""There's no question we've lost sight of what makes travel fun - the excitement, the relaxation, the cordial conversations," the DOT's announcement reads. "Americans already feel divided and stressed. We can all do our part to bring back civility, manners and common sense. When we can unite around shared values, we can feel more connected as a country." Duffy's proposed fixes? Straightforward enough:"
"Now, I'm no psychologist, nor am I defending unruly behavior, but the idea that tightening wardrobe expectations beyond the current guidelines (which already prohibit bare feet and anything "lewd, obscene or patently offensive") will somehow curb in-flight meltdowns feels, at best, classist and, at worst, sexist or even racist. Enforcing "respectable attire" has historically meant policing certain bodies more than others - as if slipping into a pantsuit suddenly renders someone incapable of causing a scene."
"Most of us can agree that the first three are reasonable - the bare minimum, really. It's that fourth directive that has the internet raising an eyebrow. "What an idiot. How does airplane attire have anything to do with air travel issues?" one Redditor wrote. "Why would I dress up to go on a bus with wings?" another asked. Manners don't stop at the gate!"
A campaign urges travelers to restore civility and respect on flights by being courteous, thanking flight crews, helping fellow passengers, and dressing with respect. The campaign frames these behaviors as ways to recapture travel's excitement and relaxation and to foster national connection around shared values. The first three directives (courtesy, gratitude, assistance) are broadly seen as reasonable, while the dress guideline provokes criticism online. Critics argue stricter wardrobe rules risk classist, sexist, or racist enforcement, noting existing rules already bar bare feet and overtly obscene attire and that policing dress often targets certain bodies unfairly.
Read at InsideHook
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]