Just when you thought you had seen it all in the Qantas lounge...

[Guvner]

You have your standards, others have theirs.

 

[Mr H]

You have your standards, others have theirs.

Indeed - so not sure why someone else's standards should trump mine.

 

[offshore171]

Sad that such a sign is necessary

 

[Mr H]

Sad that such a sign is necessary

The tyranny of the prissy.

 

[Quickstatus]

Airline Lounges are just a version of the exclusive country club with manufactured standards with a good dose of elitism.

Airplane travel is already a commodity but there is a small group who want to maintain exclusivity.

 

[RooFlyer]

In many (most?) parts of the world you take shoes off when you go indoors and you are expected to put feet on furniture.

Do people expect you to put your feet on furniture? Of the 90-odd countries I've visited, including maybe 20 into people's homes, from Asia to America, I can honestly not think of one case of that, except perhaps on a 'footstool' but I don't think that would be necessarily 'expected'. Oh, and getting into a bed I guess.

I can say that in 'many' countries/cultures, showing the soles of your feet is variably impolite to downright offensive.

I dunno; maybe that's why airport lounges have the rule or request?

In any event, I know that if I'm a guest in someone's house, an airline's lounge or other shared or provided space, if I'm asked to abide by certain rules I'll comply, else find somewhere else. Its just good manners.

Indeed - so not sure why someone else's standards should trump mine.

When they provide the space/hospitality to you? Fair enough then? Or do you believe in doing what you like, when you like, wherever you like?

 

[Pushka]

Ah, the feet one again. I really don't get why people are so troubled by feet. In many (most?) parts of the world you take shoes off when you go indoors and you are expected to put feet on furniture. Even in the plane, people in premium cabins will (perhaps) take their shoes off and sit with them on the seats. In hotels, people put their feet on furniture. In gyms, spas, swimming pools, lounge showers - people take their shoes off. The anti-feet brigade have, I suspect, remembered a childhood rule and applied it without thinking whether it is actually sensible.

Likely because sometimes people don't take their shoes off and put them on furniture where others are supposed to sit in their nice clothes. Tell me you've never taken your shoes off and they haven't smelt?

 

[RooFlyer]

How about cleaning up after one-self?

Southwest Passenger Crackdown: Flight Won't Leave Until People Clean Up After Themselves - View from the Wing

A Southwest Airlines passenger spilled food on the floor of the aircraft prior to departure. And a flight attendant wasn't having it. She demanded that the culprit fess up and clean up - otherwise nobody would be going anywhere.

viewfromthewing.com

Good on the FA!

 

[Guvner]

Indeed - so not sure why someone else's standards should trump mine.

and v.v

 

[Mr H]

and v.v

It's not really vv though. One of them involves me doing what I want and others doing what they want. The other one involves someone else telling me I can only do what they will let me.

 

[Guvner]

The tyranny of the prissy.

I guess a sign requesting guests don't urinate on the table would be prissy as well.

 

[RichardMEL]

Indeed - so not sure why someone else's standards should trump mine.

You possibly don't mean it this way, but this comes across as overly selfish and possibly a bit entitled - in the context of a public space like a lounge (or by extension aircraft, terminal etc).

So I want to ask you where should the line be drawn between what someone wants to do, and what should be, for want of a better wording, a "minimum standard"?

I'm sure you don't mean extremes like wandering around a lounge naked or peeing where you sit or something, but if we exclude these kinds of extreme examples of "do what I want" then where is the line?

and if "someone else's standards" happen to be the company that runs or owns the lounge etc than I guess you have a choice to not use that space if those don't meet your requirements.

I read the article about the person sleeping in the United Club and what the other pax did. At first I was thinking that the other pax did something physically to the person or abused them or something - but putting the sign by them and taking a picture was kinda fun way to do it. I also thought maybe they were sleeping with bare feet on the couch (no thank you) but they had socks on, though uncertain how clean they were. I probably would have ignored it and probably thought it was selfish to take the space up by sleeping like that (depending on how busy the lounge was) but that's just me. I only bring this up because it ties to your comment about someone else's standards - in this case another user of the lounge really shouldn't put THEIR standards on the pax (even though the signage supported them!) but if a staff member pointed it out I would think that was perfectly acceptable.

See the ultimate place we can 'do what we like" is in our own homes, or I suppose an isolated beach or middle of nowhere. For most of us though, we interact in society and in public places. So at home, one's own standards rule. We live with other people and this is then a case of society norms - and this thread has already covered that issue some pages back so I won't rehash.

Most people understand implicitly what's acceptable and what isn't.. and for those that aren't "keep your feet of the furniture" type reminders are seemingly required. While, in a public place like a public bench in the park or something, you want to put your feet up and do that kind of thing have at it, but in a place like a lounge, the operator is entitled to decide the acceptable standards for use. And in that situation - yeah, someone else's standards do actually override yours - but you have a choice to either not abide by them (and risk potential reprocussions - which would be nothing for something small like feet on a chair of course) or not use the facility - so there is a difference of sorts imo.

so where do you draw the "line" ?

 

[Quickstatus]

so where do you draw the "line" ?

At anything illegal and which requires the minimum of enforcement. If it is allowed on the aircraft it's allowed in the lounge

 

[p--and--t]

I guess I am infringing on other peoples rights and standards and being a bit prissy but I do object to filthy dirty bare bethonged tinea covered feet being placed on the table alongside my plate of food and drink that I came into the lounge to enjoy.

 

[MARTINE]

I guess I am infringing on other peoples rights and standards and being a bit prissy but I do object to filthy dirty bare bethonged tinea covered feet being placed on the table alongside my plate of food and drink that I came into the lounge to enjoy.

I’m with you @p—and—t!

 

[RichardMEL]

I guess I am infringing on other peoples rights and standards and being a bit prissy but I do object to filthy dirty bare bethonged tinea covered feet being placed on the table alongside my plate of food and drink that I came into the lounge to enjoy.

Personally I agree with this.

but trying to be a bit more objective about this I think this is the kind of example, along with feet on furniture and things that can have different levels of what is acceptable. For example, if someone's foot was on a seat, maybe tucked under themselves with clean socks is that OK vs dirty gross bare feet? I think most would probably NOT have a big problem with clean socks. Doesn't really disturb the amenity, and (taking the smell issue aside) is akin to someone sitting on the same chair in a pair of pants they've worn all day. Indeed some clean socks are probably better to sit on than shoes that could have residue of anything on them - and nobody wants to think about THAT when they go to sit down on a seat - if it's in a lounge or anywhere else.

clearly dirty feet or hands (or anything else!) near food is a hygiene issue and I'd struggle with anyone thinking this is OK (but I don't want to go back to the whole discussion about hand eating etiquette from some cultures ).

I suppose what I'm really getting at - rather than specific commentary about any particular poster's personal views on this topic - is just that people have different standards.. and of course that's why we have a general notion o "minimum acceptable" - and of course there will always be, by extension, a minority who still feel that that level is still not their liking. I guess that's human nature.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

At anything illegal and which requires the minimum of enforcement. If it is allowed on the aircraft it's allowed in the lounge.

As the song says "it ain't necessarily so".
Airlines issue pajamas - in sections of aircraft that have seats
designed for sleeping. I have yet to receive pajamas when entering a lounge.

 

[Mr H]

You possibly don't mean it this way, but this comes across as overly selfish and possibly a bit entitled - in the context of a public space like a lounge (or by extension aircraft, terminal etc).

So I want to ask you where should the line be drawn between what someone wants to do, and what should be, for want of a better wording, a "minimum standard"?

Actually, my personal behaviour would probably comply with pretty much any minimum standards. But I will defend the right of others to do as they please if it is not doing anyone any credible harm.

I'm sure you don't mean extremes like wandering around a lounge naked

I am still surprised by Australians' extreme aversion to public nakedness. I remember going on a tour of the MCG dressing rooms and seeing that they had separate baths for "shorts on".

 

[kyle]

Actually, my personal behaviour would probably comply with pretty much any minimum standards. But I will defend the right of others to do as they please if it is not doing anyone any credible harm.

I think I'm in the same vein.

 

[RichardMEL]

Actually, my personal behaviour would probably comply with pretty much any minimum standards. But I will defend the right of others to do as they please if it is not doing anyone any credible harm.

A reasonable response. Thank you (I'll be honest that I was expecting different).

so your argument is more in principle one of personal freedoms. I can respect that for sure.

So the question then becomes "doing anyone any credible harm" - and then we come back to a subjective definition don't we? "credible" (and I'm not saying this against your particular wording or anything) makes me think of The Castle "the vibe of the thing" type idea.. it's very subjective - like personal offence - what upsets or offends me is probably different to you, and to others - we al have our own versions. And again, cultural norms can absolutely come into this too.

I am still surprised by Australians' extreme aversion to public nakedness. I remember going on a tour of the MCG dressing rooms and seeing that they had separate baths for "shorts on".

I think it's more of a Western society thing in general than Australians in particular (though that MCG "shorts on" thing seems more an anachronism than reflecting current norms). As an aside I do think that very public English Garden in Munich (and apparently there are other designated areas in Munich for public nudity) is quite interesting - though many european cultures have long had a different view. That said, I don't expect to be seeing topless (or more) people in a LH lounge

I used nudity as an example of course. I had a few other less savory ideas when writing earlier but decided to not "go there" - more trying to provide examples of things that most people would consider unacceptable in a public setting like an airport lounge. (personally I have no issue with naturism and all that if that's one's thing)

but this brings us back, in a way, to the idea of what might cause "credible harm" to others.

is the dirty naked foot by a plate of food example raised above "credible harm"? In some places, cultures - no. In others, it's a hygiene issue and risk (let alone unsightly for most).

then where's the nuance or the line. If someone comes in dirty workwear and smells of it... does that cause "credible harm" to others? maybe wiffy on the nose but probably not (though if someone gets dirt all over furniture then what? I mean I honestly don't have an answer here.. and I suspect asking 100 people would get mixed interpretations.

I guess this comes back to why have "social norms" of what's generally considered OK and what isn't. Most will probably agree, and some won't.