Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd rather be with crying children. Speaking of children, there is no way I would let my children sit next to a man in his or some woman's underwear. I would get off the plane. I certainly won't be flying U.S. Air again.
I think the airlines should mandate that everyone wears extremely skimpy and skintight outfits on the airplane. That way there is no way that terrorists can hide bombs or weapons. And then then they can get rid of those body scans and pat downs. Woohoo!
Plus that guy was flying first class, so unless you are flying first class all the time you probably won't even see him. I think a 3k ticket should buy some extra privileges.
The guy with the low pants who got arrested was actually assaulting staff.
I'd rather be with crying children. Speaking of children, there is no way I would let my children sit next to a man in his or some woman's underwear. I would get off the plane. I certainly won't be flying U.S. Air again.
Maybe dressing like that is that guy's way to avoid having to sit next to crying and screaming kids. Pretty smart, should try that next time.
*listening to annoying brats scream right now for the last hour*
Parents need to put a muzzle on it.
Maybe dressing like that is that guy's way to avoid having to sit next to crying and screaming kids. Pretty smart, should try that next time.
*listening to annoying brats scream right now for the last hour*
Parents need to put a muzzle on it.
Well, when this story makes the rounds of news, my guess is U.S. Airways will change their stance pretty quickly. Money talks and there are definitely more families with children flying (or not on U.S. Airways who allows this dress) than men in women's underwear. Boycott probably. So, U.S. Airways will need to "put a muzzle" on this type of inappropriate dress.
Well, when this story makes the rounds of news, my guess is U.S. Airways will change their stance pretty quickly. Money talks and there are definitely more families with children flying (or not on U.S. Airways who allows this dress) than men in women's underwear. Boycott probably. So, U.S. Airways will need to "put a muzzle" on this type of inappropriate dress.
Well, a lot of things are relatively "inappropriate" and offensive to the senses. Like being unemployed, ugly, overweight, smelly, or encouraging your kids to scream at the expense of other people. That is why we have developed a degree of tolerance for our fellow human beings.
Well, a lot of things are relatively "inappropriate" and offensive to the senses. Like being unemployed, ugly, overweight, smelly, or encouraging your kids to scream at the expense of other people. That is why we have developed a degree of tolerance for our fellow human beings.
You equate being "unemployed" with a man choosing to wear women's skimpy underwear on an airplane?
You equate being "unemployed" with a man choosing to wear women's skimpy underwear on an airplane?
No, they are not equal - Being unemployed is much much worse... I'd much rather wear skimpy underwear on a plane than be unemployed. I'm sure that society would rather have less unemployed people than less people in skimpy clothes.
No, they are not equal - Being unemployed is much much worse... I'd much rather wear skimpy underwear on a plane than be unemployed. I'm sure that society would rather have less unemployed people than less people in skimpy clothes.
One does not necessitate the other. In fact they have nothing to do with one another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.