You take that shit back to Economy.
US Airways to First Class: no more ghetto clothes
|by Anonymous||reply 120||04/19/2013|
I thought dress codes on planes went the way of Eastern, PanAm and Braniff: long gone, long forgotten.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||04/16/2013|
If they outlaw skank clothing too in First Class I will be pulling trains for travel.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||04/16/2013|
Hee hee. Somebody finally informed them that looking like a saggy drawers, ghetto ass thug is something nobody anywhere on the plane wants to look at. I guess it's unfair, but really, they did these young people a favor. Now they can wake up, and join the adults.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||04/16/2013|
[quote]This apparent double standard in US Airways’ planes is just a microcosm of widespread, systemic racism
It probably is, but as the double standard has at this point has not been proved, racism has not been proved in this case. There's already an update that the company is claiming that they were employees enjoying a revenue free flight and therefore potentially bound by a different set of rules.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||04/16/2013|
They were flying on a buddy pass from an employee of the airline. There are strict dress codes that have to be followed if you fly on one. I had to have my suitcase tracked down after it was checked to pull a blazer out to cover up my shirt, even had to borrow an iron before I could board. Read the rules and stop crying it's about race this time.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||04/16/2013|
Dress code for buddy passes.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||04/16/2013|
I fly (domestic) First regularly, and have never seen "ghetto" folk up front.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||04/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 9||04/16/2013|
Why would they implement a new policy when they're on the verge of merging with American?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||04/16/2013|
If you are flying non-rev as part of an employee benefit, by god, you follow the rules. They don't want their OWN people looking like slobs. Any stew will tell you there is a dress code for non-rev and they are firm on those codes. Why is EVERYTHING "racist" when it involves black people? Can they not just simply follow the same rules as everyone else is compelled to follow without bitching and moaning?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||04/16/2013|
How do regular passengers know that others got their seats through a buddy pass? Do they have to wear special badges or something?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||04/16/2013|
R11 I agree with most of your post but the EVERYTHING "racist" remark lost me.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||04/16/2013|
Lou the Stew what say you?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||04/16/2013|
R12, you can't tell. Why would you want to? It's none of your business.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||04/16/2013|
I'm sidin' wit the black fokes on this. If you paid for the seat, you shouln't be subject to arbitrary fashion policing.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||04/16/2013|
r17, they didn't pay for the seat. That is the entire point.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||04/16/2013|
The way the policy is worded is sort of vague. It does allow blue or black denim and does not specifically cite "hoodies."
The airline can set the rules, but I think a clearer list of what constitutes acceptable would be the obvious next step here.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||04/16/2013|
Pretty nervy demand from a 4th class airline.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||04/16/2013|
My airline has a dress code too. When I started years ago it was very strict, you had to wear a tie in first class and a jacket, women had to wear skirts or dresses with hose. It has been loosened over the years so we can now wear denim (no holes) but you still can't wear a shirt with no collar (t-shirt) and you can't look like a slob. This applies to employees and friends or relatives they give a "buddy" pass to as well. Regular customers aren't restricted (unless it's outrageous). These two don't have a case, and the person who gave them the passes could lose their travel benefits or their job.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||04/16/2013|
Don't like the policy on clothing for a free flight? Easy, pay for it and dress as you please.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||04/16/2013|
Lou to Stew's right: they have no case whatsoever. You can't argue a systemic claim of bias based on the actions of a solitary agent.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||04/16/2013|
Unfortunately, shit like this sticks in people's minds, whatever the actual outcome.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||04/16/2013|
Ok so one of the Warren bros. is flaming from space, but the Filipinos were in first class with awful wear too, hence the discrimination lawsuit.
All on the video.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||04/16/2013|
I think some of you didn't read the whole story. The point is not that black people can't wear jeans and hoodies, but that black people can't be refused when white people on the same flight, also in first class, are wearing THE VERY SAME CLOTHES with no one saying a word against them.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||04/16/2013|
No R26, I think YOU are missing the point. When you are flying on a pass from an airline employee, your dress code is different than the paying public, no matter what fucking color you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||04/16/2013|
R26, I think you aren't reading the update. The passengers who were asked to change clothes were non-rev, i.e., flying on free tickets. The other people wearing the same clothes were apparently paying customers, who have different standards. It's ok to treat people differently on the basis of whether they are flying for free or not; that's not illegal discrimination.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||04/16/2013|
Some of you should read the story...
"The Warrens reportedly headed to the restroom where Miles conferred to a white passenger, Michael Heffernan, that he was worried he’d miss his flight because of his apparent dress-code violation. So, imagine Miles’ surprise when he saw Mr. Heffernan and a friend sitting in first-class, wearing almost the exact same outfits that barred the Warrens from sitting in their seats—jeans and hoodies."
If the white passenger wasn't asked to remove their clothing, then yes, that would be racial discrimination regardless of how the ticket was purchased
|by Anonymous||reply 29||04/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 30||04/16/2013|
No, R29, it would not. PAYING First class passengers do not have to adhere to the same dress-code that employee and buddy-pass passengers do. PERIOD.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||04/16/2013|
R29 couldn't be more wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||04/16/2013|
Is there anyone who thinks that if the passenger were Bieber or any famous rapper, he would be kicked off? Of course not.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||04/16/2013|
Bieber wouldn't be flying on a free ticket as a buddy of an airline employee.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||04/16/2013|
R33, assuming Bieber paid for his first-class ticket, he can dress however he pleases.
Someone actually gave these guys first class tickets and they're bitching that they couldn't wear their pants down around their knees? Hell, I'd dress like Little Orphan Annie in exchange for a first class ticket to somewhere I want to go.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||04/16/2013|
No one was asked to "remove their clothing" R29, they were asked to change because of the policy. Mr Heffernan was a paying customer, so it's not the same at all. Someone posted the policy a few posts back. Idiots like these two wanted a headline at the expense of the millions who have experienced racism first hand.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||04/16/2013|
But I'd be willing to bet that the airline doesn't want this kind of headache
one would assume that Bieber or another rapper would have paid for their ticket
"It's ok to treat people differently on the basis of whether they are flying for free or not; that's not illegal discrimination."
It should be, if they both have first class seats.
The dress code (which I'm not against) should be uniform. I mean, if someone won that ticket on the Price is Right, would they be subject to those regulations?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||04/16/2013|
R37 You really don't want to get it do you? This is why we can't have nice things. Everyone under the age of 35 is so damn coddled.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||04/16/2013|
I think they ought to be grateful that they get to sit in the front of the plane, PERIOD.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||04/16/2013|
Would they be subject to a free ticket R37. If you want to take advantage of an employee benefit, then play by the rules. No matter how awful, wearing slacks for a flight is hardly workplace exploitation.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||04/16/2013|
R37 the people using the buddy passes might be viewed as representing the company since they are company issued. I would guess that the reason. A paying customer is not under the same restrictions.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||04/16/2013|
[quote]It's ok to treat people differently on the basis of whether they are flying for free or not; that's not illegal discrimination.
Um ... no. It's illegal if they can prove the airline has a systemwide, de facto pattern of discrimination in this manner, and applied a different standard to black people versus other races. Whether or not they paid for the ticket is irrelevant; you can't legally apply different standards based on race, regardless of price tags. In fact, it'd be a pretty clear-cut case of facial (plain) illegal bias under the auspices of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||04/16/2013|
R37, it's not that they were flying on a free ticket that subjected them to this specific dress code. It's that they were flying on a free ticket that was a benefit provided by the company to its employees. Since this is a company provided benefit, it has certain restrictions, rules and limitations that come with it in order to use it. If you can't or don't want to adhere to those rules, you don't get use of the benefit.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||04/16/2013|
R42, no one has said they have applied the policy of 'dress code on free tickets' differently based on race. The couple who was flying on a free ticket happened to be a different race than someone who paid for their ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||04/16/2013|
"It should be, if they both have first class seats."
In R37's world, you can't treat paying customers differently than non-paying customers. So apparently Starbucks has to hand out its coffee to everyone whether they pay for it or not.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||04/16/2013|
[quote]R42, no one has said they have applied the policy of 'dress code on free tickets' differently based on race.
You mean, aside from the two black men who just filed suit in a federal court for that reason?
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/16/2013|
But was the white and Filipino person who were also in fc also free & on a buddy pass? My instinct says yes they were.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/16/2013|
No,R46, as presented in the media, they plaintiffs have not identified anyone flying free who was treated differently than they were.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||04/16/2013|
Maybe the airline should have just refused them outright (made their ungrateful asses pay) since they weren't employees but using employee privileges.
Maybe other first class passengers should complain that they had to pay for their tickets.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||04/16/2013|
I've been flying on buddy passes for 20 years and have ALWAYS had to dress up to use them, first class or economy...doesn't matter...and I hate to disappoint you but I'm white.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/16/2013|
OMG R46, now that you have made it clear that they are two black men, the case is so much clearer and cannot be anything but racism. There should be no need for a court judgement at all. Racism, without question.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/16/2013|
US Airways done right.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||04/16/2013|
see, now while I'm willing to admit that this is not a case of racial discrimination (at least not overtly), I'm very uncomfortable with this.
The employee, his or herself, is a representative of the company and should be subject to that type of dress code (whether they are paying or not)
The employee's friends are NOT representatives of the company and should not be subject to those rules...
|by Anonymous||reply 53||04/16/2013|
We're all disappointed that you're white R50,
|by Anonymous||reply 54||04/16/2013|
R51, at what point did I say I *agreed* with them in any way, or indicated that their suit won't immediately be dismissed? They *clearly* have no case; I was merely pointing out that they *could* have a case if, and ONLY IF, they proved the airline systemically discriminated against black people in terms of require in-flight attire.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||04/16/2013|
[quote]The employee's friends are NOT representatives of the company and should not be subject to those rules...
Yet they are enjoying the benefits of being the employee's friends. Cuts both ways.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||04/16/2013|
I mean, it's almost as if the employee actually helped get his friends a job there in his company.
Of course, an employee rises and falls on his or her own accord BUT the company always remembers (and never forgets) that it was at your suggestion and that you are associates
|by Anonymous||reply 57||04/16/2013|
They shouldn't even walk out of their houses looking like fools with their pants on the ground.
Then having their nasty skid marks go through their boxers and onto the seats.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||04/16/2013|
[quote] I was merely pointing out that they *could* have a case if, and ONLY IF, they proved the airline systemically discriminated against black people in terms of require in-flight attire.
So, R46/55, you're saying that if they alleged and proved a case that isn't what they've alleged or demonstrated evidence for, they *could* have a case? Mighty big of you there. Your law professors must be SO proud.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||04/16/2013|
This should be a law for paying passengers also....and NO- it is not rascist. Can't wait to hear what rascist Whoopi and Sherri have to say about this on The View. Whatever they say Barbara will agree with them cause she is afraid of getting cut.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||04/16/2013|
r57 makes a good point. The company will know who these people are friends with and in the end, that friend is the one who will pay for this.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||04/16/2013|
Next time they can go greyhound.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||04/16/2013|
In addition to denying boarding for the improperly dressed non-rev passengers, they should fire the employee who provided the buddy passes. The employee knows the rules about dress code and should have informed the passengers flying on the buddy passes. The employee is at fault for providing unwarranted bad press for the airline.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||04/16/2013|
I suspect that's already in the works, R63.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||04/16/2013|
I've flown buddy passes before and you do have to dress up. And also, wtf! You never get 1st class on buddy passes! Bitches.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||04/16/2013|
R65 -- the hell you don't get FC on buddy passes! On Delta they get upgraded ahead of folks who've paid over a grand for their ticket!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||04/16/2013|
No sympathy for these fools. I non-revved recently from Paris, in business class, and the gate agent asked me to button the top button of my dress shirt. It looked ridiculous, but obviously I complied. It's just what you have to do.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||04/16/2013|
My partner works for one of the major airlines, and since they offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners, I'm fortunate enough to get to take advantage of this benefit to fly anywhere in the world at no cost. For all I care, the airline can require me to wear a pancho, clown shoes and a tiara if it means I can fly to Honolulu or London or Tokyo or Buenos Aires for free.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||04/16/2013|
R68 at the airport, ready to board with his Buddy Pass
|by Anonymous||reply 69||04/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 70||04/16/2013|
But it IS racist, whether you want to agree or not, isn't the point. Just like the EEOC ruled that since one third of adult black males have felony convictions, to restrict hiring felons amounts to the same thing as discriminating against blacks.
As Marcia Brady said, "it's results that count."
And the sooner white America takes a tip from Molly, "It doesn't matter how I got here, the point is, I have arrived," Weber the better it'll be.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||04/17/2013|
R47? Are you kidding me? I don't trust your "instinct" to let you know when you have to take a shit, much less assess this situation objectively.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||04/17/2013|
This is total bullshit. Apart from the apparent discrimination, people on airplanes no longer nec. dress well. If you are traveling on a long flight - especially an overnight one - first class or not - then you may well prefer to wear loose and comfortable clothes in which you can easily sleep. Everyone who travels often sees a great many people dressed extremely casually.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||04/17/2013|
But it's the rules if you fly via an airline employee's benefits, R76. If you'd actually read the thread before your reactionary post you'd know that.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/17/2013|
I always feel sorry for people who wear hoodies. Clearly they are insecure and trying to hide themselves. It's very sad.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/17/2013|
Pay for a ticket and wear whatever the hell you want as long as it isn't indecent. Fly on our dime and you wear what we want. Not exactly rocket science no matter what color your skin is.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||04/17/2013|
When I flew on a buddy pass my friend CLEARLY outlined the dress restrictions and told me that I would be asked to change if I did not adhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||04/17/2013|
It's amazing how many people are chimimg in without reading the original article stating that they were flying on a buddy pass which has a strict dress code.
But, can two people get a first class buddy pass?
|by Anonymous||reply 82||04/17/2013|
Personally, I always dress neatly and professionally for flights. All my time in Europe taught me that.
However, I don't understand why a buddy pass requires someone to dress neatly...it's a weird rule. Nobody on the plane would ever know that certain passengers are on buddy passes anyhow.
Buddy pass people are not truly 'representing the airline' in any way. Neither are employees, when they are off duty. Do they make these people wear some kind of emblem or something, emblazoned with the airline's logo? No, they don't.
I don't think this is necessarily racism, judging from what the article actually states, and reading some of the more informed responses of this thread. I just don't get the placement of a dress code on anyone on a flight who isn't actually working.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||04/17/2013|
There is a lot of discussion from years past regarding non-revenue paying passengers and appropriate dress, most of it on airline-industry oriented websites. This isn't a new issue, and enforcement isn't new as well.
Google: dress code non-rev
|by Anonymous||reply 84||04/17/2013|
These a@@holes actually filed a suit to get US Airways to pay them when they were flying on a non-rev ticket. Absolute scum. The buddy who provided the ticket should be terminated.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||04/17/2013|
[quote]In [R37]'s world, you can't treat paying customers differently than non-paying customers. So apparently Starbucks has to hand out its coffee to everyone whether they pay for it or not.
No, dumbass, but they would have to hand out their coffee to someone with a voucher, gift certificate, or whatever for free coffee the same as they have to hand it out to paying customers. And most likely, they wouldn't require the "free coffee pass" customer to dress better than regular, paying customers in order to claim the free coffee.
Which doesn't mean the airlines are wrong to have a dress code for "non-rev" customers, but the story OP linked simply doesn't provide enough information for readers to know whether the two guys involved were discriminated against solely on the basis of their non-rev status, or also because of their race. Was the white guy in jeans and a hoodie allowed to dress that way because he was a paying customer? Perhaps, but the story does not actually state whether or not he paid for his ticket.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||04/17/2013|
[quote]However, I don't understand why a buddy pass requires someone to dress neatly...it's a weird rule.
I think it's a perfectly fine (and understandable) rule. The airline, as a business, is trying to create an atmosphere that is pleasing for their customers. They don't have much control over how regular passengers dress, but that certainly can (and should) control how their employees (and their friends) present themselves when flying on the company dime.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||04/17/2013|
R86, your post is internally inconsistent. Make up your mind - is it wrong to impose conditions on non-paying customers (per your first paragraph) or not (per your second)?
|by Anonymous||reply 88||04/17/2013|
Also, even though non-revenue travelers aren't suppose to discuss how much they paid for their almost free ticket they often do and then revenue customers know they are employees or their "buddies". Plus non-revs usually board last and frequent fliers know that. It isn't so difficult to dress appropriate to enjoy a great benefit. If you don't want to change clothes, stay in coach.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||04/17/2013|
Learn to read, r88. My first paragraph doesn't pass any judgment as to whether Starbucks would be right or wrong to make non-paying customers dress up; it simply makes the observation that that probably wouldn't happen.
My point in the first paragraph was that the dope I quoted made a stupid analogy: to suggest that airlines shouldn't impose conditions on non-paying customers is not the same as suggesting that Starbucks has to hand out coffee to anyone who comes through the door.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||04/17/2013|
R90, the analogy wasn't stupid. R37 said that it should be illegal discrimination to treat people differently on the basis of whether they are flying for free or not. Here's the exact exchange:
[quote] "It's ok to treat people differently on the basis of whether they are flying for free or not; that's not illegal discrimination."
[quote] It should be, if they both have first class seats.
So the exchange wasn't about whether they should or shouldn't impose conditions. It was about whether it should be considered illegal discrimination to impose those conditions. So, in fact, I can read, and you should take some lessons.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||04/17/2013|
This is the quote I responded to, dipshit at r91:
[quote]In r37's world, you can't treat paying customers differently than non-paying customers. So apparently Starbucks has to hand out its coffee to everyone whether they pay for it or not.
And, yes, it's a stupid analogy. No one suggested that the airline has to offer free flights to everyone who shows up wanting to fly, which is the situation that WOULD be analogous to Starbucks having to hand out coffee to anyone who walks through the door.
A good analogy would have compared the way airlines treat buddy-pass customers to the way restaurants or retail establishments treat customers who have some sort of pass/voucher/whatever for free product. To say that expecting the airlines to treat paying and buddy-pass customers equally (which, for the record, I don't think they need to do) is like expecting shops to just hand out free product to absolutely anyone is a dumb, false analogy.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||04/17/2013|
Great job, r92. Amp up the name-calling, just because you would have used a different analogy.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||04/17/2013|
And R92, you're still missing the point. R37 said that it should be illegal to treat paying customers differently than non-paying. The Starbucks example was just reductio ad absurdum to show where that would lead. So it was in fact an apt analogy.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||04/17/2013|
[quote]I wish the airlines would ban ghetto clothing from the entire fucking plane, not just 1st class.
They haven't banned ghetto clothing from first class. Haven't you been following along?
|by Anonymous||reply 96||04/17/2013|
I think that it is time that the airlines institute a dress code for ALL passengers. Hopefully that would get rid of the riff-raff and most of the breeders traveling with their spawn.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||04/17/2013|
Obviously R94 didn't. Though OP could have helped this argument from breaking out if he had picked a more accurate headline. Though that wouldn't have gotten as much attention which was the real point.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||04/17/2013|
Flying from Australia to the UK recently in business class, I was given pyjamas to change into, if wished... Which would make a nonsense out of any rule that insisted passengers had to be neatly dressed. Mind you, I don't want to see anyone with jeans so low-slung that their backside is hanging out. That crotch-round-the-knees look is like a huge, filled diaper.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||04/17/2013|
[quote]Amp up the name-calling, just because you would have used a different analogy.
Not just different, better. The analogy I quoted was not a valid analogy. And you ARE a dipshit, honey. If the shoe fits wear it. Just make sure it's not a flipflop in first class on a buddy pass.
[quote]And [R92], you're still missing the point.
There was no valid point to miss.
[quote] [R37] said that it should be illegal to treat paying customers differently than non-paying.
No, r37 said"
[quote]It should be [illegal discrimination], if they both have first class seats.
That is quite different from saying it's illegal to discriminate against any non-paying customer at all, including those who DON'T have seats/tickets/passes,/gift certificates/whatever, and are in fact not even customers, just people demanding something for free for no apparent reason... which was the "logic" behind the really DUMB Starbucks analogy.
I happen to think it's fine and should not be illegal to impose certain conditions on a non-paying customers (those who actually are customers and are entitled to the seat/product/service in the first place), but you can't make that argument convincingly using false, stupid analogies.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||04/17/2013|
[quote] Flying from Australia to the UK recently in business class, I was given pyjamas to change into, if wished... Which would make a nonsense out of any rule that insisted passengers had to be neatly dressed.
Not really, considering most flights of that duration have sleeping pods (at least in First Class). They wouldn't expect one to sleep in one's jacket and tie.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||04/17/2013|
Is that the best argument that your feeble mind can produce. A black television actor isn't the same character that he played on television. Perhaps it comes as a shock to you but sitcoms are not documentaries. They actually hire actors who play roles. As far as Cosby cheating on his wife; he's no different than half of all married men. Does that mean that he was not a good father to his children. I don't know whether he was or not. If he had not cheated I still wouldn't know. It does possibly mean that he was not a good husband. However it does not change his legacy as a trailblazer for minorities in the entertainment industry. Nor does it diminish his philanthropic legacy. He is a man of great achievement. He is also flawed but so is every other human being. Here's some more shocking news for you. Father Knows Best's Robert Young was a drunk. Leave It To Beavers's Hugh Beaumont was a drunk who didn't like children. Mary Tyler Moore (the lovely girl next door) was a drunk. Designing Women's passionate liberal Dixie Carter was a Republican. Certainly I hate myself for participating in your distraction from the point that I was trying to make. You are like so many of the homo bigots that post here. You seem to have very limited intellectual ability. Therefore you can only see and understand the world through stereotypes and generalizations. Black is bad. White is good. Jews are cheap. However you moan groan and complain when straight people refuse to see you as anything but a stereotype. Your comments about me thinking I'm better are so typical of American laziness. Sometimes I forget that intelligence is frowned upon in this country. Intelligent people are referred to as elitist. Stupidity is rewarded and celebrated. Let me also make it clear that I responded to address the bigotry of R11 and R?. I did not address the intention of the policy which I do have questions about. What is the point of a dress code that would only apply to those who had discounted tickets. I take that back. What is the point of only applying the established dress code to those that have discounted tickets. Applying the policy in this manner means that everyone sitting in first class could have had on the same outfit that the two men with discounted tickets had on; however those two would have been the only passengers not allowed to fly. That application of the policy certainly would not yield the intended results but I'm assuming that the goal is to create a somewhat uniform appearance in first class. The application of the policy in this situation just isn't logical. I personally have used a buddy pass only once. I helped a friend move to a different state. He drove his car and I drove a Uhaul truck. He gave me a buddy pass so that I could fly back home. I flew coach. I wore khaki shorts and t-shirt. I was never informed of any type of dress code.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||04/17/2013|
[quote] I personally have used a buddy pass only once. I helped a friend move to a different state. He drove his car and I drove a Uhaul truck. He gave me a buddy pass so that I could fly back home. I flew coach. I wore khaki shorts and t-shirt. I was never informed of any type of dress code.
It was up to the friend who got you the buddy pass to inform you of the dress code. But it is different for First Class and Coach passengers:
Guest pass travelers in Coach or First Class/Envoy may wear casual attire. US Airways asks its employees and their pass riders to exercise good judgment when selecting their travel attire. Clothes should be in good repair, neat, clean, and conservative. Unacceptable attire in any class includes any clothing that is torn, faded, soiled, wrinkled, cut-off, has ragged edges or holes; clothing with offensive graphics or terminology; and provocative or revealing clothing such as micro/miniskirts, bare midriff, halter, tank, tube or bra tops.
Coach Class: Eligible Pass Riders may wear casual attire, including shorts, blue jeans, sandals, and athletic footwear.
First or Envoy Class: Pass travelers may wear casual attire, including blue or black denim attire, skirts, capri-style pants, and sandals, provided it is well groomed, neat, clean, and conservative. Unacceptable attire in First Class/Envoy includes tee shirts, shorts, jogging suits, athletic gear, baseball-style caps, athletic shoes, beach footwear,flip flops including Croc style footwear.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||04/17/2013|
Is there any evidence that white passengers with free first class tickets were treated differently than black passengers with free first class tickets yet?
|by Anonymous||reply 104||04/17/2013|
If the pass is issued with the proviso that clothing must be within a set of guidelines and the recipient of that pass doesn't comply with the guidelines, that is NOT racism. It's someone who's either too stupid or arrogant to think the strings attached to a free pass don't apply to them.
If the clothing guidelines were for non-white people only that would be racist. But they're not. Stupid, entitled, arrogant, greedy behaviour. If a friend helps you out with something you say thank you and don't do anything to embarrass your friend. These two sound like they don't understand basic manners never mind anything else.
It has nothing to do with what anyone else on the flight was wearing unless those people were also travelling on a company-issued pass. When you buy your ticket the ticket doesn't come with a dress code. When you're given the ticket for free it does have a dress code. That's all there is to it. Colour is not part of the deal.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||04/17/2013|
Good for USAirways.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||04/17/2013|
The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is staggering.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||04/17/2013|
Yes, especially by R100.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||04/17/2013|
Give it UP, 108. A so-called "customer" who walks into Starbucks empty-handed—no money, no gift card, no voucher, etc—and expects to be served a cup of coffee is not the same as an airlines passenger who presents a buddy pass to board his flight and then gets into a quibble with airlines personnel over whether he's allowed to dress the same as the paying passengers. Regardless of who's right and who's wrong in either situation, the situations are not analogous. I know that, and you know that, too; you are just being stubborn and silly.
[quote]Is there any evidence that white passengers with free first class tickets were treated differently than black passengers with free first class tickets yet?
There is evidence that other first-class passengers were allowed to board in jeans and hoodies, but the key question—were they buddy pass flyers or did they buy their own tickets?—was not answered or addressed in the article OP linked.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||04/17/2013|
My question is what exactly is the point of this policy. US Airways said that they "hold employees to the dress code policy" which I can understand. However these two passengers were not employees. The policy seems pointless though for both employees and nonemployees being that the other passengers can wear whatever they choose. Even in terms of representing the company; who would know that you were an employee. Better yet on a airplane full of people dressed in whatever; who would care. Dress codes are usually used to create uniformity. I would imagine that a great number of the "nonrevenue customers" are not employees. The airline obviously knows this; so again what exactly is the point of the application of the policy in this situation. Although the most important question for you girls here at DL is (not to still someone else's shtick); Can you still wear Caftans and Earrings?
|by Anonymous||reply 110||04/17/2013|
I would sue both the airlines and the employee.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||04/17/2013|
#111, that's because you are an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||04/17/2013|
The airlines policy/behavior is racist only if white/non-black buddy pass flyers are allowed to fly first class in jeans and hoodies. That could be the case, but the article OP linked to does not specify.
As to what would make the policy, or 112's defense of it, homophobic, perhaps you would like to explain your "reasoning" on that one, r113?
|by Anonymous||reply 114||04/17/2013|
[quote] I would imagine that a great number of the "nonrevenue customers" are not employees.
R110, that's true only in the sense that the employee typically gets to designate others that can share in this benefit. For example, the employee's spouse/domestic partner, parents, and children usually are permitted to share non-rev flight benefits. In addition, most airlines give each employee a set number of "buddy passes" that the employee can give to siblings, other relatives, friends, etc.
Regardless, the conditions that come with getting to fly non-rev (i.e., free) include adhering to a general dress code. I mentioned upthread that my partner works for a major airline. I am appreciative of this benefit that his company provides. It has allowed us to travel to lots of places for free. If the company requires me to dress a certain way so that I can fly to Madrid or Rome or Omaha for nothing, I'm happy to do it.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||04/17/2013|
Let's face it - first class should require a background check and a minimum income requirement. It is called first class for a reason.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||04/17/2013|
That would hardly ensure that people dressed well in first class, r116.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||04/17/2013|
I'm with the other tasteful posters who support instituting a dress code for all passengers. If you're going to be sealed in a metal tube for any amount of time with a large number of strangers a reasonable amount of decorum should be expected.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||04/19/2013|
I fly upfront a fair amount, as a matter of fact I did yesterday, and don't see sloppily dressed folks at all. Most are business travelers ("business casual"), or wealthy (retirees), or folks who've cashed in miles. I rarely see trashy-looking folks in economy actually, most are plain old middle class families.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||04/19/2013|
What I've noticed most recently is that everyone looks like they are wearing cheap clothes. Either clothes are more cheaply made, or everyone shops in Tijuana.
Now, if you have a hot body you can pull it off but were talking U.S.A. here, people.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||04/19/2013|