# Southwest removes passenger for improper dress



## gmarine (Sep 6, 2007)

This is pretty comical. Hopefully SW canned the person who had the bright idea to remove this woman from the plane.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/...xy-for-southwest-airlines-luv-miniskirt-gets/


----------



## riverdees05 (Sep 6, 2007)

WOW, what will they think of next.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 6, 2007)

Back when PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines) was flying, that dress would have gotten her hired.


----------



## Kal (Sep 6, 2007)

The last time I flew from LAX to Las Vegas on Southwest a drop dead 23-yo gorgeous "babe" sat next to me.  The stuff she was wearing made the subject person in this thread look like the Church Lady.  After she sat down she pulled up a Playboy mag and started commenting on the ladies.  Her little crochet dust ruffle was hiked up well beyond mid-thigh.  Seemed she worked at a non-alcoholic men's club in Huntington Beach and made about $1500 per night in tips.  Her speciality was pole-dancing.

All the guys sitting around me just about cork-screwed their necks right off their heads!    However, after lots and lots of questions the ultimate was this:

Q: How come you decided to sit in the seat next to me??

*A: You looked SAFE!!*


----------



## ricoba (Sep 6, 2007)

Kal said:


> Q: How come you decided to sit in the seat next to me??
> 
> *A: You looked SAFE!!*



Too funny!!!:rofl: :hysterical:


----------



## Keitht (Sep 6, 2007)

Kal said:


> Q: How come you decided to sit in the seat next to me??
> 
> *A: You looked SAFE!!*



The sort of comment you don't know whether to take as a compliment or insult isn't it?  I had something very similar happen to me on the way back in a coach from a company function.
One of the, rather attractive, secretaries had been sitting toward the back of the coach and things were getting pretty raucous.  Next thing I knew she had come down towards the front and sat by me.
She said the language and innuendo was getting pretty bad, so she had come to sit by me so she would be safe!  I was pleased to be viewed in that way, whilst at the same time a little sad that I was not considered 'a risk'.  Can't have it both ways I suppose.


----------



## Kal (Sep 6, 2007)

I probably looked safe because she was in the seat between me and my wife.  My wife is a real babe herself so it was a no brainer for the dancing princess.  Maybe I just looked sane compared to the plane full of testosterone-charged males who were drooling on themselves.


----------



## Rose Pink (Sep 6, 2007)

Kal said:


> ...she was in the seat between me and my wife. ....


 
Okay, I'll ask.  Why was she _*between*_ you and your wife?  If it had been me, I'd make sure I (the wife) was sitting between my husband and her.


----------



## pedro47 (Sep 6, 2007)

Wow. Southwest needs to visits some local high schools and observe the dresses some female students are wearing to school.


----------



## lawren2 (Sep 6, 2007)

Keitht said:


> The sort of comment you don't know whether to take as a compliment or insult isn't it?  I had something very similar happen to me on the way back in a coach from a company function.
> One of the, rather attractive, secretaries had been sitting toward the back of the coach and things were getting pretty raucous.  Next thing I knew she had come down towards the front and sat by me.
> She said the language and innuendo was getting pretty bad, so she had come to sit by me so she would be safe!  I was pleased to be viewed in that way, whilst at the same time a little sad that I was not considered 'a risk'.  Can't have it both ways I suppose.




Keith if it is any consolation I don't think you look "safe" at all. It is the quiet ones us gals have to watch out for.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 6, 2007)

I don't think she was actually removed.  I believe they asked her to pull her neckline up and hemline down, and allowed her to fly.


----------



## Kal (Sep 6, 2007)

Rose Pink said:


> Okay, I'll ask. Why was she _*between*_ you and your wife? If it had been me, I'd make sure I (the wife) was sitting between my husband and her.


 
My wife and I saw her in the waiting area and agreed that we would situate ourselves so the empty seat would be *BAIT*. She's a "team player".


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Sep 6, 2007)

Steve, my thought exactly. I remember pink and orange miniskirt clad attendents whose panties showed when they put things in the bins. It was degrading and a job requirement.
Liz


----------



## Icarus (Sep 6, 2007)

DeniseM said:


> I don't think she was actually removed.  I believe they asked her to pull her neckline up and hemline down, and allowed her to fly.



I guess we read different articles.

-David


----------



## BevL (Sep 6, 2007)

DIdn't the article say that they eventually let her on the plane, after a lecture about her dress?

Good grief, I was walking my dog at the park today and saw two teens dressed the same way.  Do I like it?  Not particularly.  Am I so offended I wouldn't want them on the same plane?  Hardly, it's none of my business!!

As for "safe men", my husband runs into this all the time when he walks the dog.  Somehow a six foot three 250-pounder looks pretty non-agressive when he's walking a Shih Tzu.  He calls the dog his "chick magnet."  Do I sound worried?


----------



## gmarine (Sep 6, 2007)

DeniseM said:


> I don't think she was actually removed.  I believe they asked her to pull her neckline up and hemline down, and allowed her to fly.



She was escorted off the plane then allowed back on the plane after protesting to SW officials who apparently were much smarter than the original dope who had her removed.


----------



## Kona Lovers (Sep 6, 2007)

That's ridiculous of the SW employee.  Must have never been to a Hooters.

Marty


----------



## Kal (Sep 7, 2007)

Liz Wolf-Spada said:


> Steve, my thought exactly. I remember pink and orange miniskirt clad attendents whose panties showed when they put things in the bins. It was degrading and a job requirement.
> Liz


 
Hey, isn't that a good thing that Southwest required attendants to wear panties?  Or is it a degrading job requirement to wear....?


----------



## ricoba (Sep 7, 2007)

Even though I thought this was funny and posted a comment about Kal's funny story, do you think this story is true?

When I looked at the link again, it doesn't seem to quote any main stream press about the story.  Has someone actually seen or read an article by a respected news source regarding this issue?  Or is this just another internet hoax?

Just curious.


----------



## Icarus (Sep 7, 2007)

Who knows? It's just a good story either way.

What's really funny is when a newspaper picks up a story (unattributed) because of the blog entry and because people start sending it around.

-David


----------



## Kagehitokiri (Sep 7, 2007)

from original blog link >


> ...eventually let back on the plane...



news coverage >
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070905/news_1m5braun.html


> ...[the customer service supervisor]...had her pull up her tank top a bit, pull down her skirt a bit, and return to her seat...


----------



## Blue Skies (Sep 7, 2007)

The girl, her mother and her lawyer (big surprise!) were interviewed on the Today show this morning by Matt Lauer.  She was wearing the exact outfit on the show that she wore on the flight.  Matt had her stand up to show everyone her attire, and her skirt was very short.  So short that they had to "blur" her crotch as she sat back down, or everyone watching on TV would have gotten an eyefull.    

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/

Sheesh!  Isn't there some middle ground between women wearing burkas and dressing like hookers?


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 7, 2007)

Let me preface this by saying that I think that SW employee was overly zealous.  Still, I am bothered by some of the arguments in this thread supporting the passanger...

"Well, I have seen much worse..."

When can't you say that?  Does the fact that there is always a lower level yet mean anything goes?

"Hasn't he ever been in Hooters?"

It is one thing for people to go to Hooters knowing what they will be exposed to.  Does than mean that, if someone buys an airline ticket, they have to be exposed to the same dress code? Can't somebody who chooses not to go to Hooters and wants nothing to do with that sort of social behavior fly an airplane without having something foisted upon them?

Again, I thought that the employee was overly aggressive, but I don't think the above lines of attack are the ones that I would want to stand upon.


----------



## Blues (Sep 7, 2007)

Blue Skies said:


> The girl, her mother and her lawyer (big surprise!) were interviewed on the Today show this morning by Matt Lauer.  She was wearing the exact outfit on the show that she wore on the flight.  Matt had her stand up to show everyone her attire, and her skirt was very short.  So short that they had to "blur" her crotch as she sat back down, or everyone watching on TV would have gotten an eyefull.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/
> 
> Sheesh!  Isn't there some middle ground between women wearing burkas and dressing like hookers?



Thanks for the link, Blue Skies.

But I have to ask, did you actually view it?  I just watched the whole thing, and I saw no pixellation, and no problem with her standing up or sitting down.  

I hope that Southwest apologizes to her and retrains the flight attendant that caused the uproar.


----------



## bltfam (Sep 7, 2007)

She was on the Today show this Am I thought I would see this girl half dreesed  however the skirt was a bit too short for me but she was covered The tank top was tight but it had a half sweater over it They made a comment on the show that if it was teen celebrity like Paris or 
Brittany they would have seated her and got her a drink  On the way back she was complimented on how she looked, and never asked to cover up  Oh well she'll sue, and her and her attorney both will be wealthier by next month!!!


----------



## Blue Skies (Sep 7, 2007)

Blues said:


> Thanks for the link, Blue Skies.
> 
> But I have to ask, did you actually view it?  I just watched the whole thing, and I saw no pixellation, and no problem with her standing up or sitting down.




Yes, I did view it, and it was pixilated at that time.  They replayed the interview about an hour later on the show, and then it was different.  The second time they showed the interview, as she was in the process of sitting down, they only showed a head shot, not the full body shot as in the original.

I guess what bothers me about this is, why do young women think they have to look like cheap hookers to feel attractive?  I have a 20-year old daughter in college, and thankfully she does not feel the need to dress provocatively, but still dresses fashionably and stylishly.  The skirt on this girl could have been 3" longer, and it still would have been short and sassy, without nearly flashing everyone.


----------



## ricoba (Sep 7, 2007)

I remember a bit of the "glory days" of flight, when one would dress up, eat on fine china with a linen table cloth and napkin, use real cutlery and drink wine from a glass....sigh...now it's more like my days when I got around the country on a Greyhound Bus, where nobody cared what you looked like or wore!  

Of course flights used to be much more expensive back in the "glory days"!


----------



## pwrshift (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess this airline is against fat people and sexy people.  Who's left?


----------



## wackymother (Sep 7, 2007)

I watched the CNN online video, and now that I've seen the woman and her outfit I think she is just playing this for all it's worth. 

The skirt was indeed amazingly short--one of those numbers that are meant to sit very low on the hips and then extend just below the crotch. In some of the pictures it looked like she was wearing a dress, but I imagine in real life the tank top came up and her midriff was exposed. 

On the CNN report, Southwest said they asked her to cover up and she did and they went. She said she was embarrassed by their request, asked for a blanket, and covered herself. All okay except now she is considering a LAWSUIT! Give me a break! She obviously thinks this is her fifteen minutes.


----------



## Kozman (Sep 7, 2007)

*Short Skirt*

I for one recall the mini skirts of the 70's that were main stream and some shorter than the one she wore.  IMO there was nothing objectionable.  I think SW owes her an apology.


----------



## johnmfaeth (Sep 7, 2007)

These types of issues of underdressing come up from time to time. My reaction is "don't most people go to the beach?" Her outfit is a lot of clothing compared to teh average bikini.

Maybe we should get that stewardess a lifeguard job, nothing uglier that a fat middle aged guy in a speedo. 

John

Fat middle aged guy who wouldn't be caught dead in a speedo.


----------



## Blue Skies (Sep 7, 2007)

Here is a picture of her from her My Space page:

http://b9.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00043/96/20/43170269_l.gif

The lovely hand gesture she is making is explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocker_(hand_gesture)

Here is another picture of her and her friends:

http://b5.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00043/57/99/43169975_l.gif

I can now see why her mother is so proudly defending her "innocent" little daughter.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 7, 2007)

Blue Skies said:


> Here is a picture of her from her My Space page:
> 
> http://b9.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00043/96/20/43170269_l.gif
> 
> ...



Wow!  She has a great tan!    How did you find those pictures?


----------



## Htoo0 (Sep 7, 2007)

She has a tan??? (Guess I didn't notice!)

BTW, Speaking of the hand guesture explaination... ever wonder how they came up with the signs for "I love you" and "I REALLY love you"? (Yes I know- but think about it.:ignore:


----------



## johnmfaeth (Sep 7, 2007)

Judging from the photos posted, it looks like she was indeed over-dressed for the Southwest flight


----------



## ricoba (Sep 7, 2007)

Goodness gracious! I never would have even noticed the hand gestures, till you pointed to the Wiki link!:ignore:  I am tooooooooo old, I had no idea there was such a gesture! 

Once these other pictures hit the press, with the gesture explanation she may find people to be less sympathetic to her cause.


----------



## gmarine (Sep 7, 2007)

What she wore is sexy and risque, no doubt, and may be offensive to some people. However it is perfectly acceptable to wear in public so SW should have nothing to say unless they are instituting a dress code. She is a paying customer just like anyone else. And what her Myspace page shows has absolutely nothing to do with how SW treated her, though I must say I am now one of her fans.  

To anyone finding her offensive, how about the middle aged overweight woman who squeezes like a sausage into stretch pants and a too small top? 

Lest not forget the same scenario with a man who's pants droop a bit lower in the back exposing a little bit too much of the Grand Canyon. 

Then we have the late teens and 20 something males who think it is fashionable to walk around with their pants so low that their underwear shows.

Add in the person who hasnt bathed in days, the woman who wears a bottle of perfume at once and ever other offensive person. They are all paying customers and as long as they dont present a health or safety threat to the public, SW should have nothing to say. That is unless SW decides to ban all offensive people, in which case they will have empty planes.


----------



## Transit (Sep 7, 2007)

In south Florida her attiire would be so common it wouldn't even be an issue. To me it dosen't seem like shockingly reveling attiire.


----------



## Kal (Sep 7, 2007)

I would love to see a pix of the flight attendant.  It's always fun to see someone who has never stepped foot into the real world or even visited a local mall on a Friday evening.


----------



## Icarus (Sep 7, 2007)

Blue Skies said:


> I guess what bothers me about this is, why do young women think they have to look like cheap hookers to feel attractive?



I don't think she was dressed as a "cheap hooker". Maybe an expensive call girl, but certainly not "cheap".

Seriously, I don't want you or a SWA employee to decide what's indecent or not. If you don't get arrested for walking around in an outfit, how can it possibly be considered to be too indecent for the airline? The employee blundered.

Personally, I don't see what her myspace photos have to do with this. Do you want SWA to check your myspace page before they allow you to travel? Would I want my daughter to post photos like that on her myspace page? Of course not. And the gesture could be a joke.

The myspace photos weren't indecent either. You can see more in a Macy's womens underwear or lingerie ad in the newspaper.

The idea of a lawsuit is pretty ridiculous too. I have no idea what sort of damages she could claim except for some temporary embarrassment. Certainly, SWA owes her an apology and the employee needs some better training, but that's about it. As far as I've heard, there is no lawsuit (yet).

-David


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Sep 8, 2007)

Wow, the comment about overweight people bulging out of their seats and clothes, so true. And with airline seats getting smaller and smaller. We flew on ATA to Hawaii and changed our seats together so a single mom and 3 year old could be together and I kept getting touched, inadvertently, by the man sitting next to me as he dozed off and spread out. I finally put on a sweater, because the contact was very uncomfortable. I think I'd rather sit next to a teen in a bathing suit who would fit in their own seat, (of course if the airlines didn't keep trying to cram more seats in that would help a lot).
z


----------



## JEFF H (Sep 8, 2007)

I suspect it all came down to how it was worn at the specific time she was sitting in the airline seat.
I suspect much was exposed and on display at that time and the reason the SW rep requested she cover up.
The photos now being displayed in the papers and on TV of course have the outfit adjusted to cover and hide what was previously on display.


----------



## Icarus (Sep 8, 2007)

Nonsense. Watch the interview. Read the article.

-David


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 8, 2007)

People make mountains out of mole hills as this is how the stewardesses looked in the past for this airline.  If the girls are attractive why not?







I see nothing terribly wrong with her dress. A little short but men are used to that when they go to the beach. Not a big deal. 

Was the person, who threw her off the plane, a jealous female or was it an insecure male?


----------



## Blue Skies (Sep 8, 2007)

Southwest Airlines has a blog about this subject on their website:

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/2007/09/07/a-different-perspective/#comments


----------



## Rent_Share (Sep 8, 2007)

ricoba said:


> I remember a bit of the "glory days" of flight, when one would dress up, eat on fine china with a linen table cloth and napkin, use real cutlery and drink wine from a glass....sigh...now it's more like my days when I got around the country on a Greyhound Bus, where nobody cared what you looked like or wore!
> 
> Of course flights used to be much more expensive back in the "glory days"!



Southwest was the "Peanut" flight - they were the first to do away with the frills - low price - high volume

Yes they are successful, so is Wal-Mart but I don't shop there either


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 8, 2007)

Rent_Share said:


> Southwest was the "Peanut" flight - they were the first to do away with the frills - low price - high volume
> 
> Yes they are successful, so is Wal-Mart but I don't shop there either


*The myth that Southwest was first no-frills, low cost, high volume airline!!!*

Totally not true. Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) was the first.  The key hallmarks of PSA included:


"stewardesses" in hot pants
livening up the flight with wisecracks on jokes during flight announcements, 
flying only a single model of airplane to minimize operating and maintenance costs
unassigned, open seating
staying out of the travel agents reservation system to avoid paying agent commissions
no frills - peanuts and juice/soda only
to the maximum extent feasible, flying out of secondary airports where airport landing fees were lower
high frequency, high volume seating
using low operating costs to beat up on big carriers.
viewing their main competition as people driving personal cars, not other airlines.

When PSA started up, PSA operated only within California - PSA was an *intra*state carrier, not an *inter*state carrier. That meant that their rates were not regulated by the FCC. PSA proceeded to slash fares and force the big carriers to follow if they wanted to stay in the market, just as Southwest does.

Southwest did the same thing in Texas as PSA was doing in California -again simply copycatting.

Southwest likes to promote the myth that they were the original discount airline.  But it's completely false.  The original was PSA; Southwest was a copycat.  (Just like the entire Starbucks concept was copied from Peet's Coffee).

*****

*How much were fares jacked up in the "good old days" under the FCC?*

Under FCC regulation, the FCC set rates so that all carriers were protected from failure. Not surprisingly, there wasn't much incentive to cut costs, since no carriers was really under threat of failure.  And since airlines couldn't compete on price, they competed on service.  Of course we remember good service, but when people complain about lack of service they conveniently forget how much they paid for that service.

When I was in school, I occasionally flew from St. Louis to Minneapolis, where my parents lived.  Braniff was the main carrier. As a student I could fly on Braniff for two-thirds fare, guaranteed seating.  My fares to go from St. Louis to Minneapolis were about $80 each way.

The distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is close to the distance between St. Louis and Minneapolis.  When I arrived in California in 1973, PSA was flying from San Francisco to Las Angeles for *$19* one way.  Flights left every hour, except at night.  During peak times in the morning and evening they departed every half hour.  No last minute fares; no prepaid discounts.  One price, all the time.

Do you really want to go back to the "good old days"?  That two-thirds fare $160 round trip ticket means the regular fare was $240 in 1973. That's easily over $1000 in current value.

******

*So what happened to PSA?*

What PSA and Southwest were doing made it very clear how much FCC fare regulation was costing consumers.  Ulitmately, the FCC stopped regulating fares, after prodding by Congress.  Both PSA and Southwest expanded operations out of their original states.

Meanwhile the old Allegheny Airlines had plans to become a national carrier instead of a regional.  They changed their name to US Air, started growing on the east coast, and started assembling a spoke and hub network. They were looking for a carrier to acquire on the West Coast to integrate into their network.  So they swallowed up PSA and started reworking the PSA route structure to make PSA a feeder into their national network.  Not only that, they imposed "order" on the airline.  No more wisecracking stewardesses. Everything was done according to policies and procedures.  In short, US Air turned PSA into the antithesis of what PSA had started as.

The story gets even better.  PSA's system was built to ferry people around the west coast, but US Air destroyed that network. US Air never grasped that the western US market was much more a north-south market than an east-west market.  You can't operate an airline in the western US if you don't grok that. So not only did US destroy the PSA flying experience, they damaged the route structure.  

The result was predictable.  The old PSA customers abandoned US Air in droves.  

Now US Air was in head to head competition with the big national carriers, but their West Coast revenues were collapsing.  US Air also had the highest operating costs of any national carrier.  So they were now supporting this west coast operation they had acquired, that customers were abandoning for western travel causing their feeders to fly well below capacity, while losing money hand over fist in the west.

US Air threw in the towel in the western US and began cutting flights.  Two years after acquiring PSA US Air had pretty much the same west coast presence as they had before they acquired PSA.  All of the money they had spent on PSA got flushed away. They would have done more for their investors had they simply piled the cash used to acquire PSA in a parking lot at the corporate headquarters and set it on fire.

***

*So did US Air open the door for Southwest?*

To a certain extent. Southwest was growing, but Southwest didn't step into California immediately because they weren't ready to start flying that far afield from Texas.  Southwest was building their system by extending incrementally from current operating locations.  Getting into California would have involved building a complete operating structure in the west from scratch, which is more expensive than incrementally adding on to locations where Soutwest already had operations.  So Southwest didn't move into the western US immediately after the demise of PSA and AirCal, though the West was in their long-range plans.

But there was an airline that was ready to fill the void.  There was a funky regional carrier way off in a forsaken part of the country that few people outside the Pacific Northwest even knew existed - Alaska Airlines.

Alaska saw the void created when US Air bumbled the PSA acquisition (and, in a parallel story, when American acquired PSA clone AirCal and messed up that one almost as badly as US Air did with PSA).  Alaska moved their headquarters from Anchorage to Seattle and aggressively expanded operations with an almost complete focus on traveling north and south along the west coast.

Because Southwest wasn't moving in right away, Alaska had about a five year window to build the route structure and establish market presence while their only significant competition was United Airlines.  Since they had lower operating costs than United, they were in good position.  Alaska took full advantage of the situation and built themselves into the carrier they are today - I believe they are ninth in the country and are generally regarded as the most well managed of the "traditional" carriers.

****

*A brief footnote to this little commercial aviation history.*

Southwest never did directly expand into the western US. Some of us might remember an airline that operated out of Salt Lake City called Morris Air.  The woman who started Morris Air, who was a travel agent doing charters IIRC, built the airline with the full intent of someday selling it to Southwest.  She became a full Southwest clone - used the same aircraft, had the same operating policies and procedures, hired a bunch of former Southwest executives.  She started operating Morris Air in the western US, figuring that eventually Southwest would find it easier to just buy her out.

She was right. When Southwest was finally ready to build presence in the western US they simply bought Morris Air and repainted the planes.  I don't think Southwest needed to change a thing in the aircraft interiors - she had ordered planes with interiors that matched Southwest's interiors.


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Sep 8, 2007)

Steve, that was really interesting. I, too, remember flying PSA for under $20 each way and then I lost track of what happened after that.  I did fly United to Southern California for years and didn't realize that it was because there was no Southwest yet to replace PSA.
Liz


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 8, 2007)

Liz Wolf-Spada said:


> Steve, that was really interesting. I, too, remember flying PSA for under $20 each way and then I lost track of what happened after that.  I did fly United to Southern California for years and didn't realize that it was because there was no Southwest yet to replace PSA.
> Liz



from about 1974 through 1993 I travelled extensively throughout California.  At first it was all PSA, then as AirCal grew it was either/or.  They both honored each others tickets, and had parallel route structures.  Plus they all treated all San Fran airports and all LA/Orange counterparts as interchangeable - i.e., a SFO-LAX tickets was equally valid for, say Oakland-Burbank or San Jose-Santa Ana.  The gate agents didn't handle money, so if you walked up with a valid Bay Area-So Cal ticket and there was space available on the flight, they would seat you without regard to whether the fares on your ticket matched the fare for the routing you were taking. That didn't work at the ticket counter, because at the counter they would charge you the difference in fares.

Many times my plans were uncertain or flexible, so I would book the cheapest flight pair I could find. Then when I was in Los Angeles and my travel plans firmed up, I would simply change my reservation to what I needed. then show up at the gate.  (I didn't check luggage so I could bypass the ticket counter.)  Never had a problem getting on.

I subsequently found out the same trick worked for all of the airlines - United, America West, PSA, AirCal, Delta/Western, etc.  And they would all honor tickets issued by any one of them.

Then one day at SFO a gate agent for America West told me she couldn't take my ticket because the fares were different and sent me back to the ticket counter.  Then the next time I was in the commuter terminal at LAX I noticed that United had installed a customer service area where they were set up to handle money, and the gate agents were sending people like me over to the customer service to handle the fare differences.

So I guess the airlines finally figured out what was going on.

****

Anyway, after PSA and AirCal disappeared, I switched most of my flying to United, as they were the standing airline that had the best west coast route structure. American was me second choice, because they didn't botch AirCal as badly as US Air mangled PSA.

I continued using United as my primary airline until I moved to Washington. American was my second choice until the late 1980's, when Alaska started building its routes.  After I moved to Washington Alaska and its partners became my primary airlines.  I don't think I've flown on a United flight for more than 10 years now.

After Southwest came into the west, Alaska really dug in and whittled away at costs.  For most of the flying I do, I find that Alaska consistently meets or beats SW fares.

****

*The AirCal Story*

As I mentioned, American Airlines acquired AirCal.  American did set up San Jose as a west coast hub, and began trying to funnel traffic through San Jose.

When Southwest did come into California, Crandall, the CEO of American Airlines at the time, capitulated immediately without getting into a price war. He said that they had never been able to successfully compete with Southwest in a short haul market anywhere they had gone head to head with Southwest.  So, with Southwest entering California Crandall decided to stop doing short hauls on the West Coast.

To keep a foothold, American arranged the transfer of the San Jose hub operations to Reno Air.  Since Reno was a startup, it had lower costs and American was hoping to continue to use San Jose as a hub for long haul operations.

Reno Air never really took off, so to speak, and American eventually acquired Reno Air, then discontinued San Jose hub operations entirely.

So eventually American wound up getting nothing from its purchase of AirCal, just as US Air got nothing from its acquisition of PSA.  But it wasn't nearly the debacle for American as it had been for US Air.


----------



## "Roger" (Sep 8, 2007)

Steve,

You brought back old memories.  Way back, for some utterly unknown reason (throwing darts at the financial page?) I bought stock in PSA.  (I am not even from the West Coast.  I never heard of them before I bought the stock.) The stock did fine, but everytime I read their financial reports I was left wondering how they could be making money charging $25 per flight when the higher price regulated airlines were struggling to stay afloat.  When they were taken over, I bailed out.  Two good moves -- both luck.



gmarine said:


> ...
> To anyone finding her offensive, how about the middle aged overweight woman who squeezes like a sausage into stretch pants and a too small top?
> 
> Lest not forget the same scenario with a man who's pants droop a bit lower in the back exposing a little bit too much of the Grand Canyon.
> ...


I agree that all of these are examples of things* more *offensive than what the girl was wearing.  To be honest, however, if an airline were to ban the whole lot of them, I would seek that airline out.


----------



## Kozman (Sep 8, 2007)

*Sighting*

I swear I saw this same woman today while I was sitting in the Ft. Myers airport.  Honest!  Looked just like her and wearing the same type short skirt.  Small world.  Or?  Maybe she started a fad!


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 9, 2007)

"Roger" said:


> Steve,
> 
> You brought back old memories. Way back, for some utterly unknown reason (throwing darts at the financial page?) I bought stock in PSA. (I am not even from the West Coast. I never heard of them before I bought the stock.) The stock did fine, but everytime I read their financial reports I was left wondering how they could be making money charging $25 per flight when the higher price regulated airlines were struggling to stay afloat. When they were taken over, I bailed out. Two good moves -- both luck.
> 
> ...


How interesting to read your comments here. My SO knows a lot about airlines and their profitability too as he worked for that industry indirectly for many years. He didn't see my post but watched something on the news just now and came over to tell me that he saw nothing wrong with the dress of the young lady. He loves to see an attractive young woman on a plane or anywhere else for that matter. I am glad he does so long it is only looking. 

Why are people visiting museums today to see the Roman or Greek statues? The bodies of these men, centuries ago, are beautiful and were shown in the Greek or Roman art perfectly. There is nothing wrong with the human body but this country doesn't seem to feel comfortable with the human body at all, even today.

The problem is that so many of us look out of shape and that's what we need to work on. A little bit of exercise and less eating goes a long way and we will all look like the Greek or Roman beauties again one day.


----------



## Icarus (Sep 9, 2007)

Pretty good history, Steve, except the FCC never had anything to do with airfares. It was the CAB, which was eventually disolved by the airline deregulation act, 10 years after the passage of the act.

And don't forget about Peoples Express, which was based at Newark airport and established the low-cost, inexpensive, no-frills model on the East Coast, well before SWA did it.

-David


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Sep 9, 2007)

Icarus said:


> Pretty good history, Steve, except the FCC never had anything to do with airfares. It was the CAB, which was eventually disolved by the airline deregulation act, 10 years after the passage of the act.
> -David



Ah, well - when you get to my age forgetting a few initials ought to be excusable.

***

When Southwest came to California, I actually thought that someone had bought PSA back from US Air, and started it up again under a slightly different name.


----------



## Rent_Share (Sep 9, 2007)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> *The myth that Southwest was first no-frills, low cost, high volume airline!!!*
> 
> Totally not true. Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) was the first.  The key hallmarks of PSA included:
> 
> ...




I was a west coast road warrior from 1980 to 1983 and occaisional west coast traveler through 1988 - (my travel extended further north as time went by which made United and Western (Now Delta) more practical. I didn't remember the open seating till you reminded me - (the premium seats were the two rows that had one set of seats facing backwards so you had first class leg room at Greyhound pricing - I do not remeber any priority for boarding and pushing to the front of the line to get those two rows, the back one was the exit row )

I distinctly remember the culture change when US Scare took them over, until they purcased America Worst, you couldn't get from LA to San Francisco without changing planes on Philidelphia as they dropped their entire west coast routes

I now travel the I-10 corridor (since 1994) with Houston being my primary destination. Due to the amount of travel I do, I am at least guaranteed priorty boarding and depending on the schedule and availability a high probabilty of a first class upgrade (less in 2007 than in late 2001) My recent experiences with Southwest have been short notice trips to Oakland or Phoenix with less than 24 hours notice, which are ineligile for on-line checki n and guarantee a *C* boarding priority after having to wait in line to confirm your ID (at the counter in addition to TSA)

Perhaps if I planned better I might have a better impression of Southwest

I recently flew  USless Air to maximize my schedule at home and have the luxury of asigned seats -  two weeks in a row total delay time 12 hours - both on the way home, they have sent me a voucher for $200 off my next flight (non transferreable) which will bever be redeemed.


----------



## johnmfaeth (Sep 9, 2007)

Hi David,

Yes People Express was fantastic, when I was in my twenties, the wife and I would decide on Thursday night and be on a $29 flight to somewhere the next night. I ran into a former People Express pilot just a month ago. He was commanding a Continental Flight. Many of them are still around in the Continental roles.

But in fairness, we must all thank Freddie Laker and Laker Airways for being the first true discount airline. He paved the way for People and the others.

He was just before his time...the big guys ganged up on Laker... 

John


----------



## johnmfaeth (Sep 9, 2007)

While I'm reminiscing about a decade when I still had hair, no New Yorker will ever forget the 80's when US Scareways put 3 planes landing at LaGuardia into the shallow water of Flushing Bay in just 18 months. 

The third time they decided that they were sick of seeing a photo on the front page of the Daily News and the Times of the tail partially submerged with their logo prominently visable. So they sent out a crew to paint over the tail. The newspapers used that photo instead which made them look even worse.


----------



## Ekaaj (Sep 9, 2007)

Getting back to the actual thread subject....



iconnections said:


> Why are people visiting museums today to see the Roman or Greek statues? The bodies of these men, centuries ago, are beautiful and were shown in the Greek or Roman art perfectly. There is nothing wrong with the human body but this country doesn't seem to feel comfortable with the human body at all, even today.



I personally don't see what statues in museums have to do with this.    Even the acient Greeks didn't wander the streets naked, and neither do we.  I think this is more about modesty, something that is becoming more and more lacking.  Women don't need to show the world all their "goods" to look sexy, but unfortunately this poor girl believes that you do.  I don't think that's a good lesson for kids and young adults.

Just out of curiosity, would people be as supportive of the passenger if this had been an unattractive guy wearing a Speedo and "wife-beater" style tank top?


----------



## BevL (Sep 9, 2007)

Ekaaj said:


> Getting back to the actual thread subject....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The "wife beater" I could live with and I'd be praying he continued down the aisle past my row.  The Speedo, no.  I also would object to a woman, any woman, wearing only a bikini onto a plane.


----------



## Transit (Sep 9, 2007)

Ekaaj said:


> Getting back to the actual thread subject....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Her outfit was far from a speedo and tank top. She shoudn't have been removed.


----------



## wackymother (Sep 9, 2007)

I agree that Southwest way way overstepped the bounds by removing her...although it's still not clear to me if they "removed" her or just asked her to adjust her clothing. 

But this does not seem to be worthy of a lawsuit.


----------



## Transit (Sep 9, 2007)

wackymother said:


> I agree that Southwest way way overstepped the bounds by removing her...although it's still not clear to me if they "removed" her or just asked her to adjust her clothing.
> 
> But this does not seem to be worthy of a lawsuit.



If they removed her it sure is worthy of a lawsuit.If an employee removed you from an airline just because they didn't like how you looked or dressed you would be filing a lawsuit also.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 9, 2007)

Ekaaj said:


> I personally don't see what statues in museums have to do with this.  Even the acient Greeks didn't wander the streets naked, and neither do we. I think this is more about modesty, something that is becoming more and more lacking. Women don't need to show the world all their "goods" to look sexy, but unfortunately this poor girl believes that you do. I don't think that's a good lesson for kids and young adults.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, would people be as supportive of the passenger if this had been an *unattractive guy wearing a Speedo and "wife-beater" style tank top?*


I wouldn't object  as I don't care what people wear on a plane but I would object if they smell bad or wear too much perfume. To me a human body can be beautiful and certainly when you are young like this woman is. What I meant also is that we go to museums to see some of our classical statues and admire them. What is the difference?


----------



## Ekaaj (Sep 9, 2007)

iconnections said:


> To me a human body can be beautiful and certainly when you are young like this woman is. What I meant also is that we go to museums to see some of our classical statues and admire them. What is the difference?



If you are serious and really don't know the difference, try flying naked the next time you travel.   But I personally think you know what the difference is.


----------



## taffy19 (Sep 9, 2007)

Ekaaj said:


> If you are serious and really don't know the difference, try flying naked the next time you travel. But I personally think you know what the difference is.


Not me as I don't even wear a bikini plus I am old.


----------



## pwrshift (Sep 9, 2007)

In my younger years AA used to have the prettiest gals and the shortest skirts so all the guys in my company got aisle seats...and we never flew Air Canada from Toronto unless it was within Canada.  How times have changed.  Those gals are in their 50's now.  On the other hand, the AC stews were alway old and grouchy.

Brian


----------



## Mel (Sep 9, 2007)

While I think some Southwest employees may have gone a bit overboard, I think she has tool.  Her mother wrote a letter to Southwest, expecting an appology, and they decided none was appropriate, so they wrote back explaining as much.  They were going to deny her boarding, and put her on a another flight, unless she did something to fix the problem - she did, and she was able to fly.

What bothers me here is her claim that she was so embarrassed about the whole incident, yet now she's appearing in the outfit in major network new programs.  She may have been embarrassed for being called out - we have no idea what her outfit looked like when she was on that airplane.  She was obviously able to adjust to a point where the SW employee was satisfied, which suggests that she might have had the skirt pulled up higher, and the shirt pulled lower to reveal more.

As for society being prudish, I disagree.  If we wish to see nude statues, we can go to a museum, but they are not placed in the middle of the Town Square, where the public has no choice but to view them.  We have standards that should be followed.  Conservatives complain that family values are headed down the tube - maybe they're right, not necessarily about "family" values, but values in general, if most people find her attire acceptable.


----------



## Icarus (Sep 9, 2007)

Ekaaj said:


> I think this is more about modesty, something that is becoming more and more lacking.  Women don't need to show the world all their "goods" to look sexy, but unfortunately this poor girl believes that you do.  I don't think that's a good lesson for kids and young adults.



Fortunately, we don't live in a society where women are required to cover themselves from head to toe.

Watch tv? Read popular magazines? Walk around any city or college campus? You'll see that her outfit was not unusual. Like it or not, that's popular culture these days.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion about her outfit, but do you really believe that an employee of the airline had any right to remove her from the plane because of her outfit? Do you want SWA employees to be the arbiter of decency? If her outfit was really indecent, why wasn't she arrested for walking through the airport when wearing it?

-David


----------



## Kal (Sep 9, 2007)

I remember all too clearly when my Dad was absolutely convinced "this generation (me and my friends)" are totally BAD.  They didn't dress properly, their music was terrible, they didn't eat correctly and their language was not acceptable in public.  Thanks Dad and did you hear those rumors about Lawrence Welk writing Hip-Hop lyrics!  

This airplane chick looked just like a thousand of her school mates in every city.  I hope she makes a few bucks from Southwest for arbitrarily messing with her flight schedule and calling her out in public.  Not millions, but a couple of $1000's would work.


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Sep 9, 2007)

My husband gets horrible headaches from perfume. I think they really should do something to advise people to NOT wear perfume in airplanes, as in such an enclosed and too close space, you can't just leave or change seats.
Liz


----------



## Ekaaj (Sep 9, 2007)

Mel said:


> While I think some Southwest employees may have gone a bit overboard, I think she has too.  Her mother wrote a letter to Southwest, expecting an appology, and they decided none was appropriate, so they wrote back explaining as much.  They were going to deny her boarding, and put her on a another flight, unless she did something to fix the problem - she did, and she was able to fly.
> 
> What bothers me here is her claim that she was so embarrassed about the whole incident, yet now she's appearing in the outfit in major network new programs.  She may have been embarrassed for being called out - we have no idea what her outfit looked like when she was on that airplane.  She was obviously able to adjust to a point where the SW employee was satisfied, which suggests that she might have had the skirt pulled up higher, and the shirt pulled lower to reveal more.
> 
> As for society being prudish, I disagree.  If we wish to see nude statues, we can go to a museum, but they are not placed in the middle of the Town Square, where the public has no choice but to view them.  *We have standards that should be followed. * Conservatives complain that family values are headed down the tube - maybe they're right, not necessarily about "family" values, *but values in general, if most people find her attire acceptable*.



Very well said, Mel.  And, as many posters have claimed, the fact that "so many" college girls look just like Kyla doesn't make it any better.  I think it's pathetic that this type of dress is becoming "acceptable".  It wasn't THAT long ago that I attended college, and we certainly didn't look like Kyla and friends.  

Also, if you have a look at her current MySpace page, she states that she is a swinger, likes to party and hook up, (i.e. sleep with random partygoers), and she idolizes Jenna Jameson (the porn star).   Doesn't that say something?  Would any of you parents want your daughters to turn out that way - dressing like that, acting like that and idolizing a porn star?  I mean, truly - be honest here.  I know I wouldn't, and I honestly believe that there is a connection between how you dress, how you act/who you hang out with, and your self-worth as a young adult.


----------



## Icarus (Sep 10, 2007)

Ekaaj said:


> Doesn't that say something?



Not a damn thing about her ability to fly no matter how much you disapprove of her outfit or her myspace page.

Do we need to be acceptable by the thought police now in order to fly on a plane? Does any of that really pertain to the actual facts of the incident?

I don't think her sexual orientation or proclivity really has anything to do with this topic, which is about an incident where somebody was removed from a plane because an airline employee didn't approve of her outfit. And this happened in the United States, not in Iran.

This thread has run it's course. Can we close it now?

-David


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 10, 2007)

Uhhh, David...she wasn't removed from the plane...


----------



## Icarus (Sep 10, 2007)

DeniseM said:


> Uhhh, David...she wasn't removed from the plane...



Yes, she was. An employee removed her from the plane and was not going to allow her to fly. Did you read the story and watch the interview? In the end, after basically emasculating herself, they allowed her back on the plane. They wanted her to fly on a later flight wearing a different outfit.

It's really time to close this thread. The discussion has run its course and is turning into social commentary about how people dress and their morals.

-David


----------



## Kal (Sep 10, 2007)

David - This thread is helping us understand just who should be allowed to board an airplane.  So far we're starting to eliminate all kinds of citizens based on what they look like.  What if we add another dimension as "what they are thinking" and "what they did before they got on the plane"?  My gawd, what about guys who wear body jewelry????  (No, not that kind, just pierced ear rings or necklaces  )

Sorta reminds me of the first Apple Commercial on TV during the Super Bowl.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Sep 10, 2007)

Icarus said:


> It's really time to close this thread. The discussion has run its course and is turning into social commentary about how people dress and their morals.
> 
> -David



I agree that this has been interesting, but it is getting weird. Time to close this thread.


----------

