If I worked there and you reported her, I might have to kill you.
The closest I come to social media is POA and LinkedIn though I barely visit LinkedIn anymore and I've turned off all email notifications from them. I just keep a professional profile there for career reasons.
The employee should know the rules for dress code and ensure that the child complies.
She's a man hater. She doesn't wake up next to anyone everyday.
As I said, United can set whatever policy it wishes, but none of that means the gate agent couldn't exercise some discretion. The intent of the rule is plainly to ensure non-revs are presentable and don't harm the image of United. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone with the stick so far up there that they're bothered by a child in leggings, or who would somehow think less of United for having an employee who allows their child to wear them. Anyone that perturbed by other people couldn't possibly tolerate the broader experience of flying United (I spend a lot of time on their airplanes).
I don't do any of that either. Life is good.
United can allow whatever discretion they want, but until that time it is definitely in the employees' best interest not to exercise unauthorized discretion, which seems to be the gist of the pro-discretion argument.As I said, United can set whatever policy it wishes, but none of that means the gate agent couldn't exercise some discretion. The intent of the rule is plainly to ensure non-revs are presentable and don't harm the image of United. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone with the stick so far up there that they're bothered by a child in leggings, or who would somehow think less of United for having an employee who allows their child to wear them. Anyone that perturbed by other people couldn't possibly tolerate the broader experience of flying United (I spend a lot of time on their airplanes).
How far can United take it before some common-sense and discretion would be appropriate? Can a 2-y.o non-rev wear "items designated as sleepwear" when boarding a red-eye?
Yea that's something I see a lot of as well. Call me a bit neurotic but when I fly I try to wear clothing and shoes that will not hinder my egress from the plane in case of emergency. I always wonder about folks who wear flip flops or strapless sandals on a plane. I think ok what happens if you have what the airlines call an off airport landing ie crash and you need to get out NOW. Its dark, there is smoke, there is crap like metal, broken plastic bags, soda cans, etc. strewn everywhere and when you get down the slide there could be hot metal parts, Jet fuel and open flames on the ground. Now you are in bare feet because in the mob scene to get off the plane 10 people step on your feet pulling your flip flops and strapless sandals right off your feet. Walking through sharp objects and flames are sure going to screw up that pedicure you got for your trip.
Allowing a toddler to wear pajamas is not quite in the same category as ignoring aircraft limitations. Management at UA aren't complete fools; they aren't going to penalize anyone for permitting that in this day and age even if they wanted to.
I disagree...what's the harm in 1% over gross?
Ok...if the line is somewhere between 1% and 50% over gross, where exactly is it?
You really disagree that ignoring aircraft limitations is a different category to letting a non-rev toddler wear PJs?
What's the safety issue in 1% over gross?
As I said, United can set whatever policy it wishes, but none of that means the gate agent couldn't exercise some discretion. The intent of the rule is plainly to ensure non-revs are presentable and don't harm the image of United. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone with the stick so far up there that they're bothered by a child in leggings, or who would somehow think less of United for having an employee who allows their child to wear them. Anyone that perturbed by other people couldn't possibly tolerate the broader experience of flying United (I spend a lot of time on their airplanes).
How far can United take it before some common-sense and discretion would be appropriate? Can a 2-y.o non-rev wear "items designated as sleepwear" when boarding a red-eye?
I agree, but I don't think there are many people who consider a child simply wearing leggings on a commercial flight indecorous or reminiscent of a trailer park. Though I can't claim any particular expertise in trailer park couture.
I never said there was one, necessarily.
A variant of the cop-out paradox?
Not at all. I simply think as far as the exercise of employee discretion goes, a safety-related regulation with a federal mandate behind it is in a different category to a company policy that prohibits a non-rev 2-yo from wearing pajamas. I would guess most UA employees would see that too (apart from a couple of friends who work for them my view of UA ops is solely from the SLF perspective, but I've never ever seen them bend rules on who may sit in the exit row, for example).A variant of the cop-out paradox?
Well, in the interests of accuracy, a lot of them did.
Glad to hear an airline employee confirm that discretion would often be applied. Quite true that I don't know the exact ages (when I hear "teens" and "traveling with parent" I assume "minors" but that could be wrong) or what their outfit looked like in toto.
Frankly, so would I...unfortunately my experience is that neither the whiny customers nor the members of management who ask you to exercise some discretion make that distinction, so I pretty much quit making it as well.
This was Shannon Watts from Mom's Demand Action, a Bloomberg funded anti-rights group.