United Airlines tries to ban two young girls from flight because of leggings

[Julie's Haircut]

Her political agenda isn't a secret. She founded Moms Demand Action. And it's not a political action group against airlines or women's rights. No need to make her politics an issue in this case. I fully believe she witnessed what she perceived as injustice. She tweeted about it. Hopefully, now that she has expanded knowledge into the situation, she can ascertain that United wasn't unfairly targeting these girls.

Now, do I think that United has some antiquated rules that unfairly targets women in today's climate....that's another story.

Regardless of what she ascertains, I doubt she'll be following up with a "so sorry, I was wrong" tweet. But she's got a ton of publicity, which will only help her blog visit numbers.

I saw an updated article this morning. She concedes that she wasn't aware of the situation regarding a dress code for passengers flying on employee passes. But she still maintains it was unfair, an injustice, that it's a sexist, misogynistic policy, and that she was right to complain about it because it's her duty to call out such transgressions whenever she witnesses them.

 

[sam_gordon]

BUT... in my opinion, given the particular circumstance, I think that the flight attendant (or whoever made the decision to ask them to leave) could have done good deed and just given them a firm warning (i.e. "you will be escorted off the plane next time if you're in violation of the dress code") and allowed them to fly. Now, I don't know if they flight attendant would've gotten in trouble for that or if there was some extenuating circumstance, but considering these were minors, personally, I might have given them the benefit of the doubt.

So you would willingly go against your company's policies?

 

[Hikergirl]

If the airline has such a policy, because of appearances... Maybe they are learning right now all about public appearance.
If this policy is all about forcing travelers to 'represent' the airline and making sure that there is a positive 'appearance'... (Which is what I have a problem with)
How do they think it looks to have Gate Agents to do this to a family, right there in public, and deny service to children who are traveling on leisure (Again, for the umpteenth time - NOT any employee or person on company business)
Sorry, but I think the policy has now backfired. In a HUGE way.

Is it backfiring? I guess only time will tell. I personally think that the media is trying to make this into much more than it is, which is absolutely nothing.
Personally I have more respect for companies that follow through on their policies and don't give in to appease the busy body loud mouth twits. I know next time I fly, I'll be sure to check United's prices first.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Yep, this 'activist' is a whole 'nother issue. for sure....

And, yes, in theory all policies should be enforced consistantly.
How may people have posted here on the DIS many many times, complaining about those entitled people who think that they should be above policy.

 

[sam_gordon]

If the airline has such a policy, because of appearances... Maybe they are learning right now all about public appearance.
If this policy is all about forcing travelers to 'represent' the airline and making sure that there is a positive 'appearance'... (Which is what I have a problem with)
How do they think it looks to have Gate Agents to do this to a family, right there in public, and deny service to children who are traveling on leisure (Again, for the umpteenth time - NOT any employee or person on company business)
Sorry, but I think the policy has now backfired. In a HUGE way.

What do you want the gate agent to do? Take them to some secluded room and tell them they're not following the dress code? MULTIPLE people have told us in this thread the dress code is easy to know. Has the policy "backfired"? I don't think so. If the Dis is any reflection of society, I'd say it's 60-40 toward the airline. Do you think people aren't going to fly United because of this policy?

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Regardless of what she ascertains, I doubt she'll be following up with a "so sorry, I was wrong" tweet. But she's got a ton of publicity, which will only help her blog visit numbers.

That was my thought, also. I doubt that she'll let others know she mis-read the situation and posted incorrect information.

 

[Hikergirl]

I saw an updated article this morning. She concedes that she wasn't aware of the situation regarding a dress code for passengers flying on employee passes. But she still maintains it was unfair, an injustice, that it's a sexist, misogynistic policy, and that she was right to complain about it because it's her duty to call out such transgressions whenever she witnesses them.

She is such an idiot.

 

[SMD]

When I worked for Disney, there was a rule (and it's still enforced today) that you could not wear your CM ID when you were off-duty in the parks. It had to be hidden. The policy was strictly enforced; people would get reprimands and even fired for violating this policy. The point behind it was that the company didn't want you to appear as a representative of the company when you were off-duty. Obviously, you were expected to abide by all the park rules a normal guest would, but should you wear a shirt that promotes a non-Disney brand or something, they didn't want you to appear as a representative of the company (this was one of many reasons for the rule).

One difference is Disney doesn't want its employees and their guests representing the company. The airlines want their employees and guests to model a certain appearance in exchange for their perk. It's similar to Disney rules that non-relatives must be accompanied when using certain kinds of passes and the fact that there are consequences up to and including termination to the Disney employee if their guest is found to misbehave in the parks.

 

[nkereina]

(Again, for the umpteenth time - NOT any employee or person on company business)

But again for the umpteenth time, the people in question were using the perk of an airline employee. It doesn't matter that they weren't the actual employee. The perk comes with rules that need to be followed in order to use them, and that was not done.

If this policy is all about forcing travelers to 'represent' the airline and making sure that there is a positive 'appearance'... (Which is what I have a problem with)

Airline employees wear a uniform while on the clock. I don't see why it would be out of line for them to have a policy on how they should dress when utilizing their employee benefit off the clock.

 

[robinb]

I saw an updated article this morning. She concedes that she wasn't aware of the situation regarding a dress code for passengers flying on employee passes. But she still maintains it was unfair, an injustice, that it's a sexist, misogynistic policy, and that she was right to complain about it because it's her duty to call out such transgressions whenever she witnesses them.

It's a valid point that other people have made on this very thread. The last time I flew non-rev on UAL was 18 years ago and jeans and shorts were not allowed. UAL has obviously made changes and perhaps they will make another one in favor of yoga pants and leggings.

 

[Hikergirl]

It's a valid point that other people have made on this very thread. The last time I flew non-rev on UAL was 18 years ago and jeans and shorts were not allowed. UAL has obviously made changes and perhaps they will make another one in favor of yoga pants and leggings.

I don't think its a valid point at all.
If we are going to cry "its sexist" when an article of clothing that women typically wear is banned. Then we better start freaking crying that its sexist to make those articles of clothing for women in the first place. But as women we don't do that. We don't refuse to wear skirts, or bras, or leggings and yoga pants even though the are targeted for us. It is just a bunch of BS. The only way that twit would have a valid point is if a man using that pass came up dressed in leggings and was allowed to fly by the very same attendant. The dress code covers types of clothing, not who is wearing it.

 

[robinb]

The only way that twit would have a valid point is if a man using that pass came up dressed in leggings and was allowed to fly by the very same attendant. The dress code covers types of clothing, not who is wearing it.

That's a red herring. If men routinely wore leggings, I might agree with you. But they don't. Leggings are primarily worn by women and banning (or conversely requiring) a type of clothing worn by one gender over another is discriminatory.

I do think that, under the current rules, UAL did the right thing. I'm just saying that maybe the rules need to change again to encompass an article of clothing that is worn by a vast majority of women.

 

[wilkeliza]

That's a red herring. If men routinely wore leggings, I might agree with you. But they don't. Leggings are primarily worn by women and banning (or conversely requiring) a type of clothing worn by one gender over another is discriminatory.

I do think that, under the current rules, UAL did the right thing. I'm just saying that maybe the rules need to change again to encompass an article of clothing that is worn by a vast majority of women.

So are you also against facial hair rules then? Sure a few women do have facial hair but it is almost exclusively a male thing. We can't claim sexism only when it applies to things that lean more towards feminine.

 

[robinb]

So are you also against facial hair rules then? Sure a few women do have facial hair but it is almost exclusively a male thing. We can't claim sexism only when it applies to things that lean more towards feminine.

Men with beards can't fly non-Rev on UAL?

 

[Kellydelly]

Well, I don't actually go to a gym, I exercise at home so going out for juice with the girls afterward isn't really an issue. I do believe there is a big difference between wearing yoga pants on your way to/from the gym and just wearing them as pants in your normal day to day activities.

I own a pair of yoga pants and they are my favorite pants to wear.....at home. The few times I have run out wearing them I make sure I'm wearing a coat or shirt long enough to cover my tush and generally I am just running the kids to school and not planning to get out of the car.

I'm not trying to attack your or tell you what to wear. But no, I do not believe leggings or yoga pants are pants to be worn as outer wear unless you are layering them with a long shirt, shorts, or a skirt or are coming from or going to the gym. If you feel comfortable in that then more power to you. I am not that comfortable in my skin I guess and I do not think it appropriate for girls to wear. I do not care what 80 to 90% of college age girls wear, I still don't find it appropriate.

Apparently the "are leggings pants" question is a matter of hot debate. Who knew?

Maybe you have a different idea of what yoga pants are than other people? Mine are not skin tight, they loosely hug me around my hips and are full legs, so I don't have a problem with pairing them with a t shirt or something like that and wearing them out and about in public. What you are describing is what I would consider leggings, exercise or otherwise. When I just googled yoga pants I saw both versions, tight or loose.

 

[wilkeliza]

Men with beards can't fly non-Rev on UAL?

I don't know but there are other places that have had beards as apart of their dress code. Up until just a few years ago for one male Disney employees couldn't have beards or mustaches. They could only come to work clean shaven. Same for earrings. Men couldn't wear earing but woman could. I'm just saying if saying no spandex skin tight clothing is sexist then other rules that are male or female specific have to be considered sexist as well.

 

[Hikergirl]

That's a red herring. If men routinely wore leggings, I might agree with you. But they don't. Leggings are primarily worn by women and banning (or conversely requiring) a type of clothing worn by one gender over another is discriminatory.

I do think that, under the current rules, UAL did the right thing. I'm just saying that maybe the rules need to change again to encompass an article of clothing that is worn by a vast majority of women.

So you don't care if United thinks spandex leggings in general are inappropriate, you just think because women primarily wear them they shouldn't be banned?

I guess I don't see this as a female issue. I see it as a what is appropriate clothing for the function issue. In this case the "function" is representation of United on one of their flights. They don't think spandex leggings are appropriate for that.

 

[NHdisneylover]

That's a red herring. If men routinely wore leggings, I might agree with you. But they don't. Leggings are primarily worn by women and banning (or conversely requiring) a type of clothing worn by one gender over another is discriminatory.

I do think that, under the current rules, UAL did the right thing. I'm just saying that maybe the rules need to change again to encompass an article of clothing that is worn by a vast majority of women.

My son hated the feeling of thick fabric bunched around his very slender waist as a little kid. He routinely wore black leggings. We had to buy them in the "girls" section---if anything is "discriminatroy" it's that this basic piece of clothing was labled and marketed towards just one gender. A policy opposed to wearing them (along with sweats---ie opposed to attire that is often associated as for sports) isn't in and of itself sexist.

 

[Hikergirl]

I just ran to pick up my ds from track practice. Guess what half of the guys were wearing

 

[maxiesmom]

She is such an idiot.

That and she loves to see herself on tv.