new QF dress regulations - social media backlash

[JohnK]

I regularly fly on a carrier that will not allow boarding without enclosed shoes......people manage that huge imposition without a worry and I have never once witnessed someone turned away as everyone is well aware of the policy. It's not difficult to comply with terms and conditions and most of us do it constantly on a day to day basis in life.....a dress code in an airport lounge is no different.

I have worn dress shoes the majority of my adult life. Most of the time I don't even realise the shoes are there. I feel comfortable so don't quite understand the obsession with wanting to wear thongs everywhere.

 

[medhead]

The worst thing I have ever worn (recently) involved dress shoes. Visiting brisbane for the weekend with casual clothes for brisbane and work clothes for later that week. Get taken to East leagues club for lunch where thongs are banned. I'm not going to throw on the suit for Sunday lunch. So with my t-shirt and shorts, do I wear black socks with the dress shoes or not?

 

[Hvr]

a hat inside = shout the bar

A fairly cheap shout in a QP!

I can just imagine the RSA implications.

 

[cmon0005]

Saw a guy in the SYD J lounge yesterday afternoon in shorts and rubber thongs.

 

[Ansett]

Saw a guy in the SYD J lounge yesterday afternoon in shorts and rubber thongs.

Good old Qantas Consistency at its best

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Saw a guy in the SYD J lounge yesterday afternoon in shorts and rubber thongs.

wonderful!

a victory for the ordinary person over the radicalised-middle-class-tea-party-member-conservatives!

Cue appropriate music from Les Miserables.....

 

[RooFlyer]

wonderful!

a victory for the ordinary person over the radicalised-middle-class-tea-party-member-conservatives!

Cue appropriate music from Les Miserables.....

I like the allusion to les Miserables, but not the one that 'ordinary people' are couldn't-give-a-toss slobs.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

... but not the one that 'ordinary people' are couldn't-give-a-toss slobs.

It's two different concepts. Wearing thongs doesn't necessarily make you a 'couldn't give a toss slob'.

You may have put thought into your overall outfit for the day, which may include thongs. And the thongs may look perfectly acceptable.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

An old school guy I used to know always said:
"If you dress like you're going to a BBQ, you'll act like you're going to a BBQ"

As for the exposure of people's ugly and hairy toes in the QC/JL, that's just (un)common decency

 

[MEL_Traveller]

An old school guy I used to know always said:
"If you dress like you're going to a BBQ, you'll act like you're going to a BBQ"

which might be wise advice to those who require a formalised structure to their lives with accompanying social clues in order to know how to behave.

For the vast majority of people, the way they dress does not affect their manners. If you have them you have them!

 

[blackcat20]

An old school guy I used to know always said:
"If you dress like you're going to a BBQ, you'll act like you're going to a BBQ"

As for the exposure of people's ugly and hairy toes in the QC/JL, that's just (un)common decency 

My toes are neither ugly or hairy

I'll be testing out my sandals in the ADL QP tomorrow.

 

[straitman]

wonderful!

a victory for the ordinary person over the radicalised-middle-class-tea-party-member-conservatives!

Absolute rubbish IMHO.

which might be wise advice to those who require a formalised structure to their lives with accompanying social clues in order to know how to behave.

For the vast majority of people, the way they dress does not affect their manners. If you have them you have them!

Many people, not just a few, react to environment and dress standards with their behaviour.

The other significant issue that many are intent on forgetting (it has been mentioned) is the reason for having decent shoes is in the unlikely event of an incident on takeoff or landing and needing to evacuate the aircraft in a hurry. I don't want you with your with your bare feet or flip flops getting in my way because you have cut or burnt you feet in the wreckage mess. An evacuation is never going to be pretty so why increase your risk unnecessarily by having inappropriate footwear. If you polled all flight and cabin crew I'm sure that they would be in about 99% agreement with me.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Many people, not just a few, react to environment and dress standards with their behaviour.

The other significant issue that many are intent on forgetting (it has been mentioned) is the reason for having decent shoes is in the unlikely event of an incident on takeoff or landing and needing to evacuate the aircraft in a hurry. I don't want you with your with your bare feet or flip flops getting in my way because you have cut or burnt you feet in the wreckage mess. An evacuation is never going to be pretty so why increase your risk unnecessarily by having inappropriate footwear. If you polled all flight and cabin crew I'm sure that they would be in about 99% agreement with me.

I would be interested to see the evidence suggesting that a person with manners, wearing a pair of things, is less well mannered than wearing dress shoes.

I agree people adapt their behaviour based on the environment... you don't talk on a mobile in church... but I'm not convinced that is dictated by what a person is wearing.

Where is the link between behaviour and dress, as compared to behaviour and environment?

I accept good footwear would be an advantage in the event of an emergency. But is a sandal any different from a thong in that respect? It is hard to think the dress standards are based on any notion of safety, as some lounges around the network do not have the same standards.

If the dress standard for footwear is based on safety, that possibly opens up airlines to other potential areas of liability... which might include the limiting or banning of alcohol as even one drink could impair someone's reaction or judgment.

 

[straitman]

I would be interested to see the evidence suggesting that a person with manners, wearing a pair of things, is less well mannered than wearing dress shoes.

No need to provide evidence, just look around you though it is more than just shoes.

I agree people adapt their behaviour based on the environment... you don't talk on a mobile in church... but I'm not convinced that is dictated by what a person is wearing.

I'm not trying to convince you but rather point out an alternate viewpoint which is that not everyone agrees with you.

Where is the link between behaviour and dress, as compared to behaviour and environment?

There are many, however if you don't want to look around and see them then there is little I can do to convince you. They all go into making up the same picture.

I accept good footwear would be an advantage in the event of an emergency. But is a sandal any different from a thong in that respect? It is hard to think the dress standards are based on any notion of safety, as some lounges around the network do not have the same standards.

If the dress standard for footwear is based on safety, that possibly opens up airlines to other potential areas of liability... which might include the limiting or banning of alcohol as even one drink could impair someone's reaction or judgment.

Once again I ask you to look at the BIG picture and not just all the little parts. There was no suggestion that lounge rules should/must be based on what I said just that there is an important element to be considered for those that wish to do so. ...and yes a sandal is very different to thongs.

 

[blackcat20]

Currently sitting in a lounge wearing sandals and being very well behaved. On the other hand, a woman metres from me has her bare feet pressed up against the window. Some people are badly behaved no matter what they are wearing (or not wearing)

 

[JessicaTam]

"For the apparel oft proclaims the man", Polonius from Hamlet, William Shakespeare.

Interpret as you will.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

If the dress standard for footwear is based on safety, that possibly opens up airlines to other potential areas of liability... which might include the limiting or banning of alcohol as even one drink could impair someone's reaction or judgment.

Two different concepts.....dress code for safety as opposed to dress code for community standards, but we already do have alcohol limiting in both the QP and on board. It's RSA and is left to the discretion of the staff.

A better analogy would be to compare a member of a club which bans the consumption of alcohol, turning up with a six pack and demanding "their right" to consume it in that club. That would be against the rules of that club to which the member agreed to when joining. Similarly, a person turning up to a QP in a level of attire which is deemed beneath the level accepted by the club and demanding access is breaching the rules to which the member has agreed to be bound by.

I think the only point of dispute is whether or not QF are clear enough with what they deem to be acceptable standard of dress. Perhaps they realise that too, which may be why they are clarifying it now.

 

[browski]

This is not about enforcing a dress standard, this is the first step by Alan Joyce of impementing his dream of themed lounges for each city.

Melbourne Lounge: You can wear whatever you like as long as it's black (or grey).
Sydney Lounge: String vests and hotpants.
Brisbane/Gold Coast Lounges: Thongs (or bare feet), Singlets and stubbies.
Perth Lounge (Hi-vis; or any outfit from the Village People)

I applaud this initiative and will be embracing the fancy-dress theme of each city.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

This is not about enforcing a dress standard, this is the first step by Alan Joyce of impementing his dream of themed lounges for each city.

Melbourne Lounge: You can wear whatever you like as long as it's black (or grey).
Sydney Lounge: String vests and hotpants.
Brisbane/Gold Coast Lounges: Thongs (or bare feet), Singlets and stubbies.
Perth Lounge (Hi-vis; or any outfit from the Village People)

I applaud this initiative and will be embracing the fancy-dress theme of each city.

Thank you very much! I just chuckled aloud to the point my work colleagues wondered why! The winner is ..... Sydeney!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Two different concepts.....dress code for safety as opposed to dress code for community standards, but we already do have alcohol limiting in both the QP and on board. It's RSA and is left to the discretion of the staff.

A better analogy would be to compare a member of a club which bans the consumption of alcohol, turning up with a six pack and demanding "their right" to consume it in that club. That would be against the rules of that club to which the member agreed to when joining. Similarly, a person turning up to a QP in a level of attire which is deemed beneath the level accepted by the club and demanding access is breaching the rules to which the member has agreed to be bound by.

I think the only point of dispute is whether or not QF are clear enough with what they deem to be acceptable standard of dress. Perhaps they realise that too, which may be why they are clarifying it now.

A club that bans alcohol is easy... it's a ban on alcohol. Not a ban that stops VB stubbies but allows a bottle of Moet.

'No shirt, no shoes, no service' would be easy as well. It removes the subjective element, and puts everyone on the same footing. It doesn't discriminate on the sole basis of what you look like (and any prejudice about behaviour that might flow from that).

Has lounge behaviour improved since the enforcement of the 'smart casual' policy? Have all the DYKWIAs stopped talking loudly on mobiles? Have people stopped dropping crumbs all over the floor and leaving the place a mess? Have people stopped placing bags on spare seats rather than on the floor?