Kelly does it again!

Kelly does it again!

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html?_r=0
nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/united-leggings-passes-dress-code.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Weren't those women supposed to dress like they were representing their company?

It would be like a dude wearing sweatpants in a company that isn't located on the West Coast

>Crying Bald Eagle

damn Kelly busting out the big guns for this one

What's this about, I have no idea.

They were just relatives of the worker.
Apparently some girls in leggings wanted to go on a plane with the family discount. The plane guys said no against the rules.

What did he mean by this?

I have no idea what's going on here but I know Kelly's right

>They were just relatives of the worker.
The company treats them as though they where the worker, for a bad family member being given cheaper tickets is bad publicity. This without even mentioning that the clothing regulations are ON THE BLOODY TICKET.

Doesn't matter, found misogyny

nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html?_r=0

>United Airlines barred two teenage girls from boarding a flight on Sunday morning and required a child to change into a dress after a gate agent decided the leggings they were wearing were inappropriate. That set off waves of anger on social media, with users criticizing what they called an intrusive, sexist policy, but the airline maintained its support for the gate agent’s decision.

Based Kelly is just supporting those brave, pragmatic UA staff members who knew what a distraction nubile, jiggling female teen ass would be to their pilots.

>This without even mentioning that the clothing regulations are ON THE BLOODY TICKET.

Link? I'm not seeing that in any articles I've read, though tickets do all say something like you agree to abide by all airline rules and regulations.

>Jonathan Guerin, a spokesman for United, confirmed that two teenage girls were told they could not board a flight from Denver to Minneapolis because their leggings violated the company’s dress code policy for “pass travelers,” a company benefit that allows United employees and their dependents to travel for free on a standby basis.

More info linked:

nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/united-leggings-passes-dress-code.html

>What Can You Wear on a Plane? It Depends Who’s Paying

>Hours later, United issued a clarification, saying that the teenagers and their parents had been traveling with “pass riders,” tickets given to employees or their friends at a heavily discounted rate, and that with this comes the responsibility of a dress code.

>“When taking advantage of this benefit, all employees and pass riders are considered representatives of United,” read a statement that United posted late on Sunday evening. “And like most companies, we have a dress code that we ask employees and pass riders to follow. The passengers this morning were United pass riders and not in compliance with our dress code for company benefit travel.”

>United explicitly bans “form-fitting lycra/spandex tops, pants and dresses,” along with “any attire that reveals a midriff,” “mini skirts,” “bare feet” and many others.

That seems pretty reasonable

I quite honestly don't understand this one.

Still pretty retarded. It's an airliner, not a catholic school.

Whats the point of this policy?

That's why pilots should never look behind their seats. You'll never know what HOT CHOICE ASS will be there to distract them.

When I drive my car I keep my eyes forward. In front of my car is the least likely place to see HOT CHOICE ASS

And I'm a guy who loves HOT CHOICE ASS

I once went down to this dance club street and it was very concerning because everywhere I looked was HOT CHOICE ASS

This is why my favourite Simpsons episode is about HOT CHOICE ASS

To make you mad.

>trying to fly a plane with this around

Yeah right, kid

To keep the plane afloat.

So their reps don't look like trash I guess.

Why don't they just hire gay pilots?

Then they'd just be boarding eachother's cockpits when they're supposed to be flying.

Carlos!

They were planning on it till that SCOTUS decision broke.

because gays are mentally ill and everyone knows it.

But how would someone know you work for or know somebody who works for the company?

Remember HIV?

Dr. Leggings, I'm UA

>implying that's how companies think

There actually was a story here and United Airlines were in the wrong, but not nearly to the degree a lot of people were claiming.

Basically, there were two kids who wanted to get one a flight, one of which was 10, and they were both wearing leggings. The problem is that while yes, it is policy that they were treated as staff and staff have to be more well dressed than normal passengers, it does NOT say anywhere in the rules that leggings are banned. It only says that they must be "dressed properly" and its up to the discretion of whoever letting them on. So basically someone saw two kids wearing leggings and thought "this just wont fly" and so they didn't. While charges of misogyny are 90% bullshit, the dad was later revealed to be wearing shorts, so some people are pointing to that.

>one of which was 10
They did nothing at all wrong.
Degeneracy is a bad thing.

>nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/united-leggings-passes-dress-code.html
>United Airlines was besieged by an angry public after a gate agent refused to let two teenagers board a flight to Minneapolis at Denver International Airport on Sunday because they were wearing leggings. The outcry was swift and furious.
>The model Chrissy Teigen said she would fly topless the next time she flew United. The actor William Shatner snarked about pants he once wore on the set of “Star Trek.” Calls for boycotts of United flooded social media sites.

Holy crap, burgers really do get offended over anything.

If we didn't get upset at trivial and meaningless things, we would actually have to be introspective and ask questions. Much easier to rage online about jeggings.

>the dad was later revealed to be wearing shorts, so some people are pointing to that.

Shorts and tights are different. One doesn't wrap around your ass and broadcast high-definition booty details. Also says "form-fitting tops and pants" are explicitly banned. If you get employee discounts, following some employee rules isn't that much of a stretch.

Both the rule and this outrage are stupid. Social media is a cancer.

Exactly how form-fitting do they mean? Are skinny jeans banned? Are any non-baggy sweaters banned? (because those can get daaaamn form-fitting, wew)

And United really doesn't realize that people on planes neither know nor give a shit about who's flying on United's dime and who isn't?

>sexist

I don't get how some policies can be deemed sexist when people of both genders couldn't get away with the particular policy. Like if somebody says "no skintight pants," you know that that definitely wouldn't fly if a guy tried to wear that as well, right? Even less chance than a chick getting a pass for it. So, how is it sexist?

This, exactly.

I suppose in the same way a "no skirt rule" would be sexist. Nobody is supposed to wear skirts but only women and extremely confused/scottish men would.

I think they're still idiots but I believe this is the reasoning. Banning something only one sex would wear anyway

They always call ahead "such and such ticket holders" to board their group first, then the next group. Like "pass holders" first, then "rewards members," then groups A, B, C, or whatever. I think a lot of passengers don't really pay attention to why the groups are seated in that kind of order or what being in the different groups means, but I guess conceivably somebody could be watching out for it, especially if they travel a lot, or they're some kind of secret inspector that's going to write a review.

You're free to take another company's flights.

This is a discounted ticket; if you can't tolerate a middle school-tier dress code, you deserve to stay in whatever shithole you were raised in tbqhwyfam

>because their leggings violated the company’s dress code policy for “pass travelers,” a company benefit that allows United employees and their dependents to travel for free on a standby basis.
The conversation shouldn't have extended past this point.

Companies have a dress code, if you're doing anything with the company, you abide by the dress code.

But women were inconvenienced. It's misogyny, user!

As ridiculous as I feel this is, when I think about my experiences flying United in the past 5 years, they've all been awfully miserable. This incident may be more of a straw-breaking-the-camel's back moment rather than something that just happened in isolation.

...

No one considers leggings as proper dressing. It depends on what kind of shorts he was wearing.

They already do. You ever wonder why gays and pilots are the only people with private bars? One in the same.

Actually, the employee dress code for travel at United specifically precludes body-hugging clothing as outerwear.

Do we like Kelly or not? I'm still not sure

This joke is the definition of low hanging fruit

well are you a sophisticated adult or today's troubled teens

Employee dress code user. This isn't hooters

Hi, I'd like to fly for free please

Sure thing, just follow this simple dress code, or alternatively you can purchase a full price ticket

* Autistic screeching *

If one of them was wearing leggings at 10, they will be there soon enough.

>thinks it was the pilots that didn't let the girls on
>misses that it's flight attendants that are gay and the ones that let passengers on and off

Leggings are literally form fitting clothes. That's one of the main prohibitions.

Yowza!

It seems to me that occasionally seeing HOT CHOICE ASS is what separates us from the Arabs. If you don't immunize yourself from such sights, you can get talked into joining some really bad clubs.

>The plane guys said no against the rules.
It was a woman who stopped them.

It's always a woman.

>Hi, I'd like to fly for free please

It's really hard to read more than a single paragraph, huh?

I love the "Politically correct" part for some reason. Because it has zero to do with the issue.

Sauce on those teens wearing leggings. I need to judge it for my own eyes. For moral reasons.

There are literally millions of pics of hot teen chicks in leggings on the net man. Come on.

But those hot teen chicks aren't newsworthy. If these girls are hideous and huge, it affects my interest in the story.

a plane crashed shortly before

You mean low-flying fruit/s.

He's obviously a No Talent Punk With An Axe To Grind. Might even be a Sicko.

Church clothes. When you have passes whether you work for the airline, your parents, your cousins, or anyone else.. those discounted/free tickets mean you need to wear the same proper public clothing you might wear to church on board the plan. Often you also ride standby waiting/hoping said flight isn't overbooked before you get on. 15 years of Braniff Airlines will beat it into you.

The girls were in the wrong. A random bystander made it an issue online with no clue the girls were riding on company passes, and the net has its usual collective reaction to something without any facts.

hell, seems like HOT CHOICE ASS is a very controversial issue, see how this thread got 60+ replies just from discussion alone, without a kelly dump or even more HOT CHOICE ASS pics.
In fact, i don't have anything to say here i just giggle at throwing HOT CHOICE ASS around.

What if you're an atheist, and don't attend church?

Then you're going to hell, but you can wear whatever you want.