If you think airlines have too much power these days, this latest debate will give you pause. Not only can they take your bottle of Evian off of you, airline employees can also refuse to let you board based on what you're wearing.
Two examples: the woman flying from Las Vegas on Southwest who was pulled aside for showing too much cleavage; the woman berated by an American Airlines pilot for the F-word on her T-shirt. She was able to remain on board, but only after draping a shawl over the expletive.
While there's no strict dress code published by airlines, they reserve the right to exert their power every so often when someone pushes the sartorial envelope too far.
Like grad student Arijit Guha, who was barred from a Delta flight after wearing a T-shirt that said, "Terrists gonna kill us all."
"I thought it was a very American idea to speak up and dissent when you think people's rights are being violated," says Guha. The pilot worried the T-shirt might scare fellow passengers.
"It's like any service business," says aviation lawyer and former chief counsel at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Kenneth Quinn. "If you run a family restaurant and somebody is swearing, you kindly ask them to leave."
And that beloved First Amendment Americans are so fond of? Well, it doesn't apply to privately run companies.
"It's not an issue of a dress code, it's one of disruption," claims US Airways spokesman, John McDonald, who likens it to watching pornography within sight of other passengers.
Passengers argue that dress code enforcement isn't consistent—and as Green Day singer discovered—but subject to the whims and moods of airline staff. If all the cleavage and low-riding pants were banned, planes would have a lot of empty seats. Not good for business.
"[Flight crews] have this omnipotent power," says Alexander Anolik, a travel-law attorney. "You shouldn't argue your case while you're on the airplane. You're in a no-win scenario – you will be arrested."
Are airlines encroaching on personal freedom, or should passengers dress in a way that won't offend while in a public space? Is this yet another example of state nannying?
image via AP
Printer-friendly version