You all would make great politicians...I will bow out. :thumb:

Tell me what was wrong with my comment about no complaints from the passengers. Don't bow out, explain why that isn't a valid point.

The skirt was still short. More so because she had long legs and it showed them off. The top just simply wasn't revealing. I still don't see how the outfit could be more revealing than it was presented on TV. If it was, her junk was hanging out on the bottom and she looked stupid by pulling the top down in places it didn't go...

 

I read or saw on tv, cant remember which, that part of her "adjustment" to satisfy them was to cover up her middle. I took it from that statement that she pulled her shirt down. If it was up, showing her middle, then it is possible that it was also showing her underwear, tattoos, hips, pelvic bones, etc., and that may be part of what triggered the reaction by the employee.

Yes, but that doesn't change the very good possibility that she made the same clothing more presentable for the cameras.

Exactly what happened. She's playing innocent; but I don't think this Hooter's waitress is so innocent in this case.

So now she's also a liar? Wow...

Yes.

Exactly what happened. She's playing innocent; but I don't think this Hooter's waitress is so innocent in this case.

You say that like it's criminal or something.

I read or saw on tv, cant remember which, that part of her "adjustment" to satisfy them was to cover up her middle. I took it from that statement that she pulled her shirt down. If it was up, showing her middle, then it is possible that it was also showing her underwear, tattoos, hips, pelvic bones, etc., and that may be part of what triggered the reaction by the employee.

Then where are the complaints from passengers?

You say that like it's criminal or something.

No, just supporting evidence for the persecution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Yes, it was intentional.

Yes.

What makes you so sure that Southwest is being completely truthful?

Then where are the complaints from passengers?

That doesn't make good television.

No, just supporting evidence for the persecution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Yes, it was intentional.

So, only sleazy people are Hooter's waitresses? I know you didn't come out and say that, but...

That doesn't make good television.

Wouldn't Southwest have come forward with that info, so as to make them in the right?

Wouldn't Southwest have come forward with that info, so as to make them in the right?

I don't think they ever said anything of that nature was documented at the time. Nevertheless, they have a right and a responsibility to do whatever gets the most butts in the seats. If that means giving one passenger a talking to, then so be it. That's good business.

I don't think they ever said anything of that nature was documented at the time. Nevertheless, they have a right and a responsibility to do whatever gets the most butts in the seats. If that means giving one passenger a talking to, then so be it. That's good business.

Or not, I doubt I'd fly them now.

Or not, I doubt I'd fly them now.

Corporations face give and take decisions like that a million times a day. Win some/lose some--you just try to go with the choice that you think will win more than it loses. This is no different than businesses that voluntarily ban smoking.

Corporations face give and take decisions like that a million times a day. Win some/lose some--you just try to go with the choice that you think will win more than it loses. This is no different than businesses that voluntarily ban smoking.

I disagree.