ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   News Green Day singer booted off flight because of saggy pants (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=249443)

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 7876275)
People fly based on price, period. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, no one's ever once in american history ever boycotted an industry based on personal ethics. you really know what you're talking about.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 7876293)
I'm no advocate of people dressing in such ways, but I am getting a kick out of the Old Fart Brigade shaking their walkers in unity of the outrage of a guy wearing baggy pants in public. :D

I doubt you're getting half the kick that I am! ROFL

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876291)
Not with disposable income, there aren't.

ever been to a shopping mall?

KurtCobain 09-03-2011 12:37 PM

Anybody that would boycott something for Greenday with eyeliner on, is kids 9-16, and I doubt that'll do much to an airline.

Saul Good 09-03-2011 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876306)
ever been to a shopping mall?

I have. Guess what. The malls don't want that clientele, either.

Brock 09-03-2011 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876299)
Yeah, no one's ever once in american history ever boycotted an industry based on personal ethics. you really know what you're talking about.

This isn't somebody getting kicked off a plane for being black, dumbass.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876308)
I have. Guess what. The malls don't want that clientele, either.

so you're saying you were wrong?

KurtCobain 09-03-2011 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 7876311)
This isn't somebody getting kicked off a plane for being black, dumbass.

I think it was because he was wearing eye liner. Gays unite!

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 7876311)
This isn't somebody getting kicked off a plane for being black, dumbass.

oh it's not? i thought i was, and i posted saying i thought it was a few posts back, didn't i?

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtCobain (Post 7876307)
Anybody that would boycott something for Greenday with eyeliner on, is kids 9-16, and I doubt that'll do much to an airline.

you do realize Green Day's best selling album came out in 1994, right?

Saul Good 09-03-2011 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876316)
so you're saying you were wrong?

Saying that malls don't want that clientele is the opposite of saying I was wrong. Are you a CoMo mult?

Saul Good 09-03-2011 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876323)
you do realize Green Day's best selling album came out in 1994, right?

I had that album. I was 15 when it came out, and I don't give a shit. The airline was right, and this dude's a dipshit.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876330)
I had that album. I was 15 when it came out, and I don't give a shit. The airline was right, and this dude's a dipshit.

Were you wanting Depends this year for Christmas? Or just the usual Prunes and Carrots trey?

Saul Good 09-03-2011 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876331)
Were you wanting Depends this year for Christmas? Or just the usual Prunes and Carrots trey?

33's pretty old, I know. I'm only the target demographic of nearly every major corporation on the planet.

KurtCobain 09-03-2011 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876323)
you do realize Green Day's best selling album came out in 1994, right?

You do realize he has a totally different image now. I'm a fan of Dookie, but not this new lame crap. Nobody from then is going to those links to side with him now.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876337)
33's pretty old, I know. I'm only the target demographic of nearly every major corporation on the planet.

You post like you're 80, that's why I made th Prunes And Carrots remark. You really must have a stick up your ass to thnk they way you do at 33, I feel sorry for you.

Nearly EVERY major corporation on the planet, you say? That's really impressive, in a few more years maybe I'll be that impressive too.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtCobain (Post 7876338)
You do realize he has a totally different image now. I'm a fan of Dookie, but not this new lame crap. Nobody from then is going to those links to side with him now.

I haven't liked the last few albums either. They'll always be die hards that stick with them no matter how badly they start pussing out though. People stuck with Metallica through ReLoad and St. Anger.

Saul Good 09-03-2011 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876348)
You post like you're 80, that's why I made th Prunes And Carrots remark. You really must have a stick up your ass to thnk they way you do at 33, I feel sorry for you.

Nearly EVERY major corporation on the planet, you say? That's really impressive, in a few more years maybe I'll be that impressive too.

Maybe, but it depends on your ethnicity, income, and family structure. There's a reason that advertisements are priced based on ratings in specific demographics. I carry a meter that tracks everything I watch or listen to on the television/radio. I get nice checks every month in return for doing so. Like it or not, that's the way the world works.

KurtCobain 09-03-2011 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876351)
I haven't liked the last few albums either. They'll always be die hards that stick with them no matter how badly they start pussing out though. People stuck with Metallica through ReLoad and St. Anger.

Not the same thing though. Metallica is Metallica, and Greenday is Greenday, think about what you're posting.

milkman 09-03-2011 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876348)
You post like you're 80, that's why I made th Prunes And Carrots remark. You really must have a stick up your ass to thnk they way you do at 33, I feel sorry for you.

Nearly EVERY major corporation on the planet, you say? That's really impressive, in a few more years maybe I'll be that impressive too.

You really are one stipud mother****er.

Saul Good 09-03-2011 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876351)
I haven't liked the last few albums either. They'll always be die hards that stick with them no matter how badly they start pussing out though. People stuck with Metallica through ReLoad and St. Anger.

...And none of those bands will ever assimilate into society.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1.../Metallica.jpg

Spott 09-03-2011 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876351)
I haven't liked the last few albums either. They'll always be die hards that stick with them no matter how badly they start pussing out though. People stuck with Metallica through ReLoad and St. Anger.

I stuck with them until that crappy Black Album came out.

dirk digler 09-03-2011 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876330)
The airline was right, and this dude's a dipshit.

If the airline felt they were right they wouldn't have issued an immediate apology and probably gave him all kinds of free tickets for his inconvenience.

Saul Good 09-03-2011 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 7876386)
If the airline felt they were right they wouldn't have issued an immediate apology and probably gave him all kinds of free tickets for his inconvenience.

I disagree. They didn't want this to turn into a big deal. There was a similar incident with a woman whose skirt was too short a year or two ago.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/200...rt_to_fly.html

First off, I am always disappointed whenever some petty functionary worries himself over some minor dress issue when there are bigger threats to the security of this country. One would think that airline officials should be troubling themselves over the threat of Islamic terror instead of acting like Islamic terrorists who think scantily clad women are like sizzling steaks.

Here's the story:

Pantagraph,
Airline tells woman skirt too short to fly

SAN DIEGO -- A 23-year-old woman who boarded a Southwest Airlines plane in a short skirt for a flight to Arizona says she was led off the plane for wearing an outfit that was considered too skimpy.

Kyla Ebbert said a Southwest employee asked her to leave her seat while the plane was preparing to leave San Diego's Lindbergh Field on July 3.

Ebbert, a student who was headed to Tucson for a doctor's appointment, said Friday on NBC's "Today" show that the employee told her she would have to catch a later flight.

"You're dressed inappropriately. This is a family airline. You're too provocative to fly on this plane," she quoted the employee as saying.

"I said, 'What part is it? The shirt? The skirt? Which part?' And he said the whole thing."

Ebbert was eventually allowed back on the plane after offering to adjust her sweater but said she was humiliated and embarrassed.

007 09-03-2011 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 7876293)
He got booted for getting lippy, not his pants, correct? Best solution for him - fly other than Southwest from here on.

I'm no advocate of people dressing in such ways, but I am getting a kick out of the Old Fart Brigade shaking their walkers in unity of the outrage of a guy wearing baggy pants in public. :D

I don't care about baggy pants. I care about walking around with your ****ing underwear hanging out. They make pants designed to look baggy without having to show off your underwear.

What I want to know is why the hell he was flying SW in the first place.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 7876360)
You really are one stipud mother****er.

Why? I've already stated I've never understood the baggy shorts look, much less worn them. I just don't think peolple should be getting kicked off of planes and refused service for sporting them. And any 33 year old that thinks men should have their shirts tucked in at all times to the point where he rants about it on the interweb is probably pretty boring. Can't imagine he knows much how to party.

milkman 09-03-2011 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876423)
Why? I've already stated I've never understood the baggy shorts look, much less worn them. I just don't think peolple should be getting kicked off of planes and refused service for sporting them. And any 33 year old that thinks men should have their shirts tucked in at all times to the point where he rants about it on the interweb is probably pretty boring. Can't imagine he knows much how to party.

You're a stupid mother****er because you apparently think that saul was saying that he, specifically, is the target demographic.

Saul Good 09-03-2011 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876423)
Why? I've already stated I've never understood the baggy shorts look, much less worn them. I just don't think peolple should be getting kicked off of planes and refused service for sporting them. And any 33 year old that thinks men should have their shirts tucked in at all times to the point where he rants about it on the interweb is probably pretty boring. Can't imagine he knows much how to party.

When you can't win the argument, create a straw man. Nice work.

He didn't get kicked off for having his pants down. He could have pulled them up, and everyone would have been on their way. He got kicked off for cussing at a flight attendant and not complying with the company's rules. This isn't that complicated.

007 09-03-2011 01:07 PM

these are the some of the same people that don't understand why they can't find a job when dressed like an idiot.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtCobain (Post 7876357)
Not the same thing though. Metallica is Metallica, and Greenday is Greenday, think about what you're posting.

They're both rock American rock bands, ones just more metal, ones more pop punk. RnR has the same attitude through most genres, it stands for rebellion, independence, giving the man the finger and never growing up. Or at least it's supposed to. GD still has many millions of fans that go along with that line of thinking, maybe not as many at metcallica, but still a whole damn lot. like i said before, if 100 of them see this article and fly elsewhere, thats 20k lost to SW.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 7876436)
You're a stupid mother****er because you apparently think that saul was saying that he, specifically, is the target demographic.

touche, ill get you that, my sarcasm meter was off. 33's not terribly old though, not majorly far away from the demographic, like 50-60.

dirk digler 09-03-2011 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876406)
I disagree. They didn't want this to turn into a big deal. There was a similar incident with a woman whose skirt was too short a year or two ago.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/200...rt_to_fly.html

First off, I am always disappointed whenever some petty functionary worries himself over some minor dress issue when there are bigger threats to the security of this country. One would think that airline officials should be troubling themselves over the threat of Islamic terror instead of acting like Islamic terrorists who think scantily clad women are like sizzling steaks.

Here's the story:

Pantagraph,
Airline tells woman skirt too short to fly

SAN DIEGO -- A 23-year-old woman who boarded a Southwest Airlines plane in a short skirt for a flight to Arizona says she was led off the plane for wearing an outfit that was considered too skimpy.

Kyla Ebbert said a Southwest employee asked her to leave her seat while the plane was preparing to leave San Diego's Lindbergh Field on July 3.

Ebbert, a student who was headed to Tucson for a doctor's appointment, said Friday on NBC's "Today" show that the employee told her she would have to catch a later flight.

"You're dressed inappropriately. This is a family airline. You're too provocative to fly on this plane," she quoted the employee as saying.

"I said, 'What part is it? The shirt? The skirt? Which part?' And he said the whole thing."

Ebbert was eventually allowed back on the plane after offering to adjust her sweater but said she was humiliated and embarrassed.

We will agree to disagree. I think they realized this crew ****ed up just like the crew that ****ed up with the lady.

SW doesn't have a dress code so this really comes down to individuals deciding for themselves what they deem appropriate or not.

Quote:

And here’s the kicker: On the return flight, she not only wore the same outfit and encountered no trouble whatsoever from the Tucson-to-San Diego crew, but she told Lauer that one flight attendant actually complimented her.
Quote:

Ebbert said she found out later from a reporter that Southwest did not have a specific dress code. (That was reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune, who quoted a company spokesperson as saying a passenger could conceivably wear a bikini top as long as all the proper spots are covered.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20641687.../#.TmJ6SF35N9s

007 09-03-2011 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876446)
They're both rock American rock bands, ones just more metal, ones more pop punk. RnR has the same attitude through most genres, it stands for rebellion, independence, giving the man the finger and never growing up. Or at least it's supposed to. GD still has many millions of fans that go along with that line of thinking, maybe not as many at metcallica, but still a whole damn lot. like i said before, if 100 of them see this article and fly elsewhere, thats 20k lost to SW.

SW won't lose a single dime over this. Hell, they might even get customers they didn't before because of it.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876438)
When you can't win the argument, create a straw man. Nice work.

He didn't get kicked off for having his pants down. He could have pulled them up, and everyone would have been on their way. He got kicked off for cussing at a flight attendant and not complying with the company's rules. This isn't that complicated.

he didnt want to pull them up, he still would have gotten kicked off without cussing at the flight attendant. not pulling them up is not complying with the company's rules, you didn't need to separate them.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 7876453)
We will agree to disagree. I think they realized this crew ****ed up just like the crew that ****ed up with the lady.

SW doesn't have a dress code so this really comes down to individuals deciding for themselves what they deem appropriate or not.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20641687.../#.TmJ6SF35N9s

Yep. SW was clearly in the wrong, and admitted they were. Argument over.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 7876454)
SW won't lose a single dime over this. Hell, they might even get customers they didn't before because of it.

you dont know that the former, though the latter, i admit, IS possible.

007 09-03-2011 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876470)
you dont know that the former, though the latter, i admit, IS possible.

No, I don't know that but it is my opinion so I don't have to know it :)

Spott 09-03-2011 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876465)
Yep. SW was clearly in the wrong, and admitted they were. Argument over.

That apology was only made because the guy was famous. If it was the typical idiot/thug that walks around holding his pants up with one hand because he's too stupid to figure out how a belt works, SW would have said nothing.

Saul Good 09-03-2011 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876465)
Yep. SW was clearly in the wrong, and admitted they were. Argument over.

Show me where they admitted it.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876491)
Show me where they admitted it.

"As soon as we became aware of what had happened, we reached out to apologize for this customer's experience," said Brad Hawkins, a Southwest spokesman. "He elected to take the next flight. We followed up with this customer and involved employees to get more details and, in our latest conversations, understand from the customer the situation was resolved to his satisfaction."

Saul Good 09-03-2011 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking (Post 7876500)
"As soon as we became aware of what had happened, we reached out to apologize for this customer's experience," said Brad Hawkins, a Southwest spokesman. "He elected to take the next flight. We followed up with this customer and involved employees to get more details and, in our latest conversations, understand from the customer the situation was resolved to his satisfaction."

That's called PR, not admitting that they were wrong.

007 09-03-2011 01:19 PM

They apologized for his "experience" not their policy. Unfortunately, they might as well have apologized for policy since they ultimately let him fly with them.

Backwards Masking 09-03-2011 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7876502)
That's called PR, not admitting that they were wrong.

That's not an apology? Its the closetest thing behind only the SW Corporate Office growing arms and legs and a mouth, walking over and standing by the Statue of LIberty, and annoucing it across New York City then.

Deberg_1990 09-03-2011 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 7876517)
They apologized for his "experience" not their policy. Unfortunately, they might as well have apologized for policy since they ultimately let him fly with them.

Like i said earlier, he ultimately got booted because things got overheated with the backtalk.

Bowser 09-03-2011 01:36 PM

And really, I believe Bille Joe can afford to fly United first class. Not only would they not have said anything about his pants, they would have given him a glass of champagne with a smile.

WhiteWhale 09-03-2011 04:26 PM

There seems to be a lot of people in this thread equating 'baggy pants' and 'sagging pants'.

Baggy pants are loose fitting pants.

Sagging your pants is wearing them low off your waist.

Don't hate on me for baggy pants. I don't like having my junk crushed by my apparel.

stevieray 09-03-2011 04:32 PM

...people really care about this shit?

billy joe picked his nose and wiped it on the seat.

film at 11.

007 09-03-2011 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 7877074)
...people really care about this shit?

billy joe picked his nose and wiped it on the seat.

film at 11.

It annoys the crap out of me when I see kids with their underwear hanging out.

Third Eye 09-03-2011 06:02 PM

I wish they would've kicked him off from 30,000 feet.

007 09-03-2011 07:32 PM

American Idiot

Okie_Apparition 09-03-2011 08:28 PM

The base of your johnson holding your pants up or wearing a bolo tie. It's a toss up

Dartgod 09-03-2011 08:32 PM

There is nothing in SWA's contract of carriage that forbids passengers wearing baggy pants. They were in the wrong, period.

Quote:

6. Acceptance of Passengers

a. Refusal to Transport

General. Carrier may, in its sole discretion, refuse to transport, or may remove from an
aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below. The fare of
any Passenger denied transportation or removed from Carrier‟s aircraft en route under the
provisions of this Article will be refunded in accordance with Article 9 of this Contract of
Carriage. The sole recourse of any Passenger refused transportation or removed en route
will be the recovery of the refund value of the unused portion of his Ticket. Under no
circumstances shall Carrier be liable to any Passenger for any type of special, incidental, or
consequential damages.

(1) Safety. Whenever such action is necessary, with or without notice, for reasons of
aviation safety.

(2) Force Majeure Event: Whenever advisable due to Force Majeure Events outside of
Carrier‟s control, including, without limitation acts of God, meteorological events,
such as storms, rain, wind, fire, fog, flooding, earthquakes, haze, or volcanic eruption.
It also includes, without limitation, government action, disturbances or potentially
volatile international conditions, civil commotions, riots, embargoes, wars, or
hostilities, whether actual, threatened, or reported, strikes, work stoppage, slowdown,
lockout or any other labor related dispute involving or affecting Carrier‟s service,
mechanical difficulties by entities other than Carrier, Air Traffic Control, the inability
to obtain fuel, airport gates, labor, or landing facilities for the flight in question or any
fact not reasonably foreseen, anticipated or predicted by Carrier.

(3) Government Request or Regulation. Whenever such action is necessary to comply
with any Federal Aviation Regulation or other applicable government regulation, or to
comply with any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection
with the national defense.12

(4) Interference with Flight Crew. Passengers who interfere or attempt to interfere with
any member of the flight crew in carrying out its duties.

(5) Search of Passenger or Property. Any Passenger who refuses to permit the search of
his person or property by Carrier or an authorized government agency for explosives,
hazardous materials, contraband, or concealed, deadly, or dangerous weapons or
articles.

(6) Proof of Identity. Any Passenger who refuses upon request to produce positive
identification acceptable to the Carrier.

(7) Incompatible Medical Requirements. Carrier will refuse to transport persons requiring
the following medical equipment or services, which either are not authorized or cannot
be accommodated on Carrier‟s aircraft: medical oxygen for use onboard the aircraft
except FAA-approved and Carrier accepted Portable Oxygen Concentrators (POCs),
incubators, medical devices requiring electrical power from the aircraft, or travel on a
stretcher.

(8) Comfort and Safety. Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at
any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary
for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members:

(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive,
threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently
offensive.

(ii) Persons who are barefoot and older than five years of age, unless required due to
a disability.

(iii) Persons who are unable to occupy a seat with the seatbelt fastened.

(iv) Persons who are unwilling to comply with seating requirements under Carrier‟s
customer of size policy as specified in Article 4a(3)(i). Carrier‟s failure to
enforce or decision not to enforce its customer of size policy for a Passenger
traveling on a given flight does not preclude Carrier from enforcing the policy
with respect to that Passenger on a subsequent flight.

(v) Persons who appear to the Carrier to be intoxicated or under the influence of
drugs.

(vi) Persons who are known by the Carrier to have a communicable disease
or infection and whose condition poses a direct threat as defined in
14 CFR § 382.3 to the health or safety of others..

(vii) Persons who have an offensive odor, unless caused by a disability.13

(viii) Any person who cannot be transported safely for any reason.

(9) Weapons. Persons who wear or have on or about their person concealed or
unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons; provided, however, that Carrier will carry
Passengers who meet the qualifications and conditions established in
49 CFR § 1544.219.

(10) Prisoners. Prisoners (persons charged with or convicted of a crime) under escort of
law enforcement personnel; other persons in the custody of law enforcement personnel
who are being transported while wearing manacles or other forms of restraint; persons
brought into the airport in manacles or other forms of restraint; persons who have
resisted escorts; or escorted persons who express to Carrier an objection to being
transported on the flight.

(11) Non-Smoking Policy. Persons who are unwilling or unable to abide by Carrier's nonsmoking rules, and federal laws prohibiting smoking onboard the aircraft as
established in 49 USC § 41706.

(12) Misrepresentation. Persons who have made a misrepresentation which becomes
evident upon arrival at the airport, and the misrepresentation renders the Person
unacceptable for Carriage.

(13) Prohibition on Solicitation. Persons who refuse to comply with instructions given by
Carrier prohibiting the solicitation of items for sale or purchase, including airline
Tickets, reduced-rate travel passes, or travel award certificates.

http://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs...f-carriage.pdf

Bowser 09-03-2011 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod (Post 7877650)
There is nothing in SWA's contract of carriage that forbids passengers wearing baggy pants. They were in the wrong, period.

As has been said, I think he got the boot for lipping off to the male stewardess.

Dartgod 09-03-2011 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 7877653)
As has been said, I think he got the boot for lipping off to the male stewardess.

True, but the flight attendant had no right to ask him to pull them up in the first place.

That said, cussing at the flight attendant for any reason will get you booted off any plane in a hurry.

To be honest, I don't care about any of this. I'm flying SWA tomorrow, and I'll fly them again, because they give me the best value for my money.

Okie_Apparition 09-03-2011 08:42 PM

Baggy pants may have caused the plane to break in half mid-air

Bugeater 09-03-2011 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod (Post 7877650)
There is nothing in SWA's contract of carriage that forbids passengers wearing baggy pants. They were in the wrong, period.

It wasn't because they were baggy, it's because they were sagging (underwear showing) which could fall under section 8 (i).

Dartgod 09-03-2011 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater (Post 7877714)
It wasn't because they were baggy, it's because they were sagging (underwear showing) which could fall under section 8 (i).

Oh, crap. I completely missed this paragraph.
(i) Persons whose conduct is or has been known to be disorderly, abusive, offensive,
threatening, intimidating, violent, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene, or patently
offensive.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.