Most of us have read about Armando Alvarez, vice president of Best Buy, the $47 billion-a-year electronics retailer, and his troubles with United Airlines. In late October, a United gate agent revoked Alvarez’s First Class upgrade, “purchased” with miles from his frequent flier account.
According to Alvarez, the United gate agent who pulled his upgrade told him he was dressed too casually to sit in first class.
Alvarez was wearing a Puma track training suit, and leather sneakers. This was no cheap sweatsuit. The typical Puma warm-up retails for about $150.
Alvarez is a United Airlines Red Carpet Club member and an elite level frequent flier with the airline.
When I saw Alvarez interviewed, I kept thinking about Kyla Ebbert and the trouble she had with Southwest Airlines about her clothing. Ebbert was the 23-year-old whose clothing Southwest called “offensive.” Yet Southwest permitted her to fly on their plane after she pulled down her skirt just a bit, and pulled up her top a tad. How offensive could it have been?
With Alvarez, it was alright if he flew in economy, just not first class. Do you believe that?
I fly thousands of miles a year, have elite frequent flier status, and enough frequent flier miles that I almost always fly first class, via a free upgrade, or one I’ve purchased with miles. If you think the typical first class passenger dresses up, let me assure you, they don’t.
When I fly, I usually wear cross trainers, jeans with leather belt, a tennis/golf shirt, photographer’s vest, warm-up jacket, and a Nikon baseball cap. I flew to Hawaii last year, on United in first class, dressed that way. In fact, I haven’t dressed differently for flying in years on United, Delta, US Airways, Alaskan, Hawaiian, Continental, or American Airlines. My clothes are always neat, clean, no holes, and no fraying cloth. I’ve never been refused use of a free or miles upgrade, or boarding, due to my clothing or general appearance.
I’d like to know what the United gate agent was thinking about Alvarez’s outfit, or the Southwest employees who decided Ebbert was dressed offensively. For that matter, what’s with having a “dress code” in the first place. This isn’t the ‘50s. It’s the 21st century. Isn’t it?
Actually, I do think there is room for some clothing restrictions.
United, in their Contract of Carriage, prohibits boarding their planes barefoot. Southwest’s Contract of Carriage says that Southwest can prohibit passengers from boarding “whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently offensive.”
United’s prohibition of barefoot passengers is actually a safety issue. In the event of an emergency, a lack of shoes can really put a passenger at risk.
On the other hand, Southwest’s “dress code” is problematical. It’s not what it says so much, as who’s judging and enforcing the “code.” If one wanted to say Ebbert’s clothing was somewhat provocative, I probably wouldn’t disagree, however, to call her clothing lewd, obscene or offensive boggles my imagination.
At the least, United and Southwest need to properly train their employees to properly enforce their dress code for “paying”passengers. United employees must understand they have no dress code except the prohibition of bare feet.
Moreover, United can’t hide behind statements like “It was really Air Wisconsin which made the mistake revoking Mr. Alvarez’s upgrade.” The gate agent might get an Air Wisconsin paycheck, but he was wearing a United uniform, revoked a United boarding pass to board an airplane clearly marked United. The agent was acting on behalf of United.
For Southwest, since they’ve decided to have a dress code, they must train their employees to know what lewd, obscene or offensive clothing actually looks like. Maybe they can show all their employees precise examples; yes to mini skirts and a sweater over a tank top, but no to “see-throughs” and men’s sleeveless underwear tops worn as a shirt (A pet peeve of mine).
My 93-year-old father has never flown on an airplane, domestic or international, without wearing a jacket and tie, but he’s from a generation which still goes to the corner pizza parlor wearing a sports jacket.
Today’s society dresses casually. While I personally think there are still times it makes sense to dress up, and it’s fun to do so, I think wearing casual clothing while flying is the most sensible way to travel.
A word of warning to female airline passengers wearing skirts or dresses without hosiery on their legs. If you have to go down one of those emergency evacuation ramps, you’ll pay dearly for that decision with severe friction burns. I suggest slacks.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
That’s really interesting – I regularly purchase upgrades at the kiosk when I check in – you know, the really inexpensive ones – usually less than $100 because it’s “distressed inventory”. I look around that cabin and it’s usually a mix of business men in suits and people like me in jeans and sweaters…… I’ve done this on AA, US, UA, CO, and Spirit (US and UA going overseas – those were admittedly a little over $100 but many, many hundreds/even thousands less than buying Biz of First).
When you have a rule that’s as vague as Southwest’s “lewd, obscene or patently offensive,” you’re inviting subjective and inconsistent “interpretation.” It gives an agent who, for whatever reason, is easily offended license to invoke it for something that offends him or her, even if few other people would even notice it. That’s exactly what happens with the TSA, where checkpoint screeners’ interpretation of “guidelines” is all over the map, even at the same airport.
But that doesn’t explain the United gate agent who seems to have imposed his own dress code. I actually suspect that gate agents frequently act like their TSA counterparts, making up whatever rules they decide to impose. And they usually get away with it for the same reason the TSA does. Most passengers don’t know what the airline’s tariff and “contract of carriage” actually say, and they lack the time or inclination to complain when something doesn’t make sense. And like TSA screeners, nobody holds gate agents accountable when they needlessly hassle passengers.
In this case, they happened to have hassled a high-powered corporate executive who carried more clout than the average traveler and thus attracted media attention. Unfortunately, United seems to be reacting to the embarrassing blunder the same way the TSA does, by denying any responsibility or accountability.
UA lists a dress code of sorts for both the Red Carpet Clubs and for the airplanes. For the Red Carpet Clubs, members are asked to dress business-like in keeping with the atmosphere of the clubs. For airplanes, the web-site says that passengers must be clothed and shod. It made me wonder if it was a Red Carpet Club agent who told Mr. Alvarez he couldn’t travel in first because of his attire. What I think could have happened was that UA wanted the seat for a higher-mileage frequent flyer and used Mr. Alvarez’ clothing as an excuse.
The Southwest customer was asked to not dress like she was fixing to go on stage at Ricks. She was showing so much T&A that folks around here were uncomfortable.
A little different then the United deal.
On an MCO/ORD UA flight last month, my husband and I, along with about 8 other people were upgraded to FC. It was a full flight and I guess they needed room in economy because we did not request or purchase the upgrade. The last few people to get upgraded looked pretty darn scruffy (think backpackers who might have slept in the airport overnight) and from the comments they made I knew it was a “surprise” upgrade for them. Don’t know what criteria the UA gate agent used to give the upgrades but it certainly didn’t have anything to do with being dressed appropriately for FC. If there was a FC dress code, I’m sure the gate agent could have found much better dressed people to gift with the FC upgrade. I actually felt sorry for the FC passengers who were there by choice and ended up sitting next to these very VERY casually dressed folk.
I guess it depends on who your are – literally! My husband remembers flying in first class some years ago where one of it’s passengers wore jeans with holes who was treated as royality. That passanger’s name – Mick Jagger.
Hmm, maybe the agent was thinking the rules for employee non-rev travel applied to others. I’ve seen employees (and their relatives) denied boarding because they were wearing things like jeans or sweatshirts. But it’s more likely they just weren’t thinking at all.
There is no dress code for revenue customers. There was clearly something else at play going on here that has not been released.
@Scott – it has been released. And it’s a little bit troubling that Mr. Levi wrote this article several days AFTER the explanation was released, and didn’t reference it, or even seem to know about it.
According to a USA Today update on Nov. 5, the gate agent thought Mr. Alvarez was an airline employee. Had he been an employee, he would have been subject to a dress code. It was an error by the contract gate agent.
For more details, see this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=620001025.blog
@Mr. Levi – this updated report has been out for several days now, and was widely reported. It would appear that you didn’t do your homework before you published this article, perpetuating the inaccurate belief that he was denied his FC upgrade as a passenger. I expect better from Tripso.
LeeAnne, I appreciate you taking the time to comment on the article.
Unfortunately, this report from USA Today is far from conclusive. The exact quote from the article by Ben Mutzabaugh was that Robin Urbanski, spokesperson from United Airlines, said to him on November 5th was, “… the airline does not have a policy that would prevent a customer from sitting in first class for dressing too casually. Instead, the gate agent apparently thought the customer in a track suit was an airline employee. If that would have been the case, an employee would have been subject to a dress code.”
The operative words from Urbanski were “apparently,” and “If that would have been the case.” In other words, Urbanski didn’t really know why the gate agent revoked the upgrade. This was about a week after Alvarez complained to United management and they still had no definitive answer.
What United does have are a bunch of excuses, “apparent” excuses that is. The gate agent really worked for Air Wisconsin. He was trying to help two passengers at once. He thought Alvarez was an employee of United.
Frankly, I don’t believe it, and like Alvarez, I’m waiting to definitively hear from United Airlines. Think about it. Why in the world would the gate agent think Mr. Alvarez, who said he bought the upgrade with miles, (This was no free upgrade handed out by the gate agent.) was an employee. Alvarez certainly never identified himself as one, and the boarding pass certainly didn’t indicate he was an employee. As a matter of fact, the boarding pass would have clearly indicated Alvarez’s elite level in United’s Mileage Plus program like all Star Alliance boarding passes. It’s also hard to believe there was no mention to Alvarez that as an employee he wasn’t dressed properly. I find it extremely hard to believe this excuse and until United didn’t qualify it, I’m wasn’t going to offer it. It’s all supposition on the part of United in their effort to squirm out of their responsibility. If they’ve come out with a definitive statement, I haven’t seen it. There is certainly no UAL press release about it.
In the scheme of the problem, it doesn’t really matter anyway. It still points to a lack of training. It still points to United offering excuses instead of apologies and an action plan for properly training their gate agents.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Mr. Levi,
Thanks for taking the time to read my comment, and offer your response.
I understand your point that the report, and in fact the response from United as a whole, is by no means conclusive. However, my concern with your article is that you didn’t mention it AT ALL. Whether it’s conclusive or not, it is the airline’s current explanation, and if true, would be a valid, wholely believable reason for the incident.
I also have to disagree with your interpretation of the “if that were the case” line included in United’s statement. Please read it again. The way it actually reads, they are not saying “if it were the case that the gate agent believed that.” Instead, what they are saying “if it were the case that Mr. Alvarez was an employee.” In other words, they are not being equivocal in their reason behind the incident at all – they are stating that it WAS, in fact, because the gate agent believed Mr. Alvarez was an employee. All they are doing is helping to clarify that IF Mr. Alvarez HAD been an employee, he would have been subject to a dress code, which helps to further explain (if not justify) the agent’s actions.
I hope you can see my point here, and I believe that if you go back and read United’s statement again, you will agree.
That being the case, I do believe that it was crucial to your article to include United’s statement. They gave a reasonable, believable explanation, which should have been mentioned. It certainly makes more sense then some rogue gate agent suddenly deciding he can dictate how passengers need to dress!
And frankly I’m inclined to believe their explanation.
Why? Because years ago, back when American Airlines flight attendants used to wear blue suits with red bow ties, I was once mistaken for a flight attendant because I was wearing a blue suit with a red bow tie. After a long day and facing a long flight home, I removed my jacket, untied my tie, and unbuttoned my blouse several buttons down. I probably looked rather wrinkled and slovenly…which I am entitled to, as a passenger flying home after a long day of work.
On my way down the plane to the restroom, I was stopped by a man in a suit who stood up, put his hand on my shoulder, handed me his American Airlines business card (he was evidently some executive who just happened to be onboard), and angrily said, “Button your blouse NOW, and for pete’s sake, put yourself back together!”
I calmly replied, “Take your hand off me NOW, and shove that card up your ***!” Well, he went white in apoplexy, and was still trying to sputter out some kind of response as I made my way down to the rest room.
Fortunately, by the time I returned to my seat, the REAL flight attendants had set him straight, and he came to me all apologetic and offered me free drinks for the remainder of the flight.
Point is, I have seen for myself that airline personnel can, and do, sometimes mistake passengers for employees. It happened to me…it could just as well have happened to Mr. Alvarez. I find that explanation to be far more believable than anything else.
Again, thanks for paying attention to my comment. I still maintain you should have included United’s response in your article.
America dresses casually now? Yes. But I remember when people took pride in their appearance and in how they dressed. Oh, how I miss those days.
In regards to the Southwest issue – Some people may be offended by the T&A, to the rest of us, it may make the trip a little more entertaining. To each his own. Unless someone is is dressed in such a way that would get them arrested for indecent exposure, why should an airline deem their dress to indecent?