Qantas Club Dress Standards...Stubbies, singlet and thongs....What the???

[anabolism]

Would you be comfortable travelling by air without footwear?

Well, that's a personal decision. I hate wearing shoes, but I also hate having dirty feet, so I wear jandals (flop-flops) almost everywhere. In business settings I wear canvas Vans with socks, but take them off every chance.

What is wrong with people having a bit of sense of decorum? You wouldn't turn up to a job interview with frivolous dress sense, even though the interviewer is evaluating the same human being.

Job interviews are situations where the applicant is trying to make a particular impression, not comparable to air travel. Further, it can severely hurt your chances to be too conservatively dressed. It's all about fitting in with the company culture. In some technical settings, the sloppier the dress, the more serious "cred" one has. I participate in some conferences where some attendees wear shorts and go barefoot, no matter the weather.

I believe that legally Qantas has to do something to discharge its responsibility in this matter.

That, of course, involves making sure that the premises it owns (if any) and the aircraft is safe to walk around, but it can also insist that appropriate footwear be worn to further its safety obligations.

Without such measures to discharge its responsibilities, a pax who is injured, even if bare foot, can argue that they had no idea that it was significantly risky to be bare foot on an aircraft, and claim a damage against Qantas.

I hear these sorts of claims all the time, and I am often forwarded email which describes equally silly cases, supposedly all reinforcing this idea that courts protect even the stupidest. However, in the few that I've bothered to look into, I've found that either (1) the whole story and supposed suit is fictitious, (2) there was such a claim, but the person lost or did initially win but it was drastically reduced, or (3) turns out to be much more to the story than usually included.

Shoes aren't just for comfort and looks - they protect your feet. I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing.

To each his own. I don't care what anyone else chooses to qear on his or her feet, or not.

 

[docjames]

I would have thought the easiest "standard" would be that it has to be acceptable to wear on an aircraft. If not, no lounge either. Last time I checked, you have to wear footwear, and non-revealing clothing of a reasonably hygienic standard.

Personally, I'd at least wear long pants (the thought of having to evacuate by slide in shorts - that would surely leave a rash.....)

 

[casanovawa]

I agree - I wear my shoes with the PJs until after take off on int'l flights - just in case (this is the influence jb747 has had on me). My biggest concern in the event of an emergency would be non-shoe wearers injuring themselves and slowing down my escape from the burning wreckage.

Any muppet who didn't have their shoes on and was stopping me and mine from getting to safety in an emergency on an aircraft would most likely just be kicked out of the way... Niceties wouldn't rank highly in such a situation...

And practically every pub/club I have been in has a footwear requirement simply because lots of glasses are being used and people imbibing alcohol... I see no particular reason why Qantas shouldn't also be able to enforce something like that, sure if you have kids or something and they need to take their shoes off for a minute or two for some reason etc, but adults should be able to handle it, if you can't, find somewhere else...

 

[drron]

I hear these sorts of claims all the time, and I am often forwarded email which describes equally silly cases, supposedly all reinforcing this idea that courts protect even the stupidest. However, in the few that I've bothered to look into, I've found that either (1) the whole story and supposed suit is fictitious, (2) there was such a claim, but the person lost or did initially win but it was drastically reduced, or (3) turns out to be much more to the story than usually included.

Then you haven't been in a Victorian or Tassie restaurant recently.All i have been in during the last week have signs up stating that food not consumed cant be taken home.Asked at the pub here in DPO and it is due to the possibility of food poisoning in food not stored properly and is a Government regulation.No more doggy bags.
Plus at the hospital I am now working at there is a lovely paved area on the northern aspect of the building-only place warm enough to eat lunch outside.However it has uneven rock pavers.Someone did a slip and sue so now the area is roped off with a warning to keep out.
So home in Oz it certainly is the stupidest being protected.

 

[monoccular]

Would you be comfortable travelling by air without footwear?

Apart from the obvious impracticalities associated with where you may need to traverse, it also represents a significant OHS risk which you are bringing onto yourself.


What is wrong with people having a bit of sense of decorum? You wouldn't turn up to a job interview with frivolous dress sense, even though the interviewer is evaluating the same human being.


Unfortunately, the task of enforcing a dress standard is a bit too difficult. Not that airlines couldn't do it, but pax are given too wide a berth these days to be able to complain and get away with it all. (Particularly in America, people are finding it too easy to wear whatever they like then claim the First or discrimination if they are pulled up).

I believe that Qantas do not allow travelers to go barefoot. I heard of a one legged indigenous man was recently refused boarding on a Queensland regional flight, where he was headed for treatment on his surviving foot.....had to go the next day, with one thong.

 

[Rebekkap]

Any muppet who didn't have their shoes on and was stopping me and mine from getting to safety in an emergency on an aircraft would most likely just be kicked out of the way... Niceties wouldn't rank highly in such a situation...

And practically every pub/club I have been in has a footwear requirement simply because lots of glasses are being used and people imbibing alcohol... I see no particular reason why Qantas shouldn't also be able to enforce something like that, sure if you have kids or something and they need to take their shoes off for a minute or two for some reason etc, but adults should be able to handle it, if you can't, find somewhere else...

I agree, except I'm not strong enough to kick most people out of the way if I want to get out of the plane in an emergency and they can't walk through the cabin - possibly on fire, as planes often do catch on fire if there's been a crash landing - because they don't have shoes on. So I'd therefore appreciate Qantas enforcing the wearing of shoes

But I see from a post further down that they do - although I'm not sure thongs constitute adequate emergency footwear.

 

[simongr]

But I see from a post further down that they do - although I'm not sure thongs constitute [-]adequate emergency[/-] footwear.

Fixed that for you

 

[Dee Thom]

although I'm not sure thongs constitute adequate emergency footwear.

In the event of a crash, or an emergency evacuation, thongs are as useful as a cup full of boiled snow.
Under floor fire = melting thongs, then feet !
Riding the slide of an A380, much loss of any exposed skin on legs and feet ! A slippery-slide it is not !
I always wear R.M. or Baxter boots when flying, which means also in the QC before boarding.

Cheers,
Dee

 

[NM]

Then you haven't been in a Victorian or Tassie restaurant recently.All i have been in during the last week have signs up stating that food not consumed cant be taken home.Asked at the pub here in DPO and it is due to the possibility of food poisoning in food not stored properly and is a Government regulation.No more doggy bags.

I have been told that doggy bags can only be provided by restaurants that also have a take-away services license.

 

[casanovawa]

Then you haven't been in a Victorian or Tassie restaurant recently.All i have been in during the last week have signs up stating that food not consumed cant be taken home.Asked at the pub here in DPO and it is due to the possibility of food poisoning in food not stored properly and is a Government regulation.No more doggy bags.

Well that sucks... I think i have only ever been to one restaurant where i heard this and was not impressed at all...

Thankfully WA doesn't seem to have any such Govy (over)regulation... I see it as I have bought the food and its mine to do with as i want, I haven't rented the food and it still belongs to the restuarant to tell me what i can do with it... Its not like some card issued by a company that says it remains the property of the company, i paid for it fair and square and if i want to take part of it home, so be it... Bring out a bit of paper with it for me to sign that i take responsibility for any sickness that may result (directly from incorrect storage, not because it was laced with coughnic or something) and i'll sign it, but like i said i paid for it, its mine to do with as i want... Maybe if you want to refund me part of the cost of the meal then they can keep what they want...

Any restaurant that had that sign up I would be sorely tempted to turn around and walk straight out...

And Rebekkap, not experienced it myself, but have heard about in emergency situations when the adrenalin starts pumping people can do surprising things for their size and weight, so maybe start hi-kicking just in case...

 

[Rebekkap]

And Rebekkap, not experienced it myself, but have heard about in emergency situations when the adrenalin starts pumping people can do surprising things for their size and weight, so maybe start hi-kicking just in case...

Ha, I think I'll wait for the adrenalin to start pumping *before* I start attempting hi-kicks!

 

[anabolism]

In the event of a crash, or an emergency evacuation, thongs are as useful as a cup full of boiled snow.
Under floor fire = melting thongs, then feet !
Riding the slide of an A380, much loss of any exposed skin on legs and feet ! A slippery-slide it is not !
I always wear R.M. or Baxter boots when flying, which means also in the QC before boarding.

By that logic, very little of the footwear on board would be suitable, since much casual wear has thinner and more flammable soles than many thongs. Good thing there haven't been any evacuations involving stepping over/through actually burning material in the past few years (at least that I recall hearing about) or the injury rate would no doubt be higher.

 

[drron]

I have been told that doggy bags can only be provided by restaurants that also have a take-away services license.

No in the Vietnamese Restaurant on Bridge road in Melbourne town the sign on the wall says only food ordered as takeaway can be taken from the restaurant-which of course makes a farce of the whole regulation.
In the pub at DPO I was told i could get a doggy bag but they would give me a notice saying the pub had warned me of the consequences of not storing food properly and they took no responsibility for any problems.Again what a farce.
Of course they probably cant stop you taking your own container with you.

 

[monoccular]

Cleavage is fine in public. In fact the more cleavage the better.

....maybe......but, at the risk of being accused of sexism, not on 120 kgm men !!

 

[JohnK]

....maybe......but, at the risk of being accused of sexism, not on 120 kgm men !!

I agree especially if I was that 120kg man! :shock:

I should have been more specific though.

Female cleavage is fine in public. In fact the more female cleavage the better.

 

[amaroo]

When I can - holidays, I love wearing thongs (foot kind) all this rubbish about dress code....ahhh

If the thing is going to crash - it's going to crash.....can't imagine footwear is going to make that much difference!

 

[ashleyn]

When I can - holidays, I love wearing thongs (foot kind) all this rubbish about dress code....ahhh

If the thing is going to crash - it's going to crash.....can't imagine footwear is going to make that much difference!

Rubbish amaroo ? Do you propose no dress code at all ?

 

[anabolism]

Rubbish amaroo ? Do you propose no dress code at all ?

I'm not amaroo, but I can't see the point of a dress code, either in the lounge or on board. We're well past the era of men wearing suits and ties during all waking hours (and never bare-headed in public), women with gloves at all times, etc.

 

[amaroo]

Rubbish amaroo ? Do you propose no dress code at all ?

IMO the current arrangements are fine!

In regards to footwear, I can't see why men need to wear closed in shoes while the women are seen to be dressed glamorously when they are showing off the tootsies

 

[RWJ777]

Maybe QF should take a hint from Sydney's night clubs and ban inappropriate clothing:Dressing down for clubbing bogans | thetelegraph.com.au The nightclubs have found a correlation between better dress standards and reduced violence, I'm sure QF would find a correlation between better dress standards and slowed depletion of hot food options!