US Air Doesn't Love Us

When reason "x" is "because we don't like your kind" it IS a hate crime.

BTW, enormous red fonts were used to convey the point that the issue has been repeated here many, many times, several in the past for your benefit. Call it a rhetorical flourish.

 

You must have some periods of boredom in your life, if something like that apparently amuses you enough to keep you returning again and again, even if it is only a few posts at a time. I don't have the time for half the things that really interest me.

 

The Barefoot Forum has had visits by Grim and others in the past - all endlessly challenging the merits and joys of life without shoes. Grim, et. al., are not interested in hearing arguments that would change their views. Rather, their motivation is simply to "stir the pot." This could be a forum on the joys of wearing Doc Martin boots and Grim would be promoting the joy of bare feet and flip-flops just to agitate the crowd.

I've said this before - when someone such as Grim drops on the scene just ignore him. Banter is what he's after. Ignore him and he'll go away. He really doesn't care about feet, shod or otherwise, one way or the other. He just wants an argument.

Let's get back to the topic at hand, which is US Air's policy of enforcing its right to require shoes of its passengers. While other airlines have a policy that they MAY deny boarding, US Air is the only airline I've found that actually enforces this policy.

 

Nope, I'm all for everyone wearing boots all the time in public.
And the topic is silly. US Air owns their planes and is well within their rights to deny barefeet. It's not some grand moral issue; it's not a hate crime; it's just a sad case of a business actually having to impose common sense on customers instead of the other way around.

 

I think it's all how you play it. Most of those rules give the flight attendant the choice. If you attempt to NOT resemble tommy chong, and to look like an average person whos feet got tired traveling all day, you have a much better chance.

In my experiance, once you get past security, as long as you're obviously not dangerous or beligerant, airports ar quite accepting of people treating the terminal like a temporary home, as that's often what it is. I'm not a barefooter, and i know i've gone barefoot or in socks all over terminals... and used to play with razor scooters, back before that would have got me labeled a terrorist. In fact, I'm nearly sure I've boarded barefoot since I was 5.

 

As a general practice I agree with this 100%. If you look like a dangerous homeless person and are not wearing shoes on top of it, it's much more likely you'll encounter resistance anywhere.

As for US Air, they have their largest hub in Charlotte, NC, which is geographically in a conservative part of the country known as the "Bible Belt." I lived in nearby South Carolina for ~1-1/2 years after school. It was a strange existence. If something's not pure and conforming it must be evil. I suspect there's an element of this mentality at work in US Air's practices. As I said early in this thread, I fly extensively. I've boarded a lot of planes, mostly on carriers other than US Air, without shoes. The ONLY airline that's hassled me is US Air. The flights in question were either in or out of Charlotte. The other airlines either didn't care or didn't notice.

 

I can confirm Delta seems ok with bare feet. I boarded two planes today and not a word. And I am sure I was noticed by flight attendants and such.

 

Hey barefootoctober, please drop me a line. I lost your email. Are you going to the island? I'll be there in June.

 

I think you're mistaking me for someone else.

 

Last week I boarded a US Air flight from Minneapolis to Philadelphia. I was barefoot, but had no problems. I've boarded a few United flights this year without issue. The ONLY times I've gotten comments boarding a flight without shoes was on USAir flights in/out of Charlotte, and that's been consistent. I've communicated with a few folks from North Carolina. They've indicated there's a narrowmindedness among the masses - it's part of the Bible Belt after all. If it's different, we better burn it, LOL :rofl:

 

So what's the difference, in terms of safety if a 5 year old walks on the plane barefoot as opposed to a 35 year old?

Also, I don't get the part about being able to remove your shoes while on the plane but requiring shoes just to step over the threshhold??
You would think that with all of the terrorist threats and shoe-bombers, they airlines would welcome a barefoot passenger. Also, what about the case of someone bringing over a relative from a third world country where the person may not own shoes due to what is customary in that country. This policy is not very open-minded to world cultures and travellers.

 

As many policies in the United States (yet I keep coming for more).

 

I've flown on over 600+ flights, all of them Delta and have only had a problem 3 times. Most of my flights are to the same places and I usually see the same crew members (and passengers) so they know me. Nearly all of the Delta tickets agents in my most frequented airports call me "the barefoot Diamond guy".

Just this week, I was in the Dallas/Fort Worth airport and had a fellow passenger tell me "you're going to get a staph infection". I said, "not likely".

 

It's so stupid that an airline would ban barefoot people. After all, being barefoot means you're not going to light your shoes on fire. Being barefoot means that security doesn't have to scan your shoes for bombs. Being barefoot means that you can get through security quicker. Airlines should be thankful for barefoot passengers because they help mitigate one of the complaints of passengers: slow security lines.

 

Being bf in a slow security line will actually start a trend. I was at an airport once that didn't have a priority line and I had to join the masses. I was bf and many other people around me saw this and started taking their shoes off. The one thing about air travel that drives me nuts is the infrequent traveler. They carry too much shit and aren't prepared when they hit the X-ray machine.

 

I have heard some company is trying to push some new xray security system that will allow customers to be checked w/o having to remove their shoes. If many airports adopt this, it will mean that bare feet will become a much less common sight at airports since it no longer be required to remove shoes during the process.

 

This wouldn't be a bad idea. However much I like bare feet, the airline lines are athlete's foot waiting to happen for those who are NOT barefooters or wearing open sandals/slippers. Taking off closed shoes very briefly, standing in line barefoot (right behind each other, so dozens of people walk in the same place within minutes), then putting those closed shoes back on & sitting on a hot plane for many hours so the spores have a wonderful warm, sweaty place to grow... That is a perfect way of picking up foot fungus! And as long as so many people travel for business and are very concerned about 'professional' appearance, suggesting they go barefoot or in flipflops (so any foot fungus spores they pick up won't have a chance) isn't going to do any good.

Besides, quite apart from health reasons, I dislike situations where people HAVE to go barefoot when they don't want to just as much as situations where we HAVE to wear footwear. It's freedom of choice -footwear or none, each to their own liking- that I want, not places where bare feet are required even for those who hate it.

 

The US Federal government is installing full body scanners in most airports this year. I've been thru 3 of them and they are a big hassle, take more time, but may make air travel safer. The thing is, they are pretty graphic. They see thru your clothes. The monitor is viewed from a secure room separate from the screening area. The TSA personnel working the area wear ear pieces to receive instructions from the remote viewers. The level of detail would bother most modest people. I can only imagine the snickering that takes place in that room.

 

Many airports offer disposable "socks" for people that don't want to walk around BF. I travel for business and fly bf everywhere. I usually wear jeans and t-shirt and don't advertise my occupation. I fly first class 95% of the time. I change when I get to my destination. You don't see many business men or women in formal business attire in an airport. The risk of staining expensive clothing is very high. I still see women that wear inappropriate shoes (heels) in an airport. Most of them aren't business women though.

 

Somehow I've got the feeling that if a person from a tropical nation, wearing "native" clothes, was to try to board a plane barefoot, no one would blink an eye. The fact that I'm a guy, obviously American, "who should know better" is probably what alerts the flight attendants. Even then, I've only caught flack from US Air, never on Southwest, United, Frontier, or American.

I think it's just part of the old "double standard." In the past it's been discussed that woman probably get fewer challenges than men when barefoot. The assumption is that women wearing stylish, often uncomfortable, shoes have removed them because the shoes are killing their feet. I somehow doubt a woman boarding a flight would get the same flack as a guy, but I may be wrong. Any women have experiences to the contrary?

I love this! :rofl: If I ever get a really pissy flight attendant I might mention this before quickly putting on my flip-flops. I doubt the flight attendant would find as much humor in it as I do!

The sample graphics I've seen haven't been very revealing, at least not as far as details of one's anatomy. That said, I'm guessing that if an attractive woman or hunky guy (depending on the orientation of the person running the scanner) walks through, they can crank up the resolution.

You mention you travel for business as do I. I've never seen the disposable socks you refer to. Where have you seen them? Denver doesn't have them nor do any of the other hubs/regional airports I fly through/to. I'm not doubting your comment; it's just that I've never seen them - at least not conspicuously available.