Don't wear leggings on United Airlines!

[Ethical_Slut]

They are obliged to board and depart clothed.

I know. I was being a smart ass.

 

[EternalFantasies]

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Weirdest-Airlines-In-The-World/#.zztf2m9j4

1 Vietnam!

2. Hooter Air

3. Malta.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the two who were turned away were standby “pass riders,” meaning they were traveling as relatives of an employee, and their “attire did not meet our [more strict] pass travel requirements. ... They are representing United Airlines.”

There should be an over-under on a thing like that...

Under thirty and under your target BMI, then yes. Over either then !

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, it get's a bit out of hand:

http://i.imgur.com/wrOOrLT.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

You were warned!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...airlines-boots-girls-wearing-leggings-n738706

"United Airlines is facing backlash from customers after two girls wearing leggings were denied entry onto a flight because a gate agent deemed their attire improper.

The incident, documented on Twitter by Colorado resident and gun-law activist Shannon Watts, took place in the waiting area outside of a gate for a flight to Minneapolis at Denver International Airport."

Leggings?! The '80s called . . . but I hung up when they started asking about Prince Albert in a can. (I'll never let him out!)

 

[Parminderjeet]

If they were regular passengers they would be fine, but they weren't. The airline has rules and if whiny cunts don't like it they, and the OP (whiny cunt), can fly another airline and pay full price.

 

[Ethical_Slut]

If they were regular passengers they would be fine, but they weren't. The airline has rules and if whiny cunts don't like it they, and the OP (whiny cunt), can fly another airline and pay full price.

From one whiny cunt to another (you), these were 10 and 11 year old girls. Their father wore shorts and there is no mention how short they were.

 

[Ethical_Slut]

Leggings?! The '80s called . . . but I hung up when they started asking about Prince Albert in a can. (I'll never let him out!)

Good for you! Stand firm on Prince Albert.

 

[chillywilly2]

From one whiny cunt to another (you), these were 10 and 11 year old girls. Their father wore shorts and there is no mention how short they were.

Airline employees can be like government employees...sometimes for no apparent reason, they just like to exercise their authority...and maybe they had a hate on for the old man...either way, the rules for FREE flights were broken

 

[hashtag46]

Airline employees can be like government employees...sometimes for no apparent reason, they just like to exercise their authority...and maybe they had a hate on for the old man...either way, the rules for FREE flights were broken

I had a similar impression.

I thought that the Airlines published those guidelines mainly as general suggestions or education for passengers who tend to dress inappropriately on flights, and that they didn't expect their employess to enforce them so rigidly.

Their response to the public backlash was atypical tho.
Because other corporations would have just fired the "little guys" and placed the entire blame on them.
I guess they worried that those particular employees might have had enough ground to sue them if they did that.

 

[Parminderjeet]

From one whiny cunt to another (you), these were 10 and 11 year old girls. Their father wore shorts and there is no mention how short they were.

Then they should have paid full fare and traveled on the same airline. They were representatives of the airline and the airline didn't approve. Tough titties! Whine all you want, it's what morons like you do best.

 

[rocket_surgery]

Stupid thing to complain about. The rules are clearly stated and the person who started the whole thing had no idea what was going on and should have minded her own business.
If your employer gives you a bennie with stipulations then you gotta follow them. Period. Complaining about it (which from what I've read the actual people never did) is really really stupid.

 

[adrina]

Ridiculously ignorant. Can we please stop treating women and girls as word documents and applying "auto correct"?

This is beyond.

I flew United twice last year. Both times I wore leggings. There was not a single issue.

Someone had a stick up their posterior.

 

[rocket_surgery]

Ridiculously ignorant. Can we please stop treating women and girls as word documents and applying "auto correct"?

This is beyond.

I flew United twice last year. Both times I wore leggings. There was not a single issue.

Someone had a stick up their posterior.

You're not an employee on a free pass either. Rules are rules.

 

[adrina]

You're not an employee on a free pass either. Rules are rules.

The rules are antiquated and ridiculous. Further I believe they were misapplied in this sense. They were 12 year old girls and nothing about their attire was offensive or truly inappropriate.

Someone had a stick up their butt and wanted to make an example out of these girls is my bet.

I agree with those that say it is arbitrary and sexist. Frankly the "rules" were applied in a punitive and inconsistent measure. Sexualing 12 year old girls is appalling. Hiding behind "rules are rules" is lemming like.

 

[rocket_surgery]

The rules are antiquated and ridiculous. Further I believe they were misapplied in this sense. They were 12 year old girls and nothing about their attire was offensive or truly inappropriate.

Someone had a stick up their butt and wanted to make an example out of these girls is my bet.

I agree with those that say it is arbitrary and sexist. Frankly the "rules" were applied in a punitive and inconsistent measure. Sexualing 12 year old girls is appalling. Hiding behind "rules are rules" is lemming like.

How do you know they were applied inconsistently? Were there other employees that had leggings?

 

[adrina]

How do you know they were applied inconsistently? Were there other employees that had leggings?

The father who was also a pass rider had shorts on - several inches above his knee. Yet he was not sexualized.

The reality is that these rules are sexist. They were applied in a sexist manner.

Once again, women/girls were punished for something the male was given a pass on.

There is no justification from UA on this. If they want to pull this kind of garbage, then enforce the rules equally. If casual wear is not appropriate, then surely above knee shorts for men should not be allowed. When he sits and if he crosses his legs, his underwear may very well be visible. A clear violation of the rules.

Yet who will come on here and try to defend the allowance for him and say the girls are out of line? And then we'll have to ask why.

 

[rocket_surgery]

The father who was also a pass rider had shorts on - several inches above his knee. Yet he was not sexualized.

The reality is that these rules are sexist. They were applied in a sexist manner.

Once again, women/girls were punished for something the male was given a pass on.

There is no justification from UA on this. If they want to pull this kind of garbage, then enforce the rules equally. If casual wear is not appropriate, then surely above knee shorts for men should not be allowed. When he sits and if he crosses his legs, his underwear may very well be visible. A clear violation of the rules.

Yet who will come on here and try to defend the allowance for him and say the girls are out of line? And then we'll have to ask why.

What is their rule on shorts? Maybe women are allowed to have them, too.
You are making a lot of assumptions on something that the people involved aren't even complaining about.

 

[Ethical_Slut]

Then they should have paid full fare and traveled on the same airline. They were representatives of the airline and the airline didn't approve. Tough titties! Whine all you want, it's what morons like you do best.

Man, you have serious emotional and anger issues. You're very sad and need help. Bye!

 

[Ethical_Slut]

What is their rule on shorts? Maybe women are allowed to have them, too.
You are making a lot of assumptions on something that the people involved aren't even complaining about.

They are complaining about that. The very thing Adrina mentioned. Heard it on the news this morning.

 

[rocket_surgery]

They are complaining about that. The very thing Adrina mentioned. Heard it on the news this morning.

No news story even gives their names and one from just 2 hours ago doesn't mention them saying anything.
The whole thing is being played out by people who either weren't there or had no idea what was happening at the time and not a single one is a United employee.
The fact that United is doubling down on their actions sorta says the employees were wrong.

 

[Tryharder62]

They are obliged to board and depart clothed.

I hope they put something down on the seats!

 

[rocket_surgery]

I hope they put something down on the seats!

The smell on that plane must be horrible.

 

[hashtag46]

Ridiculously ignorant. Can we please stop treating women and girls as word documents and applying "auto correct"?

This is beyond.

I flew United twice last year. Both times I wore leggings. There was not a single issue.

Someone had a stick up their posterior.

Did they highlight your cameltoe?

I wasn't exactly conservative in my attire when I was younger. But even I knew that leggings should always be combined with a dress or a Tshirt that passes the pubic area.

 

[adrina]

What is their rule on shorts? Maybe women are allowed to have them, too.
You are making a lot of assumptions on something that the people involved aren't even complaining about.

From post #9

See relevant passage:

shorts that are more than three inches above the knee when in a standing position

See quote from NY times article from witness:

“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.”

His shorts clearly should have been reviewed. However not a mention was made of them by UA. Their "discretion" did not kick in for a very clear potential issue with the male's clothing - but it did for the female.

These dress codes always target women and girls because women and girls are sexualized. It's ridiculous and arcane. You say I make assumptions, I say you make the mistake of accepting certain behaviors because they do not inconvenience you.

UA made a mistake. You and anyone that rationalizes it just amplifies that mistake.