Most airline employees aren't in a get rich job. Alaska, I know, doesn't pay all that well. The flight benefits cost the airline almost nothing because the seats would be empty otherwise and it's a way of compensating employees for the low pay.
Our daughter has her fiance on her benefits as her significant other. In the past 2 years they've been all over South America, Europe, and Asia. They'll hop a plane and fly to Spain or somewhere whenever they can put together a few days off.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
One is also not to call attention to the fact that one is flying non-rev...
One is to follow the empoyer's dress-code guidlines while flying non-rev, as well as on duty, which are not stringent (at least not for Alaska Airlines).
There is also a whole ladder of non-rev priority. Senoirity is parmount (it's not first come-first serve signup), under employees traveling on/for company business, even if not on duty at the time.
Alaska employees with at least 15 years of service have life-time non-rev privileges, for themselves, after retirement or ending employment. I always wonder how many on the plane are flying non-rev.....
The only question I have is - was the legging issue spelled out in the dress code, or was it the agent's judgement call? Either way, suck it up buttercup - it's the agent's call, within reason. Which the people in question did. (I don't even know what "leggings" are, or if I would judge them non-acceptable under the circumstances)
You will also note that it wasn't an employee non-rev that caused the chit-storm- it was a clueless paying passenger, who couldn't wait to stick her nose in what was none of her business to get her 15 minutes of social media fame.
OK- I read up on it. What leggings are and that "No leggings" is specifically spelled out for non-rev repeat- non-rev - travel on United. Paid tickets can wear them if they wish, and an agent isn't going to call them on it.
So the family should have been aware of it. Probably just something on this trip that slipped thru the cracks . No pun intended.
Rules is rules, don't like it fly another airline.
Wasn't that long ago that flying was a suit and tie affair. Women wore skirts. Now it's like they're going to work out at Gold's Gym.
I used to fly...a lot. Always business class unless the flight was over 6 hours, then the company would let us fly First. Often, because I always wore a suit and tie, the gate attendant would bump me up to First...and they said as much. Sometimes pays to put in a little extra effort.
I know of a very expensive catholic girls school that wont let them wear slacks. bizarre if not idiotic rule. Even in the late 60s, my sister was allowed to wear slacks at a private catholic school.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
If you ever have enjoyed non-rev flight benefits on an airline - a bennie provided by the airline for employees and some designated relatives - you will understand the rules/standards issue quite well - and why those folks did not fly. This has zero to do with the airline's policy on purchased tickets.
If you never have enjoyed the non-rev status and appreciated the reasons for the rules, you might be confused, or even agitated by this story - which is a non-issue blown up by certain media types.
They conveniently left out a VERY important part of the story. This is from a Foxnews report of the incident:
Quote
The girls, whose ages were not specified, were not allowed onto the morning flight because they were traveling under an employee travel pass that includes a specific dress code, airline spokesman Jonathan Guerin said.
Our daughter works for a large airline and we have flight benefits as her parents. Employees have a limited number of guest passes that they can give to friends and other relatives. When flying as an employee or AN EMPLOYEE'S GUEST, they're representing the airline and they have a strict dress code that must be followed. If they don't like it, they can buy a regular ticket.
These girls violated the dress code so they can't fly under the terms of the guest pass. Cut and dried. They're welcome to go buy tickets if they don't want to play by the rules.
My Dad was an airline employee and we flew non-revenue: we had to wear our church clothes.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."-- Thomas Jefferson
Put those same pants on the pre-teen girls who are the subject of this thread and they won't look nearly as good...except to a pedophile.
Oh FFS seriously , pedos will even look at babies in prams, or anything else that interests them no matter how the child is dressed , next thing youll say is kids/young teens shouldn't wear bathers at the river, lake or beach or neigbors pool.
I wouldn't exactly accuse this girl as being dressed as a pedo magnet.
Put those same pants on the pre-teen girls who are the subject of this thread and they won't look nearly as good...except to a pedophile.
Oh FFS seriously , pedos will even look at babies in prams, or anything else that interests them no matter how the child is dressed , next thing youll say is kids/young teens shouldn't wear bathers at the river, lake or beach or neigbors pool.
I wouldn't exactly accuse this girl as being dressed as a pedo magnet.
Either would be under dressed to represent the company.
Well I also consider the paying customers than an airline carries as representative of Co. values & standards , Numerous clubs and establishments require a dress code for their financial members. Despite the fact they are paying for the services they are receiving, theres no relaxation on dress code.
You either have A std or you don't, rather than a double std.
If I see regular customers boarding with permitted leggings , then to me thats the dress std. representative of the carrier. Same if I go for a drink and notice they allow face-neck tattoos and biker club patch colors...The staff may have to wear Armani suites, but that would be irrelevant to me. The std that they have set, is the lowest permissible one.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
