United Airlines are banning female passengers wearing leggings - your thoughts?

@Makemeluvit: (She's actually a very sharp woman. Maybe some miscommunication in this thread).

@ProfessorClitinrub: Thank you for that, anyway. I was actually trying to bow out peacefully and avoid further conflict. 🙂

I don't know what conflict is- I don't let things on here get to me enough to bother labeling it- as far as responding, I have no problem continuing to calmly respond while clarifying why I made the point that I did- maybe there was miscommunication- maybe the peaceful bowing out wasn't meant to sound defensive and dismissive at all- benefit of the doubt

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if they'd gone crazy.

@ProfessorClitinrub: You haven't noticed all lawyers are professional liars?

@ProfessorClitinrub: Your username is so much more [b]respectable[/b], eh ? 😜

@ProfessorClitinrub: I think you will find it is true

@Leggylawyer: [b]And I believe the only time you've been in a court room is for jury duty. From the Washington Post:[/b]

United Airlines spokesman Jonathan Guerin confirmed the two teens were not allowed on the flight. But he said they were traveling using a United employee pass and “were not in compliance with our dress code policy for company benefit travel.”

An internal policy for employees using the airline travel benefit, he said, specifically forbids leggings while traveling. It is unclear why United considers leggings to be inappropriate and whether other articles of clothing are barred under the policy.

“Our regular passengers are not going to be denied boarding because they are wearing leggings or yoga pants,” Guerin said. “But when flying as a pass traveler, we require this pass travelers to follow rules, and that is one of those rules.

“They were not compliant with the dress policy with the benefit,” Guerin said, noting that the girls were aware of the internal rule. “This morning, the attire of the pass travelers on this flight didn’t meet the dress code policy.”

Travelers familiar with the airline employee travel pass say it has long been a requirement for those using the benefit to dress up more than paying passengers.

@ProfessorClitinrub: They where kids of staffers. Now i get it

Yes seriously

@Leggylawyer: This woman on woman hate needs to stop. The woman agent who refused those girls passage should be ashamed of herself right now.

@sally1981: Those are fine. Just can't wear a strap on with it.

@ProfessorClitinrub: [c=#BF0080]"She" already has the equipment. No need for that.[/c]

@Pinkrainbowkisses: Probably right. Never understood how they can tuck it and walk.

@katielass: that does sound like a double standard. I figure it out,while reading another comment on here. Didn't know they where riding on a employee ticket. And you are right If the company has a dress code on the books.

@bhatjc I personally think it's kind of archaic but if it's their policy.....the employees know the rules. If they don't like them they can always go work elsewhere. People should stop making a federal case out of every little thing. too. Jeez, it's like every day you hear or read about someone saying Oh no, they looked at me. Yep, that's what people do, look at other people. lol

@katielass Damn right. Companies have rules. People can always work some where else. Some people are always sue happy

@TheWhiteRabbit: It only applies to people who are flying as United employees or family.

@ProfessorClitinrub: @TheWhiteRabbit: From Jalopnik, today @2:15 pm

"The United social-media representative directed Twitter users to a definition of being improperly clothed in the airline’s Contract of Carriage, and told Watts that the female passengers were “pass travelers” held to a standard of dress because they “are representing UA when they fly.”

But United lacks an argument no matter the details of this particular situation, even by enforcing their own rules. United social representatives pointed Watts to Rule 21 in the carriage contract, which outlines the “refusal of transport.” The only time clothing is mentioned in this rule is under the “safety” section, emphasis mine:

Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to:

1. Passengers whose conduct is disorderly, offensive, abusive, or violent;

2. Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives;

3. Passengers who assault any employee of UA, including the gate agents and flight crew, or any UA Passenger;

4. Passengers who, through and as a result of their conduct, cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit in order to attend to the disturbance;

5. Passengers who are [b]barefoot or not properly clothed[/b]; ...

The United contract does not define what it means for a passenger to be “not properly clothed,” and the New York Daily News pointed out that United used a photo of a woman in yoga pants in a promotional tweet in June 2016.

Jalopnik has reached out to United for comment, and will update this post when we hear back."

@bijouxbroussard: Please also take a look at what i posted on this thread from the Washington Post.