamente!

Barry Dauphin said...

Women couldn't wear shorts? Does the story say that?

AllenS said...

No, Laslo, you are probably referring to Obamacare, which does not describe them as 'children' until they are 26


Generally, you can join a parent’s plan and stay on until you turn 26 even if you:

Get married
Have or adopt a child
Start or leave school
Live in or out of your parent’s home
Aren’t claimed as a tax dependent
Turn down an offer of job-based coverage

rehajm said...

To reduce the likelihood of this type uncomfortable situation might I suggest one of these?

It is so choice. If you have the means I highly recommend picking one up...

Michael P said...

I can just see it now:
Pilot: "If you do not put those clothes back on *right now*, I swear to God, I will turn this plane right back around!"
Passenger: "... and I'll sue because the carriage contact doesn't specify 'at any time'!"

jaydub said...

The guy was probably okay in shorts because his camel toe wasn't showing, inlike the girls.

David Begley said...



Follow
Shannon Watts‏ –
@shannonrwatts
Founder of @MomsDemand, the grassroots army working to end gun violence in America. @EmergeAmerica Board member. Mother of five. Coloradan.
momsdemandaction.org
2,047 FOLLOWING34,175 FOLLOWERS

Picture on Twitter profile features pussy hats. Would those be allowed?

Henry said...

A friend of mine who works for United says that at one point, business attire was required for all pass travelers. She also points out that this -- pass travelers being requested to change -- is not that uncommon.

Also, regarding shorts, United's official policy mentions shorts:

* Pass riders may wear denim attire (such as jeans), shorts that are no more than three inches above the knee and athletic shoes when traveling in Coach or Business cabin.

Henry said...

That site I linked to above is NOT my friend, but reiterates her points in more detail:

Shouldn’t non-revs know the dress code?

They should indeed. If you’re an employee you should know the dress code. If you’re the family of an employee, you should know the dress code. And if you’re an employee and give buddy passes to friends or family, you need to make sure they know the rules as well. If they misbehave while traveling with your benefits, it could get you in trouble.

But you’d be surprised by how often people don’t know the rules. I’ve seen non-revs be told they need to change a countless number of times, as recently as last weekend on a New York to Los Angeles flight.

Roy Jacobsen said...

I like my eldest daughter's rule: Unless you are eight years old or younger, leggings are NOT pants.

Speaking of yoga pants...

https://youtu.be/GYv4Fs7nzIY

Henry said...

More detail and commentary on whether the dress code is sexist.

Meade said...

Apparently, United has lowered its dress standards since 1996 when I travelled on a employee pass.

Caroline Walker said...

While we're at it, grousing about the explosion of rights assertions on airplanes, let me just say that the "comfort animal" has gotten way out of hand, as well. There's one on every flight I take now.not just comfort prize bulldogs, but comfort chickens and comfort pigs. Methinks we need a snowflake section, where you can pay extra to slime the seats in your nothing-wear, and enjoy the surrounding comfort barnyard.

Darrell said...

In the early 1990s, I was in a discount drug/personal care store when I turned around and there was a 6-foot plus blonde woman in her early twenties wearing a gray and pink cat/body suit that conformed perfectly with her body--everything was revealed. It was a thin fabric, not regular Spandex, and no, it wasn't body paint. She might as well have been naked. There was no sagging or lines in the fabric, so I was thinking that it must have been some high-tech memory fabric that contracted with her body heat. If those girls were wearing anything like this, I can see why the airline told them to put on a skirt or a dress.

Hagar said...

I am not sure it rises to the level of a "civil right," but I feel I should be able to shop for groceries without being subject to visual assaults.

Widmerpool said...

My sister in-law's husband is a retired American mechanic, and I can recall her noting more than once when they flew with this benefit that they had to pay some attention to dress. My impression is that this is not a big deal with airline employees - they know the rules.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Yes, and no more bringing on your own stinking food. "

The last time I flew to Denver it was a 7 am flight and they served us two small cookies. That's why people are bringing on their own stinking food. Alas, all I was able to do was dig up a snack pack of almonds out of my purse.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I don't see the problem. I'm sure men wouldn't be allowed to wear leggings either.

Meade said...

"I'm sure men wouldn't be allowed to wear leggings either."

Good point. Everyone is allowed to wear leggings as long as they are worn under skirt or pants (long or short).

Btw, I'm wearing leggings right now as I type. I'm also wearing Levi's.

jaed said...

I don't think anyone's mentioned the TSA yet, but their searches have certainly had some influence on clothes for air travel (shoes you can kick off, items that won't trigger a metal detector, for example). Leggings offer more protection from the TSA agents' hands than underwear under a dress does.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Pajamas, leggings, obese people overflowing into your space - all of those things are bad, but nothing is worse than poor hygiene. On a packed Amsterdam to Madrid flight, the Euro hippie in front of me had head lice. I would have asked to move but there was no place to move to.

Well, I wasn't hungry on that flight.

Annie C said...

I was once married to an airline employee. If we flew SA (free ticket, space available), we were required to dress nicely or no boarding. It was the gate crew's decision back then, but the employee handbook for Delta had the dress code. No shorts for men for sure. Dress pants and collared shirt at the least. No jeans, no t-shirts. This was back in the late 70s, early 80s though.

SGT Ted said...

Yea, first thing that comes to mind is "camel toe".

I wonder if the reporter used the term "leggings, thus avoiding using the term "yoga pants" to gin up sympathy for girls who show off their junk.

Shorts are not the equivalent of yoga pants, unless the junk is hanging out.

Maybe mom's need to start enforcing the old societal rules on "you're not going out looking like that" with their daughters again.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Basically, the experience of air travel has become like taking a flying Greyhound bus.

Meade said...

All the cool kids are wearing leggings
under their shorts these days.

DanTheMan said...

>> I was able to do was dig up a snack pack of almonds out of my purse.

The last 4 flights I've had on Virgin Atlantic, they make the same announcement about "a passenger onboard with a severe nut allergy", and ask that we not eat any nuts at all.

And what did they serve with dinner on the way over? A Waldorf salad, topped with... walnuts.

rehajm said...

It was the gate crew's decision back then...

I'm disturbed by how peevish some flight crews have become over certain things. Perhaps given their anything goes work environment it's an attempt to wrestle back a bit of control.

Basically, the experience of air travel has become like taking a flying Greyhound bus

Inflation adjusted fares were 8-10 times more in the 60s, so the riff raff was priced out. In today's $$$ airlines are a Greyhound bus.

DanTheMan said...

>>Basically, the experience of air travel has become like taking a flying Greyhound bus.

Can you take chickens and pigs on a bus?

exhelodrvr1 said...

"a passenger onboard with a severe nut allergy"

Laslo?

Owen said...

Airline should have modesty burqas available at the gate. Could be nice fabric or, for the obstreperous, just a bin liner.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Can you take chickens and pigs on a bus?

3/27/17, 9:02 AM

In Mexico, you can. However, on a Mexican bus, you are certain that you will die sometime within the next 5 minutes because the driver is taking those curves pretty damn fast, so you hardly notice the chickens.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"a passenger onboard with a severe nut allergy"

Laslo?

3/27/17, 9:06 AM

I was thinking Rachel Maddow.

Big Mike said...

I assume that college age women wear leggings and yoga pants so that their Baby Boomer professors can grade "on the curves." Back in the day my wife, and no doubt Althouse, wore leggings under a tunic length sweater. Today's young women wear leggings with tops that only reach their waist.

Henry said...

When do leggings become long underwear?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Back in the day my wife, and no doubt Althouse, wore leggings under a tunic length sweater. "

Wasn't that the Edie Sedgwick look? She was one of Warhol's "It Girls" back in the '60's if I remember correctly. That look came back in the late '80's with big shirts. I remember a friend who was pregnant at the time thought it a blessing - she could wear tights and a big shirt and still feel fashionable rather than going around in ugly maternity dresses.

Not to go too far afield, but as awful as the big maternity smocks and dresses were, I think I prefer them to the skin tight maternity clothes I see now. Those tight, flaunt your baby bump clothes don't look particularly comfortable to me.

Chuck said...

“But please keep in mind that the dad had on shorts that did not hit his knee — they stopped maybe two or three inches above his knee — and there was no issue with that.”


You just knew that such a sentence would get extreme vetting from Althouse!!

buwaya said...

Everyone (the men anyway) in Pakistan wears pajamas. They go to banks wearing pajamas. Whats wrong with pajamas? It is their cultural dress.

I support the popularization of variety in mens clothing, to include all the range that was lost during the colonial interlude.

buwaya said...

I want to wear my loincloth. It was the epitome of dignity.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I would be in favor of men in loincloths if they were all built like Johnny Weissmuller in the Tarzan movies. Unfortunately, we'd see more who are built like Dom DeLuise.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I'm out of touch on this but leggings are not pants. They look awful, on everyone, and are immodest.

My daughters wear leggings under skirts that are shorter than knee length, and with tunics, but they have to wear real pants with a shirt that doesn't cover the rear end.

They also don't get to wear short shorts because those look horrible too. I don't know whose dumb idea it was that shorts that stop at the widest part of the thigh are flattering in any way.

Also while I'm at it: I can't stand these shrill pain in the ass 'activist moms' and to my husband's endless amusement I say, sincerely, every time one of them tries to gin up a social media firestorm, that they need to get their asses back in the kitchen or in church where their energy might do some good. Not my church, though, because I don't want some know it all busybody fingerwagger attention whore harshing up my vibe.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

And kids these days--and their parents--need to learn that they don't get to just do whatever they feel like, whenever, and the world owes them accommodation. Sometimes you follow someone else's rules. Grow up.

damikesc said...

Since the writer didn't include pictures of the clothing in question, the whole article is utterly pointless.

mockturtle said...

I support the popularization of variety in mens clothing, to include all the range that was lost during the colonial interlude.

I say, bring back leggings for men. And the codpiece.

Meade said...

"I say, bring back leggings for men. And the codpiece. "

When we go to Culver's I usually order the 3 codpiece dinner.

mockturtle said...

UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point... Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed....

Who came up with that language "at any point"? We're talking about an airplane. Scary.

Yes, it conjures up some amusing images of drunk, disorderly passengers dumped neatly into the sea.

Meade said...

I like my caught-fresh-in-the-icy-North-Atlantic cod pieces hand-cut, hand-battered and golden-fried after my order.

Rick said...

I wonder how United feels that their employees family is so ungrateful for this free benefit they're making a public issue and causing trouble for them.

And I wonder how that family member feels about looking for a new job.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...My only problem with all of this — and otherwise I'd 100% support United — is that the man got to wear shorts.

It's unclear why you're not 100% behind United, then. Does the rule for pass program participants prohibit shorts? I assume it does not. Seems like you object to the parameters of the rule itself, then, and not how it was applied here. But--and I've never been to law school, so please correct me if I'm wrong--aren't lawyers trained to argue and reason from the actual law whether they agree with that particular law or not?

It seems like you're saying you think men should not be allowed to wear shorts on airplanes. I'm sure you realize such a rule (against shorts) would probably have to be applied against both men and women--would have to be a blanket ban on shorts. That'd probably be a problem for a lot of women. Presumably the rule against leggings as pants applies to both men and women (for pass users, anyway).

You don't think adult men should wear shorts in most situations. That's pretty well known. I'm not clear on how it follows, from that, that you're not 100% behind United in this particular case.


Somewhat related: YT: The Problem With Leggings (mildly NSFW)
(I think I've shared that link a half a dozen times now. There are sequels.)

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Rick said...I wonder how United feels that their employees family is so ungrateful for this free benefit they're making a public issue and causing trouble for them.

I could be wrong, Rick, but I think when I read this article first this weekend either the article or a comment indicated that the family themselves didn't make a stink--it was allegedly someone else waiting in line (after they got pulled out/denied boarding, I guess) who put up a post (Facebook?) and set the whole thing off.

Real American said...

People dress like bums on airplanes because planes are extremely uncomfortable for most and TSA makes you half undress to pass through security.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Henry's link to the actual policy answers my question re: shorts (allowed but only if they're sufficiently, ah, long). I guess the contention is that the outraged person who claims that a man using the pass program was let on even though his shorts were too short is giving an accurate description. It's possible, and I guess that's reason to not back United 100%.
Most of the older men in shorts I see have pretty long shorts, though (large/oversized cargo-types, commonly).
But I don't fly much; I admit that.

DrMaturin said...

Can you take chickens and pigs on a bus?

In Mexico, you can.


When I lived in Mexico there were two classes of inter-city buses. First class buses were pig and chicken free but you paid extra for this. And yes, I do remember bus drivers crossing themselves before taking some curves.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Meade said...I like my caught-fresh-in-the-icy-North-Atlantic cod pieces hand-cut, hand-battered and golden-fried after my order.

I hope those really aren't Atlantic cod, Meade.

Anthony said...

I like leggings. They make an okay ass look good. They make a good ass look great. They make a great ass look awesome. And they make an awesome ass look more awesome.

I'm actually quite fascinated with them as a fashion item. I've been working out in university gyms for almost 30 years and have seen them go from the gym to the street. The patterns, the styles (long, mid-calf, below the knee), just a fascinating array.

I offer two links involving the infamous cameltoe issue:

Just Say No to Camel Toe.

Just Say Yes to Camel Toe.

Meade said...

My cod pieces come from north of Norway, HooDoo.

Tim Wright said...

I flew quite a bit as a child (late fifties and early sixties). I was automatically expected to wear a coat and tie, in coach seats. Tim

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Meade said...My cod pieces come from north of Norway, HooDoo.

I'm sure you mean to say you've been holding off on eating North Sea cod until they're officially declared sustainable, right Meade?

Or maybe you mean from the Norway Northeast fishery? Those are good, those are good. Nice work.

Ann Althouse said...

"I assume that college age women wear leggings and yoga pants so that their Baby Boomer professors can grade "on the curves." Back in the day my wife, and no doubt Althouse, wore leggings under a tunic length sweater. Today's young women wear leggings with tops that only reach their waist."

Here in Madison, Wisconsin, it's extremely well-established that leggings are pants. If you go around campus here, before it's so warm the women are in shorts, you'll see just about all of them in leggings, with no idea that you ought to have a long enough top to cover the ass/crotch. And that's when you know leggings are considered pants. The cultural line is fully crossed here. It's just not open to question.

Me, I wear leggings around the house through all the cold months, but when I go out, I either wear a jacket or sweater that's mid-thigh or I put a skirt on over them. Skirts are completely comfortable if you have leggings underneath for coverage, and leggings are completely modest when you've got a skirt over top for coverage.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm trying to get Meade to go out for fried fish.

In his leggings.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...I'm trying to get Meade to go out for fried fish. In his leggings.

He sounds like a manly man; doesn't seem like it'd take much persuasion.

I mean, as long as you mean Meade in the leggings and not the fish. The other way could get difficult (I usually ask for a plate, myself).

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Split the difference:

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3: Amazon!

mockturtle said...

I like my caught-fresh-in-the-icy-North-Atlantic cod pieces hand-cut, hand-battered and golden-fried after my order.

I prefer halibut, unconventional though it may be.

mockturtle said...

I flew quite a bit as a child (late fifties and early sixties). I was automatically expected to wear a coat and tie, in coach seats. Tim

I remember those days, too! My mother would be dressed in a suit and my father in a sports jacket and tie. Same with my grandparents, except my grandmother wore a dress. I don't miss those days at all.

mockturtle said...

Me, I wear leggings around the house through all the cold months, but when I go out, I either wear a jacket or sweater that's mid-thigh or I put a skirt on over them.

Me, too, Ann. Not so much from modesty as from vanity, I think. ;-)

dwick said...

As long as the airlines continue to charge me top $ for the now consistently unpleasant/uncomfortable experience of flying on their planes as well as nickel-and-diming me for every little thing, I'm going to dress in whatever makes me feel as comfortable as I otherwise can be.

When the seat pitch and width goes back to the standards of the golden days of the 1960s and 70s, the airlines resume providing 'free' meals, and passengers are again treated like customers rather than cattle - then I'll 'dress up' like they did back in the golden days of the 1960s and 70s.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

mockturtle said...I prefer halibut, unconventional though it may be.

Do you really prefer that to cod, or are you just being contrary for the halibut?

Oh hell, why not: YT: Kip Dotta - Wet Dream

MadisonMan said...

the Euro hippie in front of me had head lice

Ugh. I'm flying Friday. thanks for giving me something to worry about :)

wwww said...


I remember getting dressed up for the plane in the 70s and early 80s. It was a much better way to fly. There's a race to the bottom in service and in customer behaviour.

The smaller the seats, the crabbier the customers. At this point it's become quite ridiculous. It's hard to enforce a genteel dress code when the airlines aren't treating customers well.

rehajm said...

Meade said...
All the cool kids are wearing leggings
under their shorts these days.


I keep expecting to see basketball's golden age of short shorts/long socks return to fashion. I noticed a few players without the droopy drawers but nothing approaching Phi Slama Jama.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"My only problem with all of this — and otherwise I'd 100% support United — is that the man got to wear shorts."

Not all shorts are allowed for travel pass passengers, only shorts that are no more than three inches above the knee above the knee when in a standing position.

"Sleepwear" is forbidden, which begs the question, can I as a regular passenger not flying on the employee travel pass program show up in my pajamas?

Mary Beth said...

But you’d be surprised by how often people don’t know the rules.

Or, how often they do but hope they can get away with pretending ignorance.

The girls' mother shouldn't have said anything about what was going on and the "do-gooding" tweeter should have minded her own business. I can't see anything coming from all of this but negative consequences for the employee whose pass was being used.

mockturtle said...

I'm trying to get Meade to go out for fried fish.

In his leggings.


Tell him to try the halibut. Do you get fresh halibut there? We have Alaska halibut here as well as Pacific NW halibut. It's all excellent.

mockturtle said...

Actually, by 'here' I mean my old home state of WA. Not much halibut here in AZ. But I'll be heading north in a month.

mockturtle said...

Salmon is my favorite, though. Copper River salmon.

heyboom said...

While flying first class for free on my pass, my then 16-year old daughter was almost denied boarding because her skirt was deemed too short. She had to change in order to comply. Adhering to a dress code is an extremely small price to pay for a very generous privilege.

The nosy tweeter obviously has no idea what the family pass privilege is or how it works.

Paul Ciotti said...

I don't know why girls want to fly in camel-toe Lycra. It's not comfort. Nothing is more comfortable than a dress. What these girls really want is to show the goods. Some of them would fly naked if they could.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Do you get fresh halibut there?"

It's really expensive here.

Moondawggie said...

Re: >>Basically, the experience of air travel has become like taking a flying Greyhound bus.

Question: Can you take chickens and pigs on an airplane they way you can on a bus?

Answer: Yes, but only if they are emotional support chickens or pigs.
Gee, thanks ADA!

Re: As far as "UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point"

I once saw Indiana Jones throw a Nazi out of a Zeppelin because he lacked a ticket, so I'm sure UA can do something similar-

Kirk Parker said...

dwick,

That wonderful 60s experience is still available to you; all you have to do is pay 60s-comparable prices (i.e.first class.)

Joe said...

It's completely absurd to take a side without more information. There's not even agreement on what constitutes leggings as per the description of a bystander. Nor their ages.

This seems to be a case of getting riled up for the sake of getting riled up.

(United is the worse airline I've flown on and never have cheap tickets where I'm going, so I don't particularly care.)

Josephbleau said...

"Why are you having Halibut?" "Oh, just for the H..." " Jeh jeh, I know." Bada Bing!

heyboom said...

It's completely absurd to take a side without more information.

There's only one side to take. If you're flying on a employee/family pass, there is a strict dress code involved. It is a small trade-off for the privilege of flying for free. Most airlines have identical policies. You are correct that it is a case of overreaction though.

Kirk Parker said...

Joe,

"This seems to be a case of getting riled up for the sake of getting riled up"

Shannon Watts (the original bystander complainant) is a pro--in a much more heinous aspect (opposing private firearm ownership.)

mockturtle said...

Paul Ciotti claims [based on personal experience?]: Nothing is more comfortable than a dress.

I would agree with you IF it's a dress that can be worn sans panty hose and heels.

Douglas said...

I concur with Prof. Altman. United absolutely should not permit men flying on company passes to wear shorts on planes. Actually, if it was up to me, it would be against federal law for men to wear shorts in urban public spaces. I'm happy that United is trying to enforce some standards and I only wish they could do it for all passengers.

jr565 said...

"My only problem with all of this — and otherwise I'd 100% support United — is that the man got to wear shorts. "
Not sure if this was mentioned, since I didn't read all the comments yet. However, united does in fact have a policy against shorts. You can wear shorts but tthey have to be 3" from the knee when standing. So, no short shorts. And they also say you can't wear bathing suits.

Dave said...

"My only problem with all of this — and otherwise I'd 100% support United — is that the man got to wear shorts."

This is a great example of why I stopped reading Althouse a few years ago--rank sexism supported by obtuse justifications. After coming back to visit a few times recently, I see now that I was right the first time.