Flier Claims Southwest Attendant Played Fashion Police - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-10-2007, 12:31 AM   #121
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Well, that's just part of international travel, the Italian church thing....you expect to make some concessions to local cultural sensibilities from time to time. Whoop-de-do.

I just watched the Today Show clip, and while I'm reluctant to point this out, you can in fact see the entire crotch portion of her underpants when she sits back down, and it's not because of her 'wide stance'. So, I can see why the flight attendant might have seen it as a problem, especially since
Quote:
A compromise was reached after some adjustments: She pulled up her tank top, yanked down her skirt, and went back to her seat.
...presumably meaning, she was originally wearing the skirt even higher on her hips, rather than low-slung as seen on TV (and presumably on the return flight as well).

Wouldn't have bothered me, I'd have just looked away. But I'm not a flight attendant and I don't know how often they encounter skirts as short as she was evidently wearing hers when she first boarded. I wonder if she might have been less upset had it been a female attendant who took her aside. I can see the point about refusing transport being "onerous" and that requiring cover-up with a blanket is much more reasonable (though apparently she did that by her own choice, the attendant being satisfied with her "adjustments"), but again it seems completely unrealistic to me to say that unless the exact, specific 'fashion problem' encountered is spelled out in the policy, it shouldn't be enforceable.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 12:43 AM   #122
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:52 PM
Maybe people should just do what my mum always taught me: when there is a problem with someone's attire (ie, there isn't much of it) and you have to deal with them you simply look at his/her face.

I mean isn't it considered rude to stare at someone's crotch anyway?
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 12:48 AM   #123
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Ever managed a service sector business?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 01:03 AM   #124
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
but again it seems completely unrealistic to me to say that unless the exact, specific 'fashion problem' encountered is spelled out in the policy, it shouldn't be enforceable.
Then where is the line drawn, and who draws the line?

No one has answered this for me...

This is one upside to lawsuits, it has shaped law and helped more well defined regulations, otherwise it's left up to personal judgement.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-10-2007, 01:32 AM   #125
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:52 AM
I can't tell you how that process works with airlines concerning customer attire, because I've never worked for one. When I managed a chain bookstore, there was a companywide employee 'dress code' worded quite similarly to Southwest's policy, with maybe a dozen particular "always in fashion/always around"-type things further specified. Beyond that, it was up to me (possibly following a phonecall to the regional manager, if I felt unsure) to decide what might be unduly offensive to a hypothetical average customer. Because, styles change, you never know quite what fashion curveballs people might come up with, etc. So, e.g., having a faceful/mouthful of piercings was fine, even though on several occasions I got an earful from cranky oldsters about such employees, because in my judgment our 'average' customer wouldn't have been bothered by it. I can only remember two occasions where I felt I had to ask employees to cover up or else go home and change. One involved a neo-Nazi employee who showed up for work one day in a very short-sleeved shirt which revealed a large swastika tattoo on her arm. Our policy said nothing about swastika tattoos, and visible tattoos per se weren't a problem, but after consulting with the regional manager, I told her she'd have to either cover up with a sweatshirt or cardigan borrowed from another employee, or else go home and change. She chose to borrow a sweatshirt. Another time one of my cafe employees showed up for work in a low-cut, spaghetti-strap-type summer dress, which in itself was fine, except that this girl's proportions were such that the cup portion of her bra protruded more than an inch above the 'top' of the dress, more than that when leaning across the counter. She chose to borrow a sweatshirt also.

So...stuff like that. I can understand arguments that such policies perhaps ought to be more detailed, or updated more frequently, especially if there's a pattern of complaints of inconsistent application--but there's just no way you're ever going to be able to anticipate every last problematic combination that might possibly come your way.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 02:08 AM   #126
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
I can't tell you how that process works with airlines concerning customer attire, because I've never worked for one. When I managed a chain bookstore, there was a companywide employee 'dress code' worded quite similarly to Southwest's policy, with maybe a dozen particular "always in fashion/always around"-type things further specified. Beyond that, it was up to me (possibly following a phonecall to the regional manager, if I felt unsure) to decide what might be unduly offensive to a hypothetical average customer. Because, styles change, you never know quite what fashion curveballs people might come up with, etc. So, e.g., having a faceful/mouthful of piercings was fine, even though on several occasions I got an earful from cranky oldsters about such employees, because in my judgment our 'average' customer wouldn't have been bothered by it. I can only remember two occasions where I felt I had to ask employees to cover up or else go home and change. One involved a neo-Nazi employee who showed up for work one day in a very short-sleeved shirt which revealed a large swastika tattoo on her arm. Our policy said nothing about swastika tattoos, and visible tattoos per se weren't a problem, but after consulting with the regional manager, I told her she'd have to either cover up with a sweatshirt or cardigan borrowed from another employee, or else go home and change. She chose to borrow a sweatshirt. Another time one of my cafe employees showed up for work in a low-cut, spaghetti-strap-type summer dress, which in itself was fine, except that this girl's proportions were such that the cup portion of her bra protruded more than an inch above the 'top' of the dress, more than that when leaning across the counter. She chose to borrow a sweatshirt also.

So...stuff like that. I can understand arguments that such policies perhaps ought to be more detailed, or updated more frequently, especially if there's a pattern of complaints of inconsistent application--but there's just no way you're ever going to be able to anticipate every last problematic combination that might possibly come your way.
Ok, but these were employee provisions, not customer provisions. I can understand employee regulations, of course. I've been cited several employee violations during my high school and college employments, everything from wearing colored boxers, sideburns too long, not clean shaven, not starched enough, etc...

But did you ever kick out a customer based on dress?

As a customer, the guidelines were always set forth. You can walk down the street with no shoes, but you may not be allowed service in a store without shoes. That makes sense for hygene reasons and is usually stated on storefronts. In beach areas some higher end restaurants don't want you to wear bathing suits, fine, but it's stated very plainly. But this girl was wearing something acceptable to the public, it wasn't clearly stated that she couldn't wear it on a plane, so why was she thrown off?

The only thing I can come up with is personal bias...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-10-2007, 05:20 AM   #127
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
But did you ever kick out a customer based on dress?
No, but bookstores don't have 37-page-long 'Contracts of Carriage' stating how everything from unpleasant body odor to known contagious disease to offensive clothing might result in denial of service. Airlines just are more conservative, I guess because their customers are stuck in very close quarters with whoever they were assigned a seat next to for prolonged periods (while still expecting the airline to do their best to ensure a 'comfortable' trip). Sure, it might be helpful if they made their 'customer attire' policies more specific (e.g., specifying how high on the thigh a skirt can hit?), and it's reasonable to suggest you can't subject the general public to as strict an interpretation of "lewd, obscene or patently offensive" attire as you might use with employees, but still I don't see how they could anticipate all possibilities--evaluations like that are always going to have some subjective component to them.

I guess it comes down to what they're entitled to do to enforce their policies, considering how easy it apparently is for customers to not even notice they exist. I agree with "Just give her a blanket and be on your way," but even then you'd have to provide a reason why she has to cover up.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 05:34 AM   #128
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,585
Local Time: 01:52 AM
I wonder how she got that pair of 'Guns' thru security?

I'm truly sorry, I just had to get that offa my chest.
__________________
U2FanPeter is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 09:07 AM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow, that's your justification? Personal judgement in policing makes for a horrible cop. Next you'll start supporting racial profiling...
What? Some cops ticket for 5 mph over the speed limit, and some don't. Some give warnings.

Nice attempts to put words in my mouth (several times) though.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

so why was she thrown off?
She wasn't thrown off.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 10:35 AM   #130
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Big Grin

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well if some actually does spill over into another seat then yes, they should have to pay for it. No one else can use that seat.

You can't buy one lot and build a house that spills over onto the next lot.
this is hypocritical! A LOT of people "pour" over into other seats. The seats are small. Are you going to make everyone pay for an extra seat.

In your rants, you want a lawsuit here so dress codes are defined by an airline, but you simply state that if someone "spills over" to another seat, they should pay for two seats. Should you take a tape measure to define this "spill over"? Seats from airplane to airplane, and sometimes from row to row, are different sizes.

My point is, EACH individual situation has to be addressed differently. A skirt i hiked up so high that a crotch is showing should be handled similar to someone "spilling over" into someone elses seat.

For some, it is equal discomfort in a small steel tube for an extended period of time.
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 10:39 AM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


That's not the point. Cases regarding onerous clauses are not argued based on the legal construction of the clause. They're argued based on whether the person/employee at the point of sale informed the customer of the clause, whether there were clearly posted signs, whether the customer was aware of the policy prior to contract formation due to custom and so on.
It is the passenger's responsibility to read the Contract of Carriage. Again, they are out there, andas far as I know, no lawsuits have ever been won because someone "did not know" or was "not told" about them. I think they are written in a way to combat any potential lawsuits.
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 11:42 AM   #132
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 08:52 PM
This is in the San Diego Tribune article

"As the mercury climbed over 100 on Labor Day, I called Southwest Airlines with a not entirely hypothetical question:

Could a young woman board a flight to Tucson today wearing a bikini top?

Angelique, the agent who took my call, assured me that a young woman could.

“We don't have a problem with it if she's covered up in all the right spots,” she said. “We don't have a dress code.”



So some people at Southwest are apparently confused about it too. How would a bikini top be less revealing than that outfit? I would imagine she was wearing panties (for her own comfort if nothing else, and she said she was wearing a bra). It's entirely possible that someone was on some sort of power trip, some people in those positions are. What she does for a living is irrelevant, as is what she wears when she's doing it. If it mattered well perhaps airlines or any other service based business should be allowed to use that as a criteria for how they treat individual customers and what they subject them to in certain situations. Maybe her doctor should have her strip and be examined in the waiting room , since she can't be humiliated.

Family airline? It certainly wasn't the last time I flew on Southwest and they kept allowing the two people next to me to purchase liquor and become increasingly intoxicated before they finally cut them off when landing was approaching. But they were making money off that so I guess it's ok That's hardly emphasizing a "family" atmosphere. But as long as it's within their rules which may or may not be arbitrarily enforced by individual employees, well I guess that's ok too. And they would still make money off her if she had gone home to change and taken a later flight, as was suggested to her.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 11:50 AM   #133
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Big Grin

Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
This is in the San Diego Tribune article

"As the mercury climbed over 100 on Labor Day, I called Southwest Airlines with a not entirely hypothetical question:

Could a young woman board a flight to Tucson today wearing a bikini top?

Angelique, the agent who took my call, assured me that a young woman could.

“We don't have a problem with it if she's covered up in all the right spots,” she said. “We don't have a dress code.”



So some people at Southwest are apparently confused about it too. How would a bikini top be less revealing than that outfit?
Calling on the phone, and then ACTUALLY seeing what she is wearing is two different things.

I can call and ask if it is O.K. - but if I show up and it can be deemed offensive to other individuals around me, we have a different story.

Oh, and as for the doctor's office point...that MIGHT be why she was dressing that way! She WAS headed to a doctors appointment...

I will not discount the power trip though. You can find those everywhere!
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 09-10-2007, 01:39 PM   #134
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


this is hypocritical! A LOT of people "pour" over into other seats. The seats are small. Are you going to make everyone pay for an extra seat.

In your rants, you want a lawsuit here so dress codes are defined by an airline, but you simply state that if someone "spills over" to another seat, they should pay for two seats. Should you take a tape measure to define this "spill over"? Seats from airplane to airplane, and sometimes from row to row, are different sizes.

My point is, EACH individual situation has to be addressed differently. A skirt i hiked up so high that a crotch is showing should be handled similar to someone "spilling over" into someone elses seat.

For some, it is equal discomfort in a small steel tube for an extended period of time.
It's not hypocritical. I haven't made one rant in this thread.

If someone's size makes the next seat unusable we have a problem. Of course my post doesn't define the exact problem, my post isn't a legal document, it's just some meaningless post on the internet. I understand that situations are different, but better definition and actually having access to these regulations needs to be done, before such actions are made.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-10-2007, 01:44 PM   #135
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


What? Some cops ticket for 5 mph over the speed limit, and some don't. Some give warnings.

Nice attempts to put words in my mouth (several times) though.
Usually these guidelines are defined internally.

Not putting words in your mouth, just showing how that kind of justification can lead to bigger things.

Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar

She wasn't thrown off.
Oh, I'm sorry, she was "escorted off"...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com