The issue of appropriate attire for travellers has been in the news lately. There was outrage in the Middle East, and an official apology in America, when a man from the United Arab Emirates was judged suspicious by an Ohio hotel clerk, and later arrested, partly because he was wearing national costume.
That incident led to an advisory from UAE authorities to its own citizens suggesting that they not wear traditional clothing while travelling.
Meanwhile, in a survey of 2,500 Americans, 59 per cent agreed that passengers should be kicked off aircraft for “dressing inappropriately”.
This raised a few eyebrows. Even the president Airfare Watchdog, which commissioned the survey, observed: “While it would be splendid to bring some decorum back to air travel, the question remains: who or what decides what ‘appropriate’ is, and do airlines spell out specifically enough in their rules what is and isn’t acceptable?”
Are short skirts and shorts acceptable on a plane? Or flip-flops on your feet? Should Hawaiian shirts be banned outright?
It is, of course, not unusual for restaurants and clubs to set minimum dress standards. The same is true on some cruise ships. But in most of these cases, those deemed unworthy for one venue can simply go to another.
If you’re in a queue to get on a plane on your way to your aunty’s wedding and your told at the last minute that you can’t board, it gets a bit tricky.
If airlines are going to set standards, then they should let customers know in advance what is and what is not acceptable.
But the problem goes deeper than that. If it’s OK to ban somebody based on the way they dress, it is also acceptable to ban them on the way they look?
Bad haircut? A visible tattoo? Nobbly knees? Shifty eyes? Are these reasons to be kicked off a plane or out of a hotel? And if so, who decides?
