Flier Claims Southwest Attendant Played Fashion Police

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2FanPeter said:
Why didn't they just offer her a blanket?

They did. that was the compromise. I don't think that changes anything. She could have just as easily made a big stink becuase a flight attendant forced a blanket on her.

I am still waiting for someone to address her going to the media, NOT for attention, but because she felt "humiliated" yet she works for Hooters. :)

And for those of you who do not know, there are some SWA seats that face each other. Imagine if she was wearing her skirt up (again, we are seeing the "after" photo) and sitting directly across from your eleven year old son. He gets to sit there and focus on her crotch (panties or not) for the hour plus flight.

Again, we do not have the whole story. I think there needs to be SOME decorum, no?
 
zoney! said:

I am still waiting for someone to address her going to the media, NOT for attention, but because she felt "humiliated" yet she works for Hooters. :)

That comment, to me, really sounds a lot like the outdated, ridiculous "she is promiscuous and slutty, therefore she probably consented" myths which have mercifully been eradicated. It is exactly the same sort of reasoning that's being applied here.

Her place of employment cannot be seen as logically probative of her sense of humiliation at that time. Period.
 
ntalwar said:
I don't see how this is really much different from a nice restaurant or nightclub having a dress code - no jeans, sneakers, etc. I think people perceive airplanes as a public domain or something. And we only saw the "after" photo.

Not into the dress code thing, yet another reason to avoid the club scene (along with ridiculous covers, overpriced drinks, and some HS dropout roid-aided bouncer not letting me in). But I'm guessing there's no "Dress to Impress" or somoe such on the Southwest ticket.
 
zoney! said:


They did. that was the compromise. I don't think that changes anything. She could have just as easily made a big stink becuase a flight attendant forced a blanket on her.

I am still waiting for someone to address her going to the media, NOT for attention, but because she felt "humiliated" yet she works for Hooters. :)

And for those of you who do not know, there are some SWA seats that face each other. Imagine if she was wearing her skirt up (again, we are seeing the "after" photo) and sitting directly across from your eleven year old son. He gets to sit there and focus on her crotch (panties or not) for the hour plus flight.

Again, we do not have the whole story. I think there needs to be SOME decorum, no?

zoney raises some good points.
we don't have all the facts.

and after listening to this girl on tv, i don't feel she is quite the victim she was initially made out to be.



dbs
 
Angela Harlem said:


Are 3 posts on her supposed lack of undies really necessary? It's kind of disturbing, given your age, that you are fixated on this enough to make 3 comments on it. And also given your life quest to never judge people. Well, black folk, anyway. Guess that doesn't apply to women, huh, deep.

little do you know, but you did pick up on something.

dbs
 
anitram said:



So Southwest has a publicly posted dress code for everyone to comply with?

Do they have a publicly posted code of conduct - how about drunk passengers? Like I said, we only saw the "after" pic - after she pulled down her skirt. How do we know what was visible before that? They have a right to enforce it if they feel it will offend other passengers and hurt their business. As a paying customer of an airline, I have a right to not see certain things. And I'd rather not see other passengers' crotches :yikes:. I personally filed a complaint with Icelandair once for serving alcohol to a drunk passenger, who then became unruly.

CTU2fan said:

But I'm guessing there's no "Dress to Impress" or somoe such on the Southwest ticket.

Right - but we don't hear the news about random dude last Saturday night who was denied entry into a bar because he had sneakers on. He was probably bummed out too.
 
Last edited:
So what exactly is this horrible thing that will happen when all these hypothetical children (please, will someone think of the children!!!1) catch a glimpse of someone's knickers? :shrug:
 
ntalwar said:


Do they have a publicly posted code of conduct - how about drunk passengers? Like I said, we only saw the "after" pic - after she pulled down her skirt. How do we know what was visible before that? They have a right to enforce it if they feel it will offend other passengers and hurt their business. As a paying customer of an airline, I have a right to not see certain things. And I'd rather not see other passengers' crotches :yikes:. I personally filed a complaint with Icelandair once for serving alcohol to a drunk passenger, who then became unruly.

That's all fine and dandy but you stated that this is no different than another place having a dress code in effect. If that's your argument, then presumably, there should be a dress code that everyone is aware of, rather than it apparently being imposed at random, and completely under a flight attendant's discretion. I'm not even sure they have something as vague as "clothing needs to be in good taste with a view to modesty" in effect much less something more specific.
 
ntalwar said:
It's hard to imagine that Borat in his "thong" would be allowed on an airplane :wink:.

ding
ding
ding.

perfect answer.

but i do think there are some liberal progressives that post here that would view this as an infringement of rights on cross dressers -cross genders people and scream discrimination, matter of fact i promise you they would.

in the end,

the airlines have a right to enforce whatever rules of decency they want, if you don't like them, take the bus.

dbs
 
Last edited:
diamond said:

but i do think there are some liberal progressives that post here that would view this as an infringement of rights on cross dressers -cross genders people and scream discrimination, matter of fact i promise you they would.



if a man were wearing what she was wearing -- *exactly* what she was wearing -- he'd have been asked to get off the plane as well.

if a man is living as a woman, if someone is a pre-op transsexual, and the airline said that your clothes must match your genitalia, then, yes, that woul be discrimination.

but no one is saying that. and so your comment above was designed with no other thought in mind than to be inflammatory.

so, congratulations.
 
ntalwar said:


As a paying customer of an airline, I have a right to not see certain things. And I'd rather not see other passengers' crotches :yikes:. I personally filed a complaint with Icelandair once for serving alcohol to a drunk passenger, who then became unruly.

You do? You have a right to not see certain things? Like what? Are you going to abandon old people, fat people, or black people because you don't want to see them?

You going to ban lycra? You can see crotches in lycra.

You going to allow Muslim men to force women to cover up everything, so they are comfortable on a plane? We can offer airline Burkas...

Unless she was actually exposing something, then no, you have no right "to not see certain things".

Your drunk analogy is apples and oranges.
 
zoney! said:


I am still waiting for someone to address her going to the media, NOT for attention, but because she felt "humiliated" yet she works for Hooters. :)


:eyebrow:

What does working at Hooters have to do with it?
 
DrTeeth said:
So what exactly is this horrible thing that will happen when all these hypothetical children (please, will someone think of the children!!!1) catch a glimpse of someone's knickers? :shrug:

In Europe, nothing.

In America, the children will be scarred for life (due to the parents' over-reactions). :wink:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Unless she was actually exposing something, then no, you have no right "to not see certain things".

Maybe not a legal right, but more an expectation - otherwise people will complain.

I really don't see her winning a lawsuit or getting an apology over this. Companies can do business with whomever they wish, as long as it doesn't violate discrimination laws. Those signs we see at stores and restaurants saying “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” is pretty much correct - as long as they don't violate civil rights. It's up to the discretion of the business.
 
diamond said:
the airlines have a right to enforce whatever rules of decency they want, if you don't like them, take the bus.

Yes. They absolutely do. But the key here is that they don't have any rules.
 
No, they do have rules.

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/coc.pdf (.pdf), p.11

This is from their Contract of Carriage (in the Policies section of Southwest's website), effective July 12, 2005:
Carrier may refuse to transport or remove from the aircraft at any point any passenger in the following categories as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such passenger or other passengers:
(1) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, or violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive;
Now whether those policies, or any notification that passengers will be held accountable for following them accompanied by instructions on how to obtain a copy, appear on any documention given or showed to all passengers, that I don't know. Would that necessarily be legally required?
 
Thanks for the info. :up: Nulls and voids my previous statement.

It sounds like it's not very well known and/or not enforced often. It also sounds a bit up to interpretation. If it really is to be open to interpretation, I don't see the problem here.

I certainly don't think she was looking for any attention, and I don't think she ever thought her outfit would get her kicked off.
 
yolland said:
No, they do have rules.
Now whether those policies, or any notification that passengers will be held accountable for following them accompanied by instructions on how to obtain a copy, appear on any documention given or showed to all passengers, that I don't know. Would that necessarily be legally required?

Yes, it would be. It's one of the most basic premises of contract law in the common law world.
 
ntalwar said:


Maybe not a legal right, but more an expectation - otherwise people will complain.

Well I have an expectation that people will bathe before they travel, but I can't really enforce that one, can I?

ntalwar said:

I really don't see her winning a lawsuit or getting an apology over this. Companies can do business with whomever they wish, as long as it doesn't violate discrimination laws. Those signs we see at stores and restaurants saying “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” is pretty much correct - as long as they don't violate civil rights. It's up to the discretion of the business.

But arbitrarily choosing what is offensive clothing or not, is violating discrimination laws. She could easily win a case if they can't find evidence that she violated any DEFINED dress code.
 
Probably they have printed it in their terms of trade on the backside of her contract, or ticket. Since it's in the fine print, she probably didn't read. But she wouldn't have a case then.
 
Now whether those policies, or any notification that passengers will be held accountable for following them accompanied by instructions on how to obtain a copy, appear on any documention given or showed to all passengers, that I don't know. Would that necessarily be legally required?

Don't plane tickets, or computer printouts contain a page full of legalese fine print?
 
Vincent Vega said:
Since it's in the fine print, she probably didn't read. But she wouldn't have a case then.

Not necessarily.
 
Ah, ok, it's still a question of interpretation?

Is your law different there? I mean, in German law what is in the terms of trade is, whether you read it or not, legal, despite it being something so unusual, or adversarial, that you couldn't have expected it being included.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

But arbitrarily choosing what is offensive clothing or not, is violating discrimination laws. She could easily win a case if they can't find evidence that she violated any DEFINED dress code.

I don't see what discrimation law was violated from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -race, color, religion, or natural origin?
 
Maybe I've missed that, but did she even announce to take legal measures or is it just a hypothetical discussion?
 
ntalwar said:


I don't see what discrimation law was violated from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -race, color, religion, or natural origin?

I believe he's referring to sexism.
 
Vincent Vega said:
Maybe I've missed that, but did she even announce to take legal measures or is it just a hypothetical discussion?

She hired a lawyer, and appeared on TV with him.
 
Ah, I thought she was on TV on her own.

So, next question: Would a lawyer even chose to represent her if there was no chance of winning the case? (In case he isn't just behind some money he could charge her)
 
Back
Top Bottom