US Airways allowed an older cross-dressing man to board a flight wearing extremely revealing clothes without incident a week before a football player was booted for sagging pants.
Last week 20 year-old University of New Mexico football player Deshon Marman was kicked off a US Airways flight after failing to comply with a flight attendant’s request to pull up his sagging pants before boarding. Taken at face value without any other details, this makes sense; no one wants to see a heaping pile of ass walking down the aisle as they’re boarding the flight.
However, about a week before the Marman incident, an unidentified cross-dressing man wearing no pants at all flew from Fort Lauderdale to Phoenix on a US Airways flight without incident. The man was sporting women’s underwear, black leggings and heels. Passengers complained, but were ignored by employees.
So does US Airways hold an ass-backwards dress code that outlaws saggy pants but tolerates no pants at all in the case of cross-dressing? According to airline spokeswoman Valerie Wunder, employees were correct in not asking the cross-dresser to cover himself.
“We don’t have a dress code policy,” Wunder told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that’s not appropriate. … So if they’re not exposing their private parts, they’re allowed to fly.”
In light of Wunder’s statement, it would seem that both men should’ve been allowed to fly without incident. Granted, the cross-dressing man was revealing FAR more skin, wearing shorter and tighter underwear and presenting more visual nuisances than a pair of sagging pajama pants, but neither man actually exposed private parts.
If employees were justified in ignoring complaints about the cross-dresser’s outfit, this would seem to contradict another US Airways statement provided to The Blaze: “[Marman was] exposing areas that most people would not want to see,” and “violating the airline‘s expectation that customers won’t dress offensively.” Clearly, passengers were offended by the cross-dresser a week before, who exposed more than a few objectionable areas and sparked complaints, but no incident.
Marman’s ejection seems to be the work of an officious, over-zealous captain. Spokeswoman Wunder reiterated, “if you don’t comply with the captain’s requests, the captain has the right to handle the issue because it’s one of safety.”
The only reason the captain became involved in the first place was due to an employee’s objection to the sagging pants at the jetway—an objection that, as shown a week before, can be ignored if “no private parts are exposed.” As explained by Wunder, it’s “no privates, no problem” around US Airways—employees shouldn’t have said a word.
Watch another passenger’s video account of Marman’s run-in with the captain, taken just before he was removed from the flight: