I realize that 9/11 played a role in changing air travel. The meals will probably never be the same, but any little thing we can do to educate people in civility is worthwhile.

Here's to the days of Pan Am and great air travel.

I have no problem with flights that maintain strict dress and appearance codes, as long as there's compromises made in the way to easily recognize which flights they are, for those that are more casual and concerned with getting from point A to point B safely. maybe the airlines participating in formal attire flights could use a well known emblem long associated with an ideology that opposes individualism and promotes total conformity to offer future passengers an informed choice. the least expensive solution to this conservative problem of undesirable passengers, fashion, or hairstyles would be to simply paint a swastika on the tail.

If they're pack us in like sardines I'm keeping to my flip flops and shorts

as long as there's compromises made in the way to easily recognize which flights they are, for those that are more casual

Maybe we can have a come as you are flight restricted to those fit the resume. I think we'll all be happy.

My pet peeve during air travel was when a screaming baby was in the seat behind me.  Although I don't expect to fly ever again, my suggestion to improve the comfort of passengers during a flight would be for the flight attendants to keep some pacifiers available because the mothers don't give a shit that their kids are making other passengers miserable.

Most mothers are praying that their child shuts up.   Most do whatever they can to keep them quiet.   I feel sorry for them.

Some do not care, but I think that is a tiny minority.

Buzz, that made me laugh! Not because a crying baby is a laughing matter—it is not! I laughed because it makes me think about an . . . ongoing problem we have at home. The neighbor has several barking dogs and they do nothing to help stop them from barking through the fence at the dog on the other side of the fence. . .or the occasional raccoon or squirrel that crosses the community fencing. 

That said, I am getting some good 'results' from praying about silence at night! It is so eerie. . . because it is as if the next door neighbor "heard our prayers". . . we are hearing less barking at night (of recent) and that silence is worth its weight in gold. In fact, I won't even let myself be bothered by the daytime barking by several dogs 'trapped' in a back yard of limited capacity. . . as long as my family can sleep at night relatively good.  

"Most mothers are praying that their child shuts up."

A pacifier is one hell of a lot more effective than prayer. 

Well, CB, use prayer if you want, and good luck with it, but IMO a pacifier is a lot more effective.

That's a long-standing complaint. Bringing a baby on a flight is never easy.

I've never flown with a baby and hopefully I never will. But I feel sympathetic to moms with crying babies. Sometimes nothing will shut the little beastie up

At least the moms don't scream as well.

Sitting in the seat in front of them isn't easy either. 

I've been on the verge of screaming dealing with my own beasties

I think most are doing both.

Use both!  (Maybe the pacifier is "the go-to that prayer directs you to 'do.')

As for the neighbor's dogs (3 dogs (and now they awkwardly have added a fourth puppy!)) I could easily have used by several battery powered dog 'quieting' devices pointed over the fence in their direction. I think I got 'caught' doing it once before and thought it sent the wrong message (I wanted quiet) but it has a laser pointer on it and I think my neighbor saw it - the wife acted funny towards me for several weeks afterwards-but we talk now again). Thus, I tried PRAYER as a fall-back. and lo and behold something is working, because my family is not complaining about the 'yapping' nearly as much at night! That is all I can tell you, Buzz. . . 'it is work-ing!' 

I've been praying for a winning lottery ticket for decades, but it hasn't worked for me.  LOL

I don't pray about that! That would be presumptuous of me. But, I do play 'printed' and scratcher lottery tickets as I 'want' to leave a little something-something for everybody I love and 'adore.'  I mean really,. . . you can just imagine how many people have tried that one on the lottery with 'mixed' results!

That image plays to a theme and you know what it is. The fact is conservatives and MAGA conservatives are strident about (this) being a time when 'America' was great. I assure you. . . today it does not take all of 'that'! White gloved hands—now really!  That said, I am sure some women would love to give it a try, and yet they would still be expected to clean up whatever 'mess' occurs on the flights taken today. . .and old those 'run' in the stockings will return too! And pants on women: tell us how does MAGA feel about stewardess wearing them?

It will be great again.

Can we agree that flight attendants are not "entertainment" or 'eye-candy' - it is a working profession! So let the attendants be in practical, working, neat, and clean attire.  That would be 'great' enough for me, how about MAGA supporters?!

Incidentally, I do observe that you are. . . 'careful' not to (overly) explain the motivation behind your thinking on this topic or the images you put forward.  All the same, the silence speaks volumes of its own!

What about stewardesses wearing pants to work/fly? 

1. Agree.

2. Disagree.

3. Indifferent.

That image plays to a theme and you know what it is. The fact is conservatives and MAGA conservatives are strident about (this) being a time when 'America' was great. I assure you. . . today it does not take all of 'that'! White gloved hands—now really!  That said, I am sure some women would love to give it a try, and yet they would still be expected to clean up whatever 'mess' occurs on the flights taken today

First of all, America was great in the two decades following WWII. Second of all, when it comes to cleaning up messes, nurses at the time wore white uniforms and were more than capable of cleaning bed pans and finished their shifts smelling like roses. What is wrong with personal hygiene and being at ones best?


.and old those 'run' in the stockings will return too! And pants on women: tell us how does MAGA feel about stewardess wearing them?

I once read a book on Mussolini. Some may not know it but after his government fell he tried to escape too Switzerland. Local Communist guerrilla groups captured his convoy in northern Italy. He, his mistress and a few of his loyalists were then executed. The bodies were left in a truck. The following day they were dumped in a square in Milan, where they were spat upon and kicked by an angry mob. Then the bodies were hung upside down by their feet. I will never forget one of the last lines of the book: two old women looked up at the strung-up body of Mussolini's mistress (Clara Petacci), and one said to the other: "Look at her, after all that, not even a run in her stocking!"

For some reason I never forgot that line.

First of all, America was great in the two decades following WWII.

How, specifically, do you define 'greatness' in this context (what are the defining characteristics), and what, specifically, do you think Trump is going to do to make things match your vision?

I believe I've answered this numerous times before. At the risk of boring whatever readers we still have, I will restate the obvious.

The US had come out of WWII stronger and more powerful and more affluent than it had ever been. We were the world power. Prices and inflation were very low and nearly everyone with a half decent job could afford to own a home. A family only needed one wage earner for its support. It was an era of expanding affluence and people were optimistic about the future.

You see, I judge economies by the middle, unlike Socialists & Marxists who focus on the bottom. In a free economy there will always be a top with overachievers and a bottom with underachievers. In those decades the middle/middle class was massive, and people were buying homes, filling them with appliances and having families.

That is the economic part. The societal part was also golden. Few people doubted the goodness of American society. People respected one another and respected the law. Speaking of the law, we were far safer then.

We even rebuilt Europe.

That is the economic part. The societal part was also golden. Few people doubted the goodness of American society. People respected one another and respected the law. Speaking of the law, we were far safer then.

A clause in the original Levittown covenant  prevented tenants from allowing non-Caucasians to use or occupy Levitt houses . The 1926 court case Corrigan v. Buckley ruled that racially restrictive covenants were legally binding documents that could prevent the selling of houses to Blacks.

The Controversial History of Levittown, America’s First Suburb

First of all, America was great in the two decades following WWII.

It is quite telling that you define the greatness as from 1945-1965.  What was happening in the mid 1960's that eroded the "greatness"?

By the way Trump has removed Martin Luther Kings birthday as a free day at national parks and replaced it with his own birthday. 

You have laid out your dream, but you did not answer the question:  "... what, specifically, do you think Trump is going to do to make things match your vision?".

Few people doubted the goodness of American society.

I find this particularly remarkable.   You think that Trump has caused people to think more highly about the 'goodness' of our society?   Just breathtaking that you do not see how Trump has been doing the opposite.

I'm assuming this refers to Leittown NY, as there is also another Levittown I grew up near, located between Philly and Trenton. It doesn't affect your point though.

You see, I judge economies by the middle, unlike Socialists & Marxists who focus on the bottom.

Yet again you illustrate a profound misunderstanding of socialism and Marxism.   Marx was all about workers.   Now if you have a bigoted view of workers and believe they are synonymous with the 'bottom' then that might explain your confusion.

I posted that because Vic is arguing the greatness of America from 1945 to 1965.  Leavittown NY was Americas first strictly suburban development. They kept blacks out. It is also true that blacks were denied some of the benefits of the GI bill.  These things happened during this so called period of greatness. 

People like Vic are highly selective about what they consider the good old days. 

Second of all, when it comes to cleaning up messes, nurses at the time wore white uniforms and were more than capable of cleaning bed pans and finished their shifts smelling like roses. 

That is an assertion, for which I would love you to confirm with fact from the period. (Granted that perfume was around in the era.)  To be clear, the focus of this article is on flight attendants, anyway!

What is wrong with personal hygiene and being at ones best?

Oh, did you post the image to make a point about HYGIENE and being at ones best? Well, then you have to establish that a diverse flight crew today is not sufficiently hygienic and subpar. Please proceed with that presentation. . . .

I once read a book on Mussolini. Some may not know it but after his government fell he tried to escape too Switzerland. Local Communist guerrilla groups captured his convoy in northern Italy. He, his mistress and a few of his loyalists were then executed. The bodies were left in a truck. The following day they were dumped in a square in Milan, where they were spat upon and kicked by an angry mob. Then the bodies were hung upside down by their feet. I will never forget one of the last lines of the book: two old women looked up at the strung-up body of Mussolini's mistress (Clara Petacci), and one said to the other: "Look at her, after all that, not even a run in her stocking!" For some reason I never forgot that line.

All I can write to that is: "Memories, like the corners of my mind. . . ."  We all have them, Vic!  And this:

What?!!

That is an assertion, for which I would love you to confirm with fact from the period. (Granted that perfume was around in the era.)  To be clear, the focus of this article is on flight attendants, anyway!

The article is about professionalism, or the lack thereof.  If nurses are skilled professionals, then their professional appearance must reflect it.

Oh, did you post the image to make a point about HYGIENE and being at ones best? Well, then you have to establish that a diverse flight crew today is not sufficiently hygienic and subpar. Please proceed with that presentation.

How did we get to diversity?

If this article is as you write about professionalism, then you have not established why that  early era of flight Americana is more professional than today's flight professionals.

BTW, passengers are born to and for the times they exist. That is, there is no actual way to revert a whole society back to another era of 'conduct' and actions. It would be snatching people out of 'time'—anachronistic. 

It would be similar to: Civil war re-enactments taking place varyingly around our country. . . but done as official aviation policies for flight corporation!

There is only one difference that matters between the two. Socialism only requires voter stupidity to vote it in. Communism requires killing people.

The only one speaking for workers is Donald Trump.

Socialism only requires voter stupidity to vote it in. Communism requires killing people.

Again, you illustrate that your 'understanding' of these terms is superficial and grossly inaccurate.

The only one speaking for workers is Donald Trump.

That is a fantasy.   Trump does not give one shit about workers and his actions demonstrate it.   If Trump cared about workers he would not have imposed his brain-dead-stupid tariffs.   He would have instead worked to lower prices (not sure what a PotUS can do about that, but ...).

He lies, and people like you believe his bullshit.

The only one speaking for workers is Donald Trump.

What kind of workers? The stuffed shirt that works on Wall Street or the construction worker in overalls sweating his ass off on a roof in the middle July?

I'm pretty sure it ain't the sweaty ass guy

or the construction worker in overalls sweating his ass off on a roof in the middle July? I'm pretty sure it ain't the sweaty ass guy

C;mon now, you know how much Trumpy means to me...

What kind of workers?

You know, the kind that got screwed when we let China underprice & undermine US manufacturers.

Do you actually think that the USA has the power to stop China from offering labor far cheaper than in the USA and thus produce certain products for far less than we can using human labor???

This is basic economics, Vic.   It is also a fundamental underpinning of capitalism.   Have you not noticed that capitalism will naturally seek and use the lowest labor costs?  When labor costs in the USA hit a level where it was cheaper to go offshore, what did capitalism do??   It used the cheaper goods, cheaper labor, and in some cases moved manufacturing to nations with lower operating costs.  In my field, we had a mass influx of Indian software professionals because they could do the same jobs as US professionals but were willing to work for far less.   This also included offshore software development. 

Capitalism is not altruistic; it is focused on the bottom and top lines.

This is how reality works.

Now, surely you would not be advocating for government to take control over businesses and force them to NOT go overseas or hire cheaper labor.

You really think trmp cares about those workers when he gets all his MAGA crap manufactured in China

Do you actually think that the USA has the power to stop China from offering labor far cheaper than in the USA and thus produce certain products for far less than we can using human labor???

Of course we do. We just did it with US Steel. 


This is basic economics, Vic.   It is also a fundamental underpinning of capitalism.   Have you not noticed that capitalism will naturally seek and use the lowest labor costs?

I know all that. China used the same tactics as John D Rockefeller.

You see, TiG, when Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations," he couldn't even imagine that one day there would be a Communist nation that would underprice goods at a temporary loss in order to gain control of markets. American free traders allowed American manufacturing to be completely hijacked by China. US companies who moved there got screwed as well.

The lesson is that Nixon never should have opened the door and Bill Clinton was out of his mind to think that Communist China would ever become more democratic as it became affluent.

History proves me right.

Socialism has never worked and destroyed the better impulses of human nature.

Communism has caused more death and misery than any other phenomenon.

We just did it with US Steel. 

Steel is the prime example of a critical, strategic resource that the USA has protected for decades.   It this goes beyond economics.   Accordingly, USA steel has been predominantly manufactured domestically for decades, at a rate between 70% and 90% of our needs.   There is nothing new here.   You are trying yet again to give Trump credit where none is due.

If we tried to treat everything as we do steel, then prices in the USA would be outrageous.   This is the economic part that you continue to miss.   There is no realistic way to defeat the drive of capitalism to lower labor costs.   Even if the USA government could force nations to remain domestic, they would not be using labor but rather technology.

There is no realistic way to keep manufacturing labor in the USA at a nostalgic 1950s level.   It is a pipe dream.

In short, as I noted, you are totally ignoring basic economics.

As always, you redefine the words socialism and communism.   

The former USSR was not socialism nor was it communism as defined by Marx.   That former USSR effectively redefined the terms to mean brutal authoritarian rule by a dictator as opposed to an economic system where the workers democratically controlled the means of production and distribution.

If you think the workers in the former USSR has anything even remotely close to democratic control over the economy then you are not paying attention.

To wit, the system of the former USSR was/is horrible.    But referring to that system with the hyped redefinition of socialism and communism illustrates ignorance of what those terms meant when popularized by Marx.

Thanks for the lesson in the no true scotsman fallacy.

All the real world examples of communists in charge sure is a downer. So much murder and poverty. Just pretend the people who did aren't "real communists"

The fact is that a country (or countries) with a billion "ready" workers will (of necessity) offer its services to the world at reduced cost 'every time' in an effort to Survive economically (and more). Only a fool would try to compete against such a need. . . .

The 'agreement' was a 'win-win' for the world. . . but now we all may potentially discover what happens when nations with a billion plus people begin to 'CHALLENGE' the world for its existence and upward mobility. That is, we will see if such companies will go quietly into relative poverty or 'lose face' on the world stage or openly fight for its survival.  Careful what "you" wish for as "you" may get unexpected and wild results-rather than an assured outcome.

Thanks for the lesson in the no true scotsman fallacy.

There are multiple meanings for the word communist and communism.

You choose to define these words as defined by Stalin, et. al. in the former USSR.

You then totally ignore and even deny the meaning of these words per Marx (who popularized the terms).

Communism per the former USSR, Red China, et. al. is brutal and authoritarian.   Instead of using terms that are tagged with profoundly different meanings (Communism per Marx is nothing like Communism per Stalin) if you want to be clear then use proper terms such as 'brutal authoritarian rule'.

In those days traveling by air was somewhat of a novelty,  mostly reserved for the well to do or people who absolutely had to  travel to get somewhere important. Now it is nothing for a group of girlfriends to get together and fly to another city to see a Taylor Swift or Jonas Bros concert. No one is going to "dress up" for that. 

It is the ubiquitousness of flying that has lowered the dress code, not the generations. 

I had an inlaw make the same argument during the Thanksgiving meal.

Air travel used to be a luggage nightmare.  Now people get  everything they need for 4 days into carry on and a back pack.

it's convenient and a nod to the fantastic economy. /s

it's a flying bus ffs. most of those that viewed commercial flying as some kind of reverent experience are dead. it's from the die in a clean pair of shorts mentality, back when traveling by air successfully wasn't such a sure thing. 

I've only had one memorable experience involving an airline. tossing luggage part time on weekends for a ski town commuter airline in the mid 70's, I get sent upstairs to collect an oversize bag to put in the tail of the turboprop waiting on the tarmac. the bag belonged to barbara eden. I was 20 or 21 and face to face with I dream of jeannie. 

Wow! She was such a beautiful woman

I was 20 or 21 and face to face with I dream of jeannie. 

Ooooooooo. I would have loved to have met her. She was one of my favorite actresses in a sit-com. Right up there with Elizabeth Montgomery (Bewitched). 

As black Americans, we were privileged to be able to have actresses and actors who rose above the hatreds, divisions, and segregation of the times they lived. Back then, 'many' minorities could not understand how what we grouped together as "White people" could be so nice at times and down-right 'viciously' and seriously 'mean' at another time. 

As it turns out (I have discovered over the course of my life), there are a great many white people GROUPS that support reasonable reality in this world where everybody can relatively get along. On the converse, there are "Whites" whom have nothing greater than LARCENY in their hearts and spirit towards people they perpetually choose to disagree with and make life miserable.

It literally took a 'lifetime' to understand the distinction. BTW, I see it all the time now on NT.

Take it from me, there are some really decent, nice, and reasonable (White majority) people here on NT. And then there are those individuals or groups which show up here to comment about dividing, mocking, demonizing minorities—religious and biological—to the ng degree. 

I can not say that I understand (better) what is happening with our white American groups. Y'all are no more a 'monolith' of ethnic and racial think then minorities!

Some of you may be asking why I wrote. . . this. . . .  Well, it has been 'rattling' around in my head for quite some time as to when it would be appropriate to talk about what I see (and feel). Let's just say this 'occasion' of talking about the past brought it to 'top' of mind.

I'm pretty sure by then barbara eden knew what most males were thinking when they interacted with her.

It is the ubiquitousness of flying that has lowered the dress code, not the generations. 

TBF it's probably some of both.

I think there are enough factors involved , this could become an interesting discussion , but i am at least thankful that air travel has not gravitated to the level of dress that we witness " the people of Walmart " category.... yet . knock wood . 

I'm on a No Fly List, because I have a Fly Swatter...

It will never happen due to the greed of corporations vs the demand from the purchaser for the lowest price. Afraid those days are long past and won't come back.

To our young people: Dress up for air travel, treat others with respect and pull the ugly rings out of your noses.

Why the concern for people dressing up to fly?   What purpose does this serve?

I support treating others with respect, but an attempt to impose a dress / adornment code for travel serves no purpose.

It reminds some people of their beloved 1950's. 

People are going to the airport in PJs.

Why does that bother you?   What difference does that make?

Of all the ways societal etiquette has changed for the worse, how people dress on planes ranks at the bottom.

It's disgusting. Advanced society has standards.

How ridiculous.   

We have a rogue PotUS damaging the USA every week, and you are bent out of shape because people do not dress properly in your eyes for flights.

Good grief man.

We did have standards. But now it's ok to hurl racial epithets at people. People use to reserve those words for private conversation amongst family and friends

But now it's ok to hurl racial epithets at people.

How in the world could you bring race into it?

Because I see it all the time. Don't try denying that you don't see it

Because I see it all the time.

Of course...most leftists do. .........everywhere

Because I see it all the time.

I don't believe you.

Smollett had to make up an incident due to a lack of racism.

So what?! She is using her eyes and her thinking faculties. . . not anybody else.

Smollett was a fool who used his 'craft' and ambition recklessly by lying, cheating, and worse—getting caught. (Clearly he was not a 'pro' at setting up and managing the type of crime he committed.)  Anyway, he is an exception—not the rule. Or anything conservatives should 'abuse' as a rule.

(But MAGA will do it anyway. Why? Because it is all they got - is the few fools that make it hard for everybody else to have a proper 'voice.')

It's disgusting. Advanced society has standards.

Um, your morals apply to you, no everyone else. Typical conservative, "if I don't like it, everyone needs to change"... 

This reminds one of articles based on pictures of 1953 lunch counters....

When I think of racism, I think of Obama dividing the country, 70-30, with the majority being the oppressors and 30% being the oppressed.

Don't play with racism, that you highly probably have no personal experience or group history of experiencing. I won't bother trying overlong to convince you of leaving your talking point (Obama) out of this, but Obama is not a racist by any measure of that term. And with that I am DONE talking about Obama's alleged racism with MAGA!

When I think of racism, I think that Obama broke the glass ceiling for many people of color in this country but he didn't do much for the average person.

Your opinion is noted.

Just as the unwritten parts of your articles about the good old days of Kresge's and Woolworth's lunch counters and the hey day of air travel, hot stewardesses, etc., was also noted.

Change sucks, but it is pretty constant.

When I think of racism, I think of Obama dividing the country, 70-30, with the majority being the oppressors and 30% being the oppressed.

So Obama divided the country because racist conservatives hated him based on the color of his skin.....so who divided the country again?

There is a saying: ". . . only have two hands." And so it was that the scope of the first black American president was self-limiting, because there was a 'stumbling block' laid before him at every point along his presidency by the usual suspects when it comes to people of color advancing beyond the designated 'margins' given them by the same. 

Of course, 'they' - Obama's loyal opposition will cast their opposition as due to his liberal politicking and policies, but the INFORMED know that was a smoke screen and that he would be fought against simply because he was 'other.'  Evidence: The GOP leaders in the House met the night of Obama's inauguration and made a pac to not assist him in being presidential or looking presidential in any way that did not lend itself to their wishes for a CONSERVATIVE nation where he would stay put in his 'lane.'

Why the concern for people dressing up to fly?   What purpose does this serve?

We could say that about dressing up for any activity.  

I see the purpose of dressing up for a wedding, funeral, prom, graduation, formal dinner, interview, etc.   

Do you?

We could say that about dressing up for any activity.

Example A: Skinny Dipping ?

Skinny Dipping ?

Does one dress up for that?

Does one dress up for that?

only at nudist colonies

I see the purpose of dressing up for a wedding, funeral, prom, graduation, formal dinner, interview, etc.    Do you?

The purpose of dressing up for any of those is simply social custom, the same way it was once the custom to dress nicely on airplanes.

Social customs change (as they should). And a word about the GOP and their talk (all the time) about freedom. . . the GOP wants all Americans to have the freedom to DO WHAT THE GOP TELLS THEM TO DO!  Such frauds!

Social customs change (as they should).

Yes.  But not all those changes are for the better.  You wouldn't go to a funeral in flip flops, I hope.

And a word about the GOP and their talk (all the time) about freedom. . . the GOP wants all Americans to have the freedom to DO WHAT THE GOP TELLS THEM TO DO!  Such frauds!

I guess the big difference is that they talk about freedom, whereas Democrats just talk about compliance.  Or "re-education" if you fail to comply.

And what if I do wear a version of flip flops to a funeral whom would be distracted by it? What if I go to a funeral in black and white clothing? Isn't a funeral a 'transition' and a 'celebration of life'? BTW, I know people who have done this in my community. I even had a relative that wore (tore) fish net-styled stocking to a funeral and we all survived it. I have even taken to not wearing a suitcoat to a funeral: a simple black shirt, pants, and tie. 

Traditions are okay, but they are not holy or sacred, and yes sooner or later they can be replaced!

Personally, I would think telling people to dress like its the early days of flight- and not comfortably (without the bad attitudes of course) is GOP doing 're-education,' eh?

And yes, we have this article as evidence that 'mad men' want their women to dress like its the gilded age again. RE-EDUCATION ladies. Oh and ladies lose the separate bank accounts while you're letting 'hubby' dress you 'up' in polka dots for the upcoming dinner party!

A woman would have to be a fool to let her husband put her back in a box where he may take charge of her being in the 21st century. Remember girls and women:

Y'all asked and fought to get out from under the full control of extreme alpha males and society altered itself to assist you and doing just that. . . do not let them put you back in that mode for a new 'century'. . . or eternity.

As devangelical wisely pointed out, flying is rudimentary in the 21st century, and people just go! 

I might agree, some are too comfortable (and other things), but cosplay is not the answer to a return to be 'gentle' and reasonable in this exchange.

Yes.   So you do indeed see the purpose of dressing up.

Given we no longer have a social custom to dress up to fly on a jet, why does anyone care how people dress as long as they follow legal rules of decency?

And what if I do wear a version of flip flops to a funeral whom would be distracted by it?

Possibly the widow or widower? The children?  The rest of the family? 

What if I go to a funeral in black and white clothing? Isn't a funeral a 'transition' and a 'celebration of life'?

The point of wearing nice but subdued, semi-formal attire to a funeral is to respect the grieving family while demonstrating that the deceased is someone worthy of dressing up for.  But if you want to make it all about you, then by all means, stand out.

Traditions are okay, but they are not holy or sacred, and yes sooner or later they can be replaced!

Obviously.  They are replaced all the time.  Tempora mutantur.   Sometimes that's great.  Sometimes, not so much.

I might agree, some are too comfortable

Exactly.  That's the potential downside.  Formal clothing also represents decorum... an adherence to accepted behavioral norms.  When someone is wearing a suit, you generally don't have to tell them not to take their shoes off and file the dead skin off their feet while on the plane.  

As I'm sure you're aware, laws, rules or other social standards don't exist to enforce uniform compliance to some outrageous standard.  They exist for the small minority of morons who can't self regulate.

The problem is not that people don't wear suits and ties on planes anymore. The problem is that once standards dropped, there are always the bottom dwelling group who abandon all standards completely.  You know... the asshole who thinks that because the company policy no longer requires him to wear a tie on Fridays he can now wear sweatpants and a tank top.  

As you point out, moderation is key.

Yes.   So you do indeed see the purpose of dressing up.

Obviously.

Given we no longer have a social custom to dress up to fly on a jet, why does anyone care how people dress as long as they follow legal rules of decency?

Because there is a vast chasm between "legal rules of decency" and "acceptable considerate behavior for the other passengers stuck with you in this flying tube for the next 2-10 hours".  

How does it affect you personally if a fellow passenger is wearing comfortable loose clothing rather than a business suit?

How does it affect you personally if a fellow passenger is wearing comfortable loose clothing rather than a business suit?

It's not the comfortable loose clothing. 

When a 300 pound lady who is wider than her seat and wearing a tank top starts having a hot flash and gets her sweat on the person next to her, it's inconsiderate at the very least.

When the guy in the center seat takes his shoes off and then puts his ankle on his knee, it's rude.

When people are dressed up, they behave better.  That's been documented repeatedly.  

When a 300 pound lady who is wider than her seat and wearing a tank top starts having a hot flash and gets her sweat on the person next to her, it's inconsiderate at the very least.

That is not the subject we were talking about.   The issued complaint was about people wearing pajamas on a plane.   I already weighed in on the 300 lb example.   I too find that obnoxious and rude and should not be allowed.   Buy two seats.

When people are dressed up, they behave better.  That's been documented repeatedly.  

I can believe that people who voluntarily dress up would naturally behave better (in general).   I do not buy the notion that following a forced dress code makes one behave better.

Your 300 lb lady would likely be just as rude if dressed in business casual.   Your shoe guy would remove his dress shoes.

Possibly the widow or widower? The children?  The rest of the family? 

And what if they are not distracted by it. What if it does not matter as long as 'one' is present (showed up: which many won't do)?

People dress 'down' these days to go to church. Heck, in some mega-churches men wear caps and hats the whole service. Don't even start with conventions in large venues!

Now then, let me agree with you that looking clean and smelling so is the larger issue. What people have and continue to realize is clothes does not make the heart. That is, as Jesus would put it. . . it is what is in the man, woman, boy, and girl that makes their value to themselves and their community. 

For example, a plane full of evil conspirators, or criminals dressed for 'every' occasion accordingly would still be a polluted gathering.

No, what MAGA is after with this 'image' is a return to a time when the United States attempted to appear to be 'grand' and 'pure' and then reality kicked in as the rank and file citizens stuck in poverty went about the country smelly and in rags. 

BTW, furs. Will furs be making a return to plane travel. Must get back to displays of Status. It has been 'gone' too long, eh?

When someone is wearing a suit, you generally don't have to tell them not to take their shoes off and file the dead skin off their feet while on the plane.  

Not many will plan to wear a suit on a non-luxury flight! Coach seating is cheap after all. You may be confusing ordinary people with those wealthy individuals taking private jets and supersonic jets when they make a come-back. 

Now, will this DOT director be making remarks on dressing well for cross-country passenger trains too?

A 300 plus man or woman in dressy attire on a long flight is very uncomfortable and lightly even hotter. Thank goodness for climate control airliners, eh? 

Let me say this: your 'example' seems to be a personal gripe against obese people that goes to the larger concern: The DOT director is messaging for his boss Trump that a specific decorum should be re-instituted for plane travel. More importantly, since Donald does not like to be ignored. . . when people do not do take the 'hint' and 'advice' . . .the DOT director on behalf of Trump will ORDER airlines to make an enforceable dress code. . . likely using TSA agents at the gates to 'judge.' 

Finally, dressing up and flying around this nation and the world has not made our so-called leaders better people. That is, the liars still lie, the cheaters still cheat, the adulterers still 'stick' and get laid by some one other than, the mockers yet mock, and so forth and so on. . .  will no regard for all their wealth, titles, and finery.

Wearing top dollar fashions and smelling like 'money' does not a man or woman make. 

That said, yes people should put on suitable shirts and pants when traveling outside their. . . residence. . .for fear that they be 'found' laying on a street somewhere in the world and those 'holey' underwear, dirty panties, and/or unsewn socks can be a great embarrassment when one wakes up in the hospital ward or. . . morgue.

Case in point! This is why we can know this DOT director is not truly after correction, but APPEARANCES. His comment mentions nothing about being decent towards others:

Last week the US Department of Transportation rolled out a civility campaign called "The Golden Age of Travel starts with you." It is a drive to restore old school travel etiquette. To our young people: Dress up for air travel, treat others with respect and pull the ugly rings out of your noses.

Civility is a secondary consideration in context of the messaging being conveyed. This DOT director is attempting to define an IMAGE (which for him is not 'ugly' nose rings). And, modern flying is about take-off, 'taxi-ing,' and arrival. . . not IMAGE-MAKING.

People have likened modern 'flurry' of planes in the sky as 'flying Trailways.'  Also, the modern price of tickets has come way down for a reason so more of this nation's (and the world's) people can fly. . . .

The problem is not that people don't wear suits and ties on planes anymore. The problem is that once standards dropped, there are always the bottom dwelling group who abandon all standards completely.  You know... the asshole who thinks that because the company policy no longer requires him to wear a tie on Fridays he can now wear sweatpants and a tank top.   As you point out, moderation is key.

That 'only' requires a working commonsense. Which is something nobody sells. It simply is where you find it. And when you 'do' —you know it. For instance, I taught a class for years.  And, I can remember a few times when a student would come to class so FUNKY ('rank smelling'-musty) that those seated on the long table nearby him or her would come tell me about that 'one.' And, I would have to take the individual aside and counsel him or her about 'BO' in a group setting.

We live in community and that means we should 'clean up' and be presentable. Wash the matter out of our eyes. Wet down and add 'fragrance' to our nether-regions as needed. Soap and water. Clean. 

But an attempt to shame or constrict people to dress formally as it was thought to be during the "golden age of flight' is not an essential quality for today—not for every flyer anyway. 

I do not buy the notion that following a forced dress code makes one behave better.

Look at our Dear Leader. He wears a suit daily but it doesn't make him behave better. And what about the corporate greedy CEOs? They wear suits but don;t give a damn about people "beneath" them

Look at our Dear Leader.

That empirical figure is the guy that gets the pass for getting dressed up to go skinny dipping at a phat pharm on pharmaceutical meds that fail to mention the naked truth, that this orange clown wood go down faster than an aging Asian on fried rice in China town, cause on the occasion some old causation fueled Caucasian  stumbled down the elevated stares at the rotating stationary on the stationary desk moving around the square room to obtain a better angle to see how his new clothes look when knot tied on to his baggy saggy body of knaggy straggly heir, apparently neglected buy both brushed off reasons to commit treasons while appeasing his unstable base stolen by a thrown out catcher receiving Bubba's hard pitches, leaving US thrown inn the ditches, all while Trump scratches Bubbas' itches while leaving this torn up country in stitches, asz oui' bee the laughing stung stock of all the whirled, irregardless of how the naked emperor a tempts to spin the dizzying daily disruption of constant disturbing destruction via incessant Trump brought about

corruption     

A perfect example.

And what if they are not distracted by it. What if it does not matter as long as 'one' is present (showed up: which many won't do)?

Look, tradition says you dress up, wear somber clothing, and behave accordingly.  You do you.  Wear a purple boa and dance on the grave for all I care.

What people have and continue to realize is clothes does not make the heart.

Understand that what you wear makes an impression because it's the first of your decisions people see. Dressing inappropriately for a setting announces to the world that you either don't know how to behave or don't care.  If that's the impression you want to leave, go for it.  

BTW, furs. Will furs be making a return to plane travel.

From Helsinki to Trondheim, maybe.  Even then, probably only in January. It's just not cold enough.

Look, tradition says you dress up, wear somber clothing, and behave accordingly.  You do you.  Wear a purple boa and dance on the grave for all I care.

It has been arranged by many, as they've all contributed to have multiple port a potty's placed on my eventual resting place, the demand has been overwhelming for those who wish to piss upon my grave, and this makes me happy.

Look, tradition says you dress up, wear somber clothing, and behave accordingly.  You do you.  Wear a purple boa and dance on the grave for all I care.

That is my point. Freedom (and consistency of GOP  viewpoint) permits us to do what we wish as long as it does not cause harm. Which begs the question why the DOT director is telling people to 'return' and modulate their behavior to some by-gone era of flight dress.

And, many people do not mind what choice of clothing (even 'street'), but commonsense would 'demand' that a guest be physically clean and with a decent attitude!

As for furs on a plane. . .climate controlled airplanes 'happened.' 

Finally, addressing the 'purple' situation in our country by some citizens: I don't get it. . . probably even judge that I do not even like it I do not complain, tirade, or work to get people to stop putting that rinse in their hair. Why? Because if we aspire to be a FREE nation to the upmost and safest attestation we have to let people live and enjoy, endure, and yes prosper.

More myopic nostalgia from conservatives. Often tinged with white supremacy, misogyny, or classism. I know people hate when you suggest that, but the myopia of nostalgia is often like that.

So, for example, we see these lovely photos of the “Golden Age.” No people of color in them, I notice. Not traveling, and not working as flight crew, either. And of course, the only “servants” are female.

No working class people traveling because they have to for work, or dragging their families on vacation. And this demand that people wear suits is interesting. Not everyone has a reason to justify the expense of purchasing and keeping a suit.

This concern for people wearing pajamas just shows that our good Secretary is out of touch with popular fashion. Pajamas - particularly pajama pants - became mainstream fashion several years ago. They are usually cheap, colorful, and comfortable (perfect for long trips), but rarely revealing. There’s nothing objectionable about them beyond the fact that some people haven’t kept up with fashion trends.

So, beyond the clothing, there is not a thing wrong with suggesting that people be nicer. I support that 1000%. Perhaps we could start with the people in our government setting a better example of how to be polite and respectful. This goes from the president down to the newest TSA recruits.

We might also consider the circumstances of traveling that can shape the mood of travelers.

Back in the so-called Golden Age of flying, the whole experience was different. We didn’t have to show up to the airport two-plus hours before our flight, and then spend at least an hour in a security line, getting scanned or frisked six ways from Sunday.

You wanna know why people are wearing pajamas? It might be because security will demand they remove any belt they might be wearing that is holding up their suit pants. It might also have something to do with airplane seats getting less comfortable and more cramped with each passing year.

Along the way, you have constantly changing rules about what kind of bags you can bring with you and what can be in them. Not to mention the fees for these things, and the looming threat of federal prosecution if you violate any of the rules, or even say the wrong thing anywhere in the airport or on the plane. And oh yeah, you can’t accompany your friends or family to the gate unless you have a ticket for the plane. You want people to be happy? Try letting a wife walk her traveling husband to the gate, or parents walk a few more steps with their teenager flying alone for the first time.

So if you’re wondering why people are in such a shitty mood when they fly, you might consider that it’s not a decline in public morals so much as it is a system that basically makes travel way more stressful than it was in that “Golden Age.”

Probably could have stopped at myopic, but I digress.  Thank you for the well thought out response...

So, beyond the clothing, there is not a thing wrong with suggesting that people be nicer.

Have you been on a plane in the last 20 years?

We have people using wheelchairs to cut the line with up to 5 members of their family assisting them. When a connection destination is reached, they all jump up as if miraculously healed.

We have people on airline standby having meltdowns when they can't make flights.

I knew someone who sat next to a 300lb woman in a sweat suit covered in blankets and perspiring, who called her daughter to say that although she feared that she had covid again, she thought she could make the flight ok.

So as rational people already know, the complaint is valid. We as a society have REGRESSED.

I don’t understand. You quote me saying that I 1000% support asking people to be nicer, but then you write as if I have a problem with it.

We have people on airline standby having meltdowns when they can't make flights.

This is a legitimate complaint. People spend a lot of money on flying - not just to buy tickets, but every part of their itinerary connected to that flight. You get bumped and you miss a connecting flight, a hotel reservation, or an important appointment. Getting fucked by the airline is the perfect time for a meltdown.

We have people using wheelchairs to cut the line with up to 5 members of their family assisting them. When a connection destination is reached, they all jump up as if miraculously healed.We have people on airline standby having meltdowns when they can't make flights.I knew someone who sat next to a 300lb woman in a sweat suit covered in blankets and perspiring, who called her daughter to say that although she feared that she had covid again, she thought she could make the flight ok.So as rational people already know, the complaint is valid. We as a society have REGRESSED.

These are very different from your complaint about dress.  

• Yes, cutting in line with fraudulent use of wheelchairs is rude.   I support mitigating this scam.  
• People not making connecting flights is very stressful ... especially if the passenger had done everything right.   People get stressed out.   The airlines are mostly at fault here.
• A 300lb woman with potential COVID and still trying to fly is an oblivious narcissist.   The woman is at fault.   She is, also, a rare exception.

But your complaint that people do not dress to your standards for flights is still ridiculous.

This concern for people wearing pajamas just shows that our good Secretary is out of touch with popular fashion. Pajamas - particularly pajama pants - became mainstream fashion several years ago. They are usually cheap, colorful, and comfortable (perfect for long trips), but rarely revealing. There’s nothing objectionable about them beyond the fact that some people haven’t kept up with fashion trends.

It's a control issue. They want 'carbon copy' people (of themselves). Yeah, anybody still using "Brylcreem" - hair styling cream? Do conservatives not realize how STRUCTURED AND PLANNED their existences are, and done so by their own 'hand'?

No thanks I'm comfortable in my hawaiian shirt, shorts and sandals.  Sounds like someone is looking at the past through rose coloured glasses

Maybe more people need to look at Sean Duffy and his raunchy video from "Real World: Boston" about 1997 where he dances in his underwear on a window ledge, then strips only to cover his frontal privates and show his backside to the world. There's a bit more in the video which is sexual in nature.

Why on earth would ANYONE take this guy seriously about anything?

He milked fake reality TV to grift his way into a public career.

His new shtick is milking nostalgia for right wing nuts who think turning back the clock to the 1950's will solve everything.

People should be ashamed to take anything he says seriously because he has ZERO qualifications and experience to hold the position he is currently exploiting.

Your point?

Decency?  I'm old enough to remember what that was. 

Decency?

Today it is spelt Deficiency 

Are you sure that isn't spelt degeneracy?

sure that isn't spelt degeneracy?

haven't seen any deficiency in degeneracy recently

There was a time, in the splendid decades following the Second World War when we knew how to act, speak and dress. 

Now, somebody is just 'dating' themselves (above). The truth is that world does not exist anymore, because of the 'Grind' of life today. Besides, it was unreal anyway: An advertising 'ploy.' Madmen.

I like to wear comfortable clothes.  I have never liked dressing up.   

And as it turns out being 'formal' all the time was a ploy that could not be kept up anyway. Why? Because over a life-time it became unreal to try to live a 'perfect' dream-state existence. The 'challenges' of a lifetime were changing the dynamics in our society and the 'fractures' and fracturing did not lend themselves to pretense.

BTW, on this 'romance' nostalgia the DOT director is having about air travel being for the 'affluent' looking. . . is smoking on buses, airplanes, and in movies going to get a 'comeback'?

LOL!

I wish

Oh.

“People dress up like they’re going to bed when they fly.”

So instead let's get women to wear pill box hats, stockings, and pumps? I get it. Do 'cosplay' to make Trump feel like its the early days of flight again?  Apparently men were men and women were women 'before' 

Pumps? PUMPS??!?!?

No freaking way. My toes would be screaming at the end of the day

HA!

Here's what's bothering me. Sean Duffy trying to roll back the "Passenger's Bill of Rights", including removing other rules related to transparent pricing, family seating, and improved customer service for passengers with wheelchairs. I guess the airlines have Duffy in their pockets.

In May, Airlines for America, or A4A, filed a 93-page request  seeking to roll back a slew of consumer protections . A4A is the lobbying organization for U.S. airlines and represents Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and cargo carriers Atlas Air, FedEx and UPS. thepointsguy

I'd rather not have to worry about being cheated on my ticket price or wonder if my dad can get onto a plane. BTW, I love that photo, but notice how the people are being served. These days your happy with a bag of potato chips. It's funny how the focus was put on the passengers and not the airlines.

It's funny how the focus was put on the passengers and not the airlines

who would have thought, under Trump, big corporations would put their profits over the pleasantries meant for the people...?

You bring up a very big point! This is the affluent traveler taking advantage of "the way things were" in order to get ordinary people to 'capitulate' to their sense of decorum and style. 

That is, the "Duffies" in our country will come with their 'wish-list' to this president who is amendable to many of their old-fashioned 'appeals' to when we were so-called great-because they treated themselves great (and disregarded the misery endured by those they "otherize" or calling it what it was treated worse than they would a dog).

Saying the quiet part aloud: That 'era' of flight was during the time when Hollywood's leading men and all tv news anchors were white and male - as the thinking goes only such a person should hold a viewing audience for a stretch of time (to get through those ad-agency commercials). 

This administration wants us to 'remember' and go back to when white male dominance was pervasive in this . BTW, it is a clear insult to women because they were hired on as flight attendants (not pilots) then, or put another way women were 'covered' by their men.

Frankly, the article image shows two women being catered too. . .and I am okay with that aspect! Keeping it real: that image in reality had its good 'side' and definitely was part of a structured and 'made' reality for girls and women. The men 'ruled' the country and the women. . . well, they did not get to say a 'whole' lot about it.

I last flew in '72. Military standby. Had to wear my dress blues. The stewardess liked to seat military guys by the escape window. It was nice flying back then. Flights were cheap, for military anyway, no such thing as TSA. Just arrive and go onboard. I hear it's not so much fun now. Taking your shoes off and stuff.

I last flew in '72. Military standby. Had to wear my dress blues.

I flew a lot in Europe on standby in the '90s.  The dress uniform requirement went to the wayside.  The flight crews were always accommodating. 

And, you're right, the flights were cheap.  I think the most I paid was $25 to fly from Frankfurt Air Base to Pittsburgh.

There was a time, in the splendid decades following the Second World War when we knew how to act, speak and dress.

The last flight I was on was from Incheon International Airport to Fayetteville, NC. 

Between Korea and the Detroit, the flight was filled mostly with Koreans and US Service members.  There was nobody with their asses hanging out.  Nobody demanding everything, no arguing with the flight crew.  Everybody was courteous to each other and it was a pleasant flight.

My connecting flight from Detroit to Fayetteville was horrendous.  People boarded with their asses hanging out, wearing pajama's.  A lot were loud and obnoxious.  They were entitled something and were arguing with the flight crew over petty shit and demanding everything.