United Airlines Tried to Bar Girls From Flight for Wearing Leggings

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I disagree. When I go to Walmart the way customers dress colors my perception of the establishment. So what the airline is asking for is basically marketing/perception. When you see people dressed well it gives you a more positive perception of the service they use. So even if I think they are a regular customer, and even more so actually, what the customers wear says something about them.

This policy absolutely makes sense.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I disagree. When I go to Walmart the way customers dress colors my perception of the establishment. So what the airline is asking for is basically marketing/perception. When you see people dressed well it gives you a more positive perception of the service they use. So even if I think they are a regular customer, and even more so actually, what the customers wear says something about them.

This policy absolutely makes sense.

Agreed, the only thing I don't get is what the issue with leggings is...

a reply to: djz3ro

The airlines want something closer to business casual when you're flying on a buddy pass. As a general rule, when flying non revenue, the nicer dressed you are the more likely you are to get on the flight if seats are available.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: djz3ro

The airlines want something closer to business casual when you're flying on a buddy pass. As a general rule, when flying non revenue, the nicer dressed you are the more likely you are to get on the flight if seats are available.

I guess I can understand that. these were 10 year old gilrs though, are they expexted to put on their best power suit before boarding a plane?

a reply to: djz3ro

It doesn't have to be a power suit, it just has to be nicer than jeans and a t-shirt, or leggings. Even if you don't work for the airline and are flying on a buddy pass, they want somewhere between business and street clothes.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: one4all
So when do the real women Cowgirl-Up for these two who were bullied...

Not seeing where the people using the passes felt they were being bullied, this was all instigated by a third party not involved in the exchange.

You know, a busybody.

You men a witness to a crime right?...the crime comitted by the Security guards of kidnapping 2 ten year old kids right/...under flse pretenses right?....lol...busybody instead of witness....lol...you must be a LEO.

IMHO it is an issue of negative societal conditioning by Corporately funded "security" mercenaries.....enforcing corporate policy.Protecting their money over protecting humanities well being.

No one should be conditioned to accept breaches in personal freedom actioned by private security people hired and managed by TPTB.

Know why Walmart has security?....lol...because they have no legal recourse to police civil agreements gone bad....lol...the Police CANNOT come a running ....when you put an open for business sign up you INVITE PEOPLE INTO YOUR BUSINESS.......it is a civil agreement......if you ask for ten dollars for product and I give you five dollars and leave....your only recourse is to sue me, UNLESS,you have hired private security people who claim they are dealing with a trespasser and a thief,and you do not comply with them and try to leave,this dynamic triggers the transfer of the dynamic from a civil arena into the criminal arena and the police show up to leglly assist the SECURITY with a trespasser and if no money was offered then possibly a thief ....lol...suppossedly not to protect the store owners goods......I havent shopped at a Walmart since ....this.....www.youtube.com...

Hands OFF THE PEOPLE.....HANDS OFF THE PEOPLE......no one should be subjected to public socieal emotional rape actioned by private bullies hired via intentionlly flawed and engineered legeslation designed to abbrogate Constitutional rights of individuals to protect the money of others.

No one has a right to "condition" ten year old girls to be submissive to some security schill,a uniform is suppossed to make kids feel safe and protected....a uniform is suppossed to be the reason WHY TEN YEAR OLDS FEEL SAFE.....I will never fly on that airline and will spend some time researching connected businesses so i can stick my small fiscal needle in their arses.Everyone should do the same....dont fly with them until they openly provide a HANDS OFF THE PATRON RULE.

We ...ALLOW...ourselves to be treated like this......and IMHO those 2 girls have now been traumatised into fearing authority and conditioned to allow their personal rights and freedoms to be abbrogated by anyone in uniform so that they may participate in actions of commerce where the property of the seller is valued higher than the person of the buyer.

IMHO it should be illegal for private security firms to exist and be used as they are used and also they should NOT be allowed to wear uniforms anywhere near what law enforcement and military uses and they should not be allowed to operate undercover either which intentionally precipitates reactions of surprise and engages a flight or fight instinct from people....both dynamics which feed into the existing manipulative and orchestrated legeslation and allow the store owners employees or security to ransfer an existing ONLY CIVIL ISSUE into th forum of criminal behaviour.

The Court system is to blame for setting precedents sympathetic to this con-job of elevating a civil dynamic where property values in a transaction are in dispute and law enforcement will NOT get involved....like majic into one where "securitys" personal safety is at risk and they will get involved.............. and people are dieing because our community police forces are being fraudulently forced to get involved .....it is murder by proxy by collusion......the existing legeslation can be easily shown to prove this out if someone like Trump puts their money behind this and forces changes to the legal system which has been rigged over centuries.

FTR...I do not care if a business owner loses money......maybe he shouldnt be in business if he loses money.

Hypotheticlly an person where firearms are legal...could walk into a store wearing a gun,collect 1000 dollars worth of goods,drop 1 dollar on the counter,and pack up to leave,if anyone intervenes with anything more than a civil court action notice ,and assaults your person in any way legally definable,well,open fire on them and protect your person.Take it to court and then see what happens, its better than being murdered yourslf by some misguided misused security guard.

The crime is in using security to reduce the fiscal cost of doing businss,to reduce fiscal losses ammassed while doing business....or to enforce any policy which by proxy does the same thing....and comitting crimes against 2 ten year old girls to protct the image or fiscal viability of the companies assets....is wrong....albeit existing intentionally machined and flawed legeslation and legal precedents have been BOUGHT AND PAID FOR OVER A CENTURY OR MORE.....these con-job dynamics must be changed in the same forums they were constructed in....this is why Trump is starting at the top of the legal food change with his changes....he knows he is fighting embedded legeslations on many co-operating levels......its a big job.....but it is doable.


People before profit.

a reply to: one4all

Yeah, ok. They weren't kidnapped in any way. They were simply asked to put a dress on over the leggings. I guess in your world, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, no matter what it is, huh.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I too wondered where kidnapping came into play.

originally posted by: one4all
You men a witness to a crime right?...the crime comitted by the Security guards of kidnapping 2 ten year old kids right/...under flse pretenses right?....lol...busybody instead of witness....lol...you must be a LEO.

Who got kidnapped by security guards Captain Hysteria?

a reply to: one4all

You men a witness to a crime right?...the crime comitted by the Security guards of kidnapping 2 ten year old kids right/...under flse pretenses right?....lol...busybody instead of witness....lol...you must be a LEO.

Calm down, what are you smoking?
There was no crime. There was no kidnapping.
There were 2 girls who did not follow dress code.

And yes, this all got started because some busybody didn't know what was going on and instead of getting more information she started shooting off on twitter.

originally posted by: Martin75
There was no crime. There was no kidnapping.

Stop lying.

The gate agents took turns beating the children with rubber tubing and then when they had their fill they let some of the passengers take a few whacks. After that the kids got jammed into a carryon and then tossed into the baggage system to get lost overseas.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
No, that is the opening scene to the new movie PizzaGate. You weren't supposed to tell!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: one4all

Yeah, ok. They weren't kidnapped in any way. They were simply asked to put a dress on over the leggings. I guess in your world, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, no matter what it is, huh.

Maybe....and maybe its a good thing I am not a lawyer with Trumps money backing me....because I would eat up and spit out these simpleton con-jobs 99% of us do not seem to see happening....all it would take is enough money to grind down the crooked laws one by one by one.....but because these laws were LAYERED ATOP each other and woven together over MANY DIFFERENT POLITICAL TENURES working symbioticlly within many jurisdictions it will take a massive humanitarian investment......it is doable.

Yes,in fact I do believe the PEOPLE should be able to do as they want done.......and no IMHO what the people wan is NOT BEING DONE NOW....but it will be by the time Trump passes the baton on to the real mover and shaker who will pick up where he left off.

a reply to: one4all

Ok, sure. I'll believe that when I see it. There are laws for a reason, and not, as you seem to think, to protect the evil corporate overlords.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: one4all

Yeah, ok. They weren't kidnapped in any way. They were simply asked to put a dress on over the leggings. I guess in your world, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, no matter what it is, huh.

Maybe....and maybe its a good thing I am not a lawyer with Trumps money backing me....because I would eat up and spit out these simpleton con-jobs 99% of us do not seem to see happening....all it would take is enough money to grind down the crooked laws one by one by one.....but because these laws were LAYERED ATOP each other and woven together over MANY DIFFERENT POLITICAL TENURES working symbioticlly within many jurisdictions it will take a massive humanitarian investment......it is doable.

Yes,in fact I do believe the PEOPLE should be able to do as they want done.......and no IMHO what the people wan is NOT BEING DONE NOW....but it will be by the time Trump passes the baton on to the real mover and shaker who will pick up where he left off.

Dude, calm down! United Airlines is a business, they can do what they want. If you want to wear leggings buy your own ticket!
This is not political and has nothing to do with politics. Nor does this have anything to do with Trump!

originally posted by: one4all
Maybe....and maybe its a good thing I am not a lawyer with Trumps money backing me....

I'm sure United Airlines is thanking Jesus and the Baby Jesus you didn't pass the bar.

I may buy some stock now, knowing you are not going to run them into the ground with your vast knowledge of the law.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: djz3ro

It doesn't have to be a power suit, it just has to be nicer than jeans and a t-shirt, or leggings. Even if you don't work for the airline and are flying on a buddy pass, they want somewhere between business and street clothes.

Good to know, I know very little about flying having only flown from Aberdeen to London and bavk in my life so far.

a reply to: djz3ro

You're right, I should have specified a nice round adult A55. Should have read the article more carefully too.