Posted on 09/13/2007 12:09:35 PM PDT by Froufrou
A second young woman has come forward to claim that Southwest Airlines Co. employees made her cover up on a recent flight.
Setara Qassim told KNBC-TV in Los Angeles that a flight attendant confronted her during the trip from Tucson, Ariz., to Burbank, Calif., and asked if she had a sweater to go over her green halter-style dress.
Qassim, 21, said she was forced to wrap a blanket around herself for the rest of the flight. She complained that if Southwest wants passengers to dress a certain way, it should publish a dress code.
Last week, 23-year-old Kyla Ebbert said a Southwest employee pulled her aside as she was preparing to board a plane departing San Diego for Tucson in July and told her she was dressed too provocatively to fly on the plane.
Ebbert said she was humiliated and felt the stares of other passengers who had overheard the verbal dressing-down.
Airline spokesman Chris Mainz said the company had no record that Qassim ever complained.
Messages left with Qassim, who lives in southern California, were not immediately returned to The Associated Press.
Mainz said Dallas-based Southwest — which dressed its stewardesses in hot pants and called itself "the love airline" back in the 1970s — relies on employees to decide if a passenger's attire may offend other customers.
"We don't have a dress code. We rely on our employees to use common sense, good judgment and good taste," Mainz said. "It's so rare for us to have to address a customer's clothing issue."
American Airlines claims the right to refuse to carry passengers for a variety of reasons including being drunk, barefoot, having an offensive odor or being "clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
;-)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There was a previous thread that had a partial picture of the young lady and her dress (from the midriff up). It showed a lot of cleavage, but it looked good on her and didn’t, IMO, seem terribly inappropriate from a small picture. The young lady was quite pretty, better-looking than the tramped-up Hooters waitress from the first incident. The picture didn’t show what the dress looked like from the midriff down, though, so maybe she had the same crotch-flashing problem that Skank #1 did.
}:-)4
If it’s a problem for everyone else on the plane, I suppose I’ll be a good samaritan and let her sit next to me.
Yup, she needs to sit next to me and we’ll share up in my blanket —— no problem.
It’s Islamification. Next, the veil will be required.
Yep, that’s the pic. :) It looks good on her, but that’s not really something I’d want my daughter wearing out in public. I don’t know if it’s enough to get her thrown off an airliner, though.
}:-)4
I always get a lot of flack for saying this, but ...
That notion was given a death blow during the Civil Rights movement. Lunch Counter owners in the Jim Crow South wanted to be able to refuse to serve some folks. But they learned that you can't do that.
It may be your store. It may be your business. But your ability to refuse service has largely been taken away.
My thought exactly.
posted here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1894858/posts with pics. more pics and video at link.
Damn right. The stewardess is probably guilty as hell, and that's what led to this.
The 1st one was a butterface, “good from far but far from good”, or a Cleveland Brown(nice uniform, ugly helmet). This one is actually A-OK.
Have cleavage, will travel.
It’s not the shortness of the dress, it’s the lack of undergarments that was the problem with incident #1(apparently).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.