yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
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
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.
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
...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).A compromise was reached after some adjustments: She pulled up her tank top, yanked down her skirt, and went back to her seat.
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.
Last edited: