A couple days ago, we saw how an US Airways pilots evacuated a plane and arrested a young man for wearing saggy pants that showed his underwear. Yet, US Airways allowed this man to fly in women’s underwear. I am confused.
A passenger, on a June 9th flight from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Phoenix snapped the picture after various passengers complained. However, the staff ignored the objections and the airline later said that the company has no dress code. That leaves the question of why the college football player was arrested on the basis of his saggy pants.
I personally find both of these men to be irresponsible and obnoxious in their clothing styles. The latest style controversy involves a man wearing clothing (or lack of it) that would be equally objectionable for a woman in public. It is an act of exhibitionism that would be disturbing to children and parents alike. It shows a complete lack of concern for others.
However, absent a dress code, I fail to see the basis or the consistent policy enforced by US Airways.
Source: SF Gate
As a forcibly retired airline captain, I had a situation in which a young man had a carry on and acted in a suspcious manner in the view of another pax. This man was white and reasonably dressed in normal attire. This concern was relayed to me, so I called TSA for a secondary screening on the jetway. I went to the man and asked him to come off the plane and to bring his carry on luggage. When the captain asks you to bring your carry on as well, THAT is NOT a good sign since it is many times prepatory to being not allowed back on. As far as the man knew he had done NOTHING wrong at all. Fortunatey for him, he complied with my order. Had he NOT complied, I would have had to evacuate the plane and have hm forcibly removed. He would then have been charged with interfering with a crewmember, and faced major felony charges.
He came off the plane with no problem, he and his bags got a sezrch, and I told him the reason for this, apologized for the inconvenience, and ordered the F/As to give him free drinks as compensation. He was a happy customer after the flight I believe, but not TOO happy. Had he been black, I am certain that those who object to this latest instance would be screaming RACISM, even though there would be NO such thing. Thus those who scream that at the drop of a hat posit a seperate rule for blacks, and another for whites, only discrimination in reverse in which minorities get to be exempt from the rules that the rest of us have to follow. I find that to be as objectionable as the prejudice that was in our past. It is also unsafe to boot.
While I have no idea of the race of the captain, nor do I know him or his intentions, unlike most of the posters here, I have to say that I would have acted in the same manner. What I would have done had he complied, would be to tell him that he is expected to follow all of the crewmembers instructions, and that there was some concern about his droopy pants for safety and aesthetic and decency reasons. Then he would have gone back to his seat, and had a nice flight. End of story and no news story.
Even in a restaurant, if I were to be approached by the manager and asked to come out of the dining area for some reason, I would comply. It is also called common sense, courtesy, and decency. I would not get up and denounce him for racism, harrassment, with no cause and refuse. On board an aircraft, you have NO option to refuse a lawful order, and refusal IS a CRIME! This is NOT about attire at all, though it was triggered by it.
You also have NO right to a specific seat either, even though it may be printed on your ticket, since many planes have close weight and balance requirements. THUS you may have to get out of your seat without any regards as to YOUR desires for the safety of the aircraft. This applies to blacks as well as whites too. So any person who refuses to comply with this kind of order is committing a crime and it is an outright lie to say it is racism if the person ordered to move is black. A black pax who says that they refuse to move to the back of the plane because they no longer have to sit in the back is NOT being racially targeted in such an instance, though, I am sure those who object to this captains actions would say differently.
From one of my favorite songs, “Lola” by the Kinks, June 1970:
“Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world”
True then. True now.
“But just because US Air is inconsistent, does not mean that YOU Professor Turley, or a college student does not know what inappropriate dress is, and that’s not pajamas unless you are a kid or sick.”
Anon,
To many people pajamas are appropriate outside dress and overwhelmingly are not in the least sexually suggestive. Please also, don’t give me that safety crap, because pajamas are a lot better for emergency aircraft exit than skinny jeans. Perhaps though, given that, we should also ban skinny jeans. Besides, normal men’s business attire: suit, tie and dress shoes would certainly be limiting and I’d hate to be wearing them if I hit the water.
However, there is a simple solution that will meet safety needs, satisfy power junkies and make the airlines some money. Airline passenger flight uniforms should be designed to promote maximum safety while flying and all airline passengers should be rquired to buy them , with the price added on to ticket cost. The airlines could require for uniformity and safety’s sake, that only passengers wearing their particular Airlines “Safety” suit, would be allowed to fly on their airline. Win+Win for all but the passengers, but who cares about the cattle or “Pax” being transported anyway?
That is “reductio ad absurdum” for sure, but you know it isn’t too far away from where we could be heading under the rubric of “safety” that seems to permit all means of authoritarian behavior.
If the guy wore this to screw with TSA, that’s fine.
But since this would be inappropriate dress for a woman, it is also inappropriate dress for a man and he should have been told to put some clothes on. A longer dress would be fine.
But just because US Air is inconsistent, does not mean that YOU Professor Turley, or a college student does not know what inappropriate dress is, and that’s not pajamas unless you are a kid or sick.
Taste in fashion is a subjective subject…Having said that the guy was clothed, not in something I would wear, but to each his own, So he didn’t have on a suit and an ugly rag wrapped around his neck, laughingly called a tie. I must be really really old I can remember when one of the best parts of a trip was the airplane ride there and back… Of course I don’t remember many old guys dressed quite that way….
Thanks OS.
You’re always a voice of reason..
Great way to keep customers… LOL
On the Topic of Pilots
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/southwest-airlines-pilot-rant-124402094.html?dr
O.S. I’m in complete agreement with your assessment
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/22/BAH01K1EK2.DTL&tsp=1
Bud, the ground manager did tell the guy to pull up his pants. He refused. The aircrew told him to pull them up and he refused. Then the pilot was summoned, and asked the guy to step out in the jetway for a discussion. As Capt. Erb pointed out, this is a test as much as anything else, to see if the passenger is compliant. When he told the Captain he was not leaving his seat, then the pilot literally had no choice. The pilot would have been subject to disciplinary action if he had just let it go at that point. The SOP is that if we have a belligerent or recalcitrant passenger who will not follow a reasonable instruction (come outside so we can discuss this), then he is required to evacuate the aircraft and call the authorities to have the man removed forcibly.
That follows both the letter as well as the spirit of FAR § 91.535(e).
OS,
I don’t think that FAR 91.535 was ever written to be used (or abused) in this
type of situation. I think this lacks any kind of common sense at all.
This action is putting all other pilots at US Air at a terrible disadvantage too.
If ever they let a passenger on an airplane with sagging pants, aren’t they neglectful
in protecting the other passengers by not ejecting (pun) that passenger from the aircraft.
Isn’t US Airways neglectful for not enforcing that rule on the pilots?
Normally, most reasonable airlines will have a SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) or (Standards and Practices) for this type of situation, and pilots only as a very very last resource get involved with the aircraft still at the gate. That is why airlines have ground managers and supervisors.
There were so many better ways to handle this situation.
This free spirit flies a lot and is nick-named “Terminal”, A couple of galleries:
http://thedirty.com/category/terminal/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/the-best-of-terminal
On the lolcats web site is a link to a site full of photos of people dressed in bizarre and often hideous ways. One of the regular themes is older men dressed in women’s lingerie that always seem to be in airports. I began to wonder if this is some odd fetish we have not heard about or some strange initiation to some fraternal organization. I just don’t get it.
Fashion is a form of expression, like a phrase printed on a t-shirt. Your dress code might legitimately target visible butt cracks, but claiming that the fabric of a boxer short is more offensive than the fabric of blue jeans is a power that I’m not willing to vest in society as a whole. Saggy pants are a generational expression that offends those writing the rules, the same way that long hair offended the older generation when I was young. It is intolerant and small-minded.
Can anyone articulate rules that would prohibit the guy in women’s clothing? Too much leg? Too much stomach? Do your rules accommodate other forms of legitimate clothing? Sometimes you just need to be tolerant, and point your finger and laugh.
He reminds me of a homeless guy with breast implants that lives on South Congress in Austin.
If you are told to do something by a crew member, then you need to do it, whether you agree or disagree. End of discussion, unless you like jail food or walking to your destination. Those are your alternatives.
The issue is safety. I have mentioned this repeatedly, but no one has addressed it directly. In case of an emergency, an aircraft has to be evacuated in seconds. Not minutes, but seconds. The difference can be life or death. Anyone wearing their pants around their knees might as well be wearing shackles as far as mobility is concerned. Once the football player refused the flight crew member’s instruction, he was in direct violation of § 91.535(e). That brought him to the attention of the pilot, and he also refused when the pilot asked him to step out in the jetway for a discussion. THAT got the airplane evacuated and the fellow arrested. At that point, the pilot did not know if he were dealing with a individual with a psychiatric problem, if he was dangerous, or if he would continue refusing to follow orders if the plane had to be evacuated.
As for the exhibitionist in the picture, the attire is offensive, but is not restrictive if the plane had to be evacuated. He could probably move faster than if he were wearing trousers. Of course, he is exposing himself to slide rash if he has to go down the chute. But the shoes would have to go. In fact, in case of emergency, passengers wearing high heels are told the shoes have to be removed.
Flaming….ouch….
So what do you think?
Did he go for the backscatter xray, or the the TSA rub down, err I mean shakedown, I mean pat down???
Vansdelay, sorry but this screams “:LOOK AT ME!!!”
I’m tired of adults who demand your attention whether they deserve it or not. He’s a child who needs a time out.
Okay okay, serious stuff aside, can we at least acknowledge this guy’s confidence? He’s showing up on a flight wearing lace and too much information but looks happy as hell.
This guy is so confident he seems sure to do the opposite would be insane for him. People are just damn weird, but I love it.
An outfit like that should get anybody kicked out of the terminal, male or female.