The policy is sexist, antiquated and, when applied to children, inappropriately sexualizing. It doesn’t stop being so because it’s only applied to employee friends and family traveling on free tickets. Indeed, the fact that the airline has tried to use this excuse to engender sympathy for its sexist, antiquated, child-sexualizing policies only highlights how spellbound we are by the idea that taking a job reasonably cedes agency, self-respect, and basic human rights to whoever deigns to employ us.
Also, the airline made a show of applying the policy to all passengers at first; it only went for “friends and family free ticket rules” later.
When you ride in my car, you’re not allowed to smoke or put your feet up on the dashboard or eat fondue, even if you chip in for fuel. It’s United’s plane, United gets to make the rules — as long as they’re not violating civil rights.
Personally, I’d pay a little extra for a flight with a (clearly and unambiguously communicated) dress code for everyone, same as I pay more at a fancy restaurant that requires a jacket & tie and no sneakers. If I’m dropping a hundred bucks on dinner I expect not to have to smell or look at some slob in a tank top and board shorts at the next table.
No, you’re always right to bitch about United; no matter what.
They do suck, and not in the good way.
I know from experience; ages ago, I found out that one of the circles of purgatory is waiting on standby at United for 12 hours, a few days before Xmas…
Yes, but I don’t think someone’s car is quite the same as this kind of public transportation, whether or not it’s private company. The structures paid for by our tax dollars in part underwrite the airlines and I think that makes it a little different than you giving me a lift across town.
Are the girls 10? The linked United leggings story refers to them as teens. Are we talking about different girls wearing leggings? My god—the leggings are taking over!!
Surely someone wearing clothes on their own body is a little different from someone stinking up your car?
You want to wear ugly clothes in my car? No skin off my nose.
I guess that’s where the disconnect is. I just don’t believe that wearing leggings is in any way close to eating fondue in your car. And I do believe it is a relic or artifact of civil rights.
(That said, I make a mean fondue. A little cider with the cheese and some sourdough, you’ll be thanking me. Just not in your car )
The difference in accident rates and risk taking has a lot to do with the missions involved. My Dad turned down a job with life flight when he left the military, and he explained that it was about risk assessment. As he put it, he felt like he would want to complete the flights even in very adverse conditions, because lives always depended on the mission.
He is definitely not a risk avoiding person. The opposite, really. 200 missions in fighter aircraft over North Vietnam. 2 Silver Stars.
But civilian passenger aircraft are on the opposite side of the risk spectrum. The only risk is to the passengers involved (and those on the ground), and delaying the flight or weather avoidance that extends the flight only lessen the risks to everyone. There might be financial pressure from management, but that is a main point of being a professional. The people that you work for are paying you to do something that they lack the skill to do themselves, and you are the one to decide when it is safe to proceed.
On the other hand, a pilot who has flown for the military is much more likely to have dealt with in-flight emergencies in the real world, and survived.
Also, crew resource training is just as much a thing in the military as it is in the civilian world.
FYI, my oldest son is now working as an intern on medical flights.
Antiquated - yes…but I just don’t see how it is sexist or how it is sexualizing young children. The dress code as stated is gender-neutral as far as I can tell. Men/boys wearing leggings would be denied boarding just the same according to the policy.
As long as they are not discriminating based on a protected class, businesses have the legal latitude to set whatever standards and codes of conduct for its guest and employees (and their representatives) as they see fit or to what the employment contract allows. Free travel is a privilege, not a right. You don’t have to fly if you don’t like it.
These travel benefits were negotiated as part of the airline collective bargaining agreements so if employees feel strongly about changing the dress codes then they can and should take it up with their unions.
Equating the right to wear spandex with basic human rights is a bridge too far for me.
I think you’re right to point out the distinction in this particular instance.
I also think it’s right to point out that this dress code – even though it is only for a subset of people, not all passengers – is outdated and sexist.
I worked in a bank where all women were required to wear a dress or skirt rather than pants, even if they never saw a customer, and even if the “pants” in question were part of an expensive bespoke suit. We were also required to wear pantyhose – which as we all know is much more expensive and prone to being too damaged to wear within 1-3 wearings, as opposed to tights or (if only we could have worn pants) socks – and pumps with small to medium heels rather than more comfortable shoes.
There are many ways to be neat, presentable, and professional. Forcing half of the population into more restrictive clothing because of “tradition” is the sort of thing the U.S. cites as a justification for political and military interference when it’s done in other countries.
May I remind you that you COULD have gone to the opera with me, where the matter might have been decided once and for all (by the other Happy Mutants in attendance), but nooooooo…
)
