Qantas Club Dress Standards...Stubbies, singlet and thongs....What the???

[penegal]

Do deleted posts count toward your 1000 posts club membership ?


No. I don't think so...

Also certain off topic areas (e.g. Playground) do not count against your post count.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Do deleted posts count toward your 1000 posts club membership ?


Isn't that like getting status credits for cancelled flights?

 

[Deleted member]

Isn't that like getting status credits for cancelled flights?

Or a free ride when you've already paid !! ..... That sounds familiar somehow

 

[kyle]

I think we should all judge people less by their dress code and more by their behaviour.
So far I've seen more men in suits who behave like monkeys in the lounges then people who wear thongs (or walk barefoot) but I guess it's much easier to take photos of the latter...

Sorry jojen, but what I find unacceptable is different rules based on gender, and unfortunately IMO QF is entering a minefield without protection in this regard.

Why should a woman in a singlet be considered inoffensive, and a man in one offensive? Gender equality is a two way street!

why is everyone fussed about exposed feet? Aside from the safety issue (which is hardly our concern, it is the concern of the passenger)... feet are no more dirty than shoes, perhaps even cleaner because if you aren't wearing shoes you might be more careful where you're actually stepping.

I'd rather have someone with no shoes than someone taking off their shoes and smelling out the lounge with sweaty socks. Same applies on the plane - I'd rather thongs/flip-flops than sweaty socks.

And

Why are singlets so unhygienic? Isn't this more about the persons hygiene than the item of clothing they are wearing?

Something with bad hygiene is going to stink regardless...Are they going to ban women from wearing sleeveless garments?

I want to know as well!

 

[dfcatch]

What did I miss???

 

[Deleted member]

What did I miss???

Lots. ........

 

[Claudius]

I want to know as well!

I think people are largely ignoring the issue and focus on their own assumptions.
1) This is not purely about hygiene, if it was the rules would state that.
2) This is not about behaviour, there are already rules in place to deal with poorly behaved PAX.
3) Entering the Lounge is a privilege, not a right, the purchase of a ticket does not guarantee entry if one doesn't follow the rules.

This rule was introduced to regulate clothing, not to stop people of a certain socioeconomic level to enter lounges, not to stop low hygiene individuals to enter lounges, not to be used as a way to stop poorly behaved individuals from entering lounges.

it's all about clotinging the fact is some significant subset of PAX find the kind of clothing described and exposed male feet or armpits to be disgusting.
Those people are not puritanical, old, ultra conservative or any other label you want to put on them, and they are not a minority, as the AusBT poll shows an 84% level of support for this rule.

if you find the above statement goes against gender equality, I have a newsflash for you, we are a sexually dimorphic species, what looks good in one gender does not necessarily look good on the other. This is why a male gets away with going shirtless to the beach while a woman could not do the same in most of the world and while singlets in a female are acceptable casual wear for a woman but not for a male.

These are social norms, and most of us understand them even if we may not agree with them, and it would only be respectful to follow these for the sake of a fellow PAX.
What really puzzles me is the selfishness of people who don't see this issue, is it really that hard to put clothes on to go on a plane?

Do you also wear singlets and thongs to work and your work isn't at the beach?
Do you wear the above clothing to restaurants, family dinners, conferences etc?

 

[boomy]

2) This is not about behaviour, there are already rules in place to deal with poorly behaved PAX.
3) Entering the Lounge is a privilege, not a right, the purchase of a ticket does not guarantee entry if one doesn't follow the rules.
These are social norms, and most of us understand them even if we may not agree with them, and it would only be respectful to follow these for the sake of a fellow PAX.
What really puzzles me is the selfishness of people who don't see this issue

There are no strict rules to deal with poorly behaved pax, this is the problem. I notice poor behaviour every week and never saw anyone thrown out of any lounge yet, no matter how rude they were. There may be some general guidelines but none are EVER implemented. It's not fair to prevent poorly dressed pax from entering the lounge while poorly behaved pax are allowed to stay inside.
I'm also puzzled by the selfishness of some people, probably not the same people you are referring to...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think people are largely ignoring the issue and focus on their own assumptions.
1) This is not purely about hygiene, if it was the rules would state that.
2) This is not about behaviour, there are already rules in place to deal with poorly behaved PAX.
3) Entering the Lounge is a privilege, not a right, the purchase of a ticket does not guarantee entry if one doesn't follow the rules.

This rule was introduced to regulate clothing, not to stop people of a certain socioeconomic level to enter lounges, not to stop low hygiene individuals to enter lounges, not to be used as a way to stop poorly behaved individuals from entering lounges.

it's all about clotinging the fact is some significant subset of PAX find the kind of clothing described and exposed male feet or armpits to be disgusting.
Those people are not puritanical, old, ultra conservative or any other label you want to put on them, and they are not a minority, as the AusBT poll shows an 84% level of support for this rule.

if you find the above statement goes against gender equality, I have a newsflash for you, we are a sexually dimorphic species, what looks good in one gender does not necessarily look good on the other. This is why a male gets away with going shirtless to the beach while a woman could not do the same in most of the world and while singlets in a female are acceptable casual wear for a woman but not for a male.

These are social norms, and most of us understand them even if we may not agree with them, and it would only be respectful to follow these for the sake of a fellow PAX.
What really puzzles me is the selfishness of people who don't see this issue, is it really that hard to put clothes on to go on a plane?

Do you also wear singlets and thongs to work and your work isn't at the beach?
Do you wear the above clothing to restaurants, family dinners, conferences etc?

I'm not so convinced on the polls: the people most likely to vote on those are the ones that have an issue. If you don't have an issue it's more of a case of 'who cares?' and you'd hardly be looking for a poll to voice your concern.

I suspect half the reason why men can go to the beach topless but not women is nothing to do with how good it looks, but rather men feeling they 'own' their women and don't want other men gawking at 'their girl'.

It is difficult to draw parallels with work, or conferences. Most people work because they want to make money. They have to follow the rules. At a conference they are also working. A lounge is a service we are buying. Different kettle of fish.

Family dinner? undoubtedly some do go barefoot or in singlets.

Worth bearing in mind that the same people who don't like thongs or bare feet are probably the same who would have voted against women not wearing gloves 40 years ago. Times change.

Question... would you rather have someone in thongs who breaks their bread roll, folds their salad leaves, and holds their champagne flute by the stem... or someone in shoes who cuts their bread roll with a knife, does the same with their salad and holds a champagne flute by the bulb?

Exactly... both are equally irrelevant.

As long as someone is clean and tidy, does it matter?

 

[RichardMEL]

Or the right type.

Gabby Gecko fan huh?

(yes, name is intentional)

 

[footy99]

I think people are largely ignoring the issue and focus on their own assumptions.
1) This is not purely about hygiene, if it was the rules would state that.
2) This is not about behaviour, there are already rules in place to deal with poorly behaved PAX.
3) Entering the Lounge is a privilege, not a right, the purchase of a ticket does not guarantee entry if one doesn't follow the rules.

This rule was introduced to regulate clothing, not to stop people of a certain socioeconomic level to enter lounges, not to stop low hygiene individuals to enter lounges, not to be used as a way to stop poorly behaved individuals from entering lounges.

it's all about clotinging the fact is some significant subset of PAX find the kind of clothing described and exposed male feet or armpits to be disgusting.
Those people are not puritanical, old, ultra conservative or any other label you want to put on them, and they are not a minority, as the AusBT poll shows an 84% level of support for this rule.

if you find the above statement goes against gender equality, I have a newsflash for you, we are a sexually dimorphic species, what looks good in one gender does not necessarily look good on the other. This is why a male gets away with going shirtless to the beach while a woman could not do the same in most of the world and while singlets in a female are acceptable casual wear for a woman but not for a male.

These are social norms, and most of us understand them even if we may not agree with them, and it would only be respectful to follow these for the sake of a fellow PAX.
What really puzzles me is the selfishness of people who don't see this issue, is it really that hard to put clothes on to go on a plane?

Do you also wear singlets and thongs to work and your work isn't at the beach?
Do you wear the above clothing to restaurants, family dinners, conferences etc?

Just discussing it with some lounge angels this week, apparently refusal is discretionary, now and in April. It's not that thongs are banned, shorts are banned, singlets are banned or anything of the sort. They all work in their own context. My t-shirt, shorts and thongs got the thumbs up, thankfully. But I suspect the combination in the thread title will be pushing it if you tried all 3. And given the discretionary nature, you can bet your house being particularly dirty or smelling awful are usually going to be the tipping points to making that call. Although even then they might just give you a towel on the way in.

 

[Claudius]

I'm not so convinced on the polls: the people most likely to vote on those are the ones that have an issue. If you don't have an issue it's more of a case of 'who cares?' and you'd hardly be looking for a poll to voice your concern.

I suspect half the reason why men can go to the beach topless but not women is nothing to do with how good it looks, but rather men feeling they 'own' their women and don't want other men gawking at 'their girl'.

It is difficult to draw parallels with work, or conferences. Most people work because they want to make money. They have to follow the rules. At a conference they are also working. A lounge is a service we are buying. Different kettle of fish.

Family dinner? undoubtedly some do go barefoot or in singlets.

Worth bearing in mind that the same people who don't like thongs or bare feet are probably the same who would have voted against women not wearing gloves 40 years ago. Times change.

Question... would you rather have someone in thongs who breaks their bread roll, folds their salad leaves, and holds their champagne flute by the stem... or someone in shoes who cuts their bread roll with a knife, does the same with their salad and holds a champagne flute by the bulb?

Exactly... both are equally irrelevant.

As long as someone is clean and tidy, does it matter?

I'm pretty sure men's concept of women ownership has not had anything to do with what women chose to wear since those days they wore gloves, women wear what they like and 9 out of 10 times they will look great in it. We on the other hand...

Times do change, this doesn't mean we are to be less respectful of one another, or dress down when going into public, people here like to complain about high vis wearers, but at least they have a valid reason to wear that, the rest here seem to have only the excuse "I'm far too lazy to change clothes, I paid my ticket so I'm entitled to do anything I want regardless of impact on others".

I ask you, if you go sleep in your parents place do you take a train in your pyjamas since you'll be changing into that when you go to sleep anyway? Where do we draw the line? For most of us that is drawn at smart casual, and I don't buy the excuse that only people who feel strongly about the poll voted. Clearly in this thread there are those who feel equally strongly against, in fact most of the "who cares?" People would have voted no.

Would it be ok by you if someone went wearing just speedos at the lounge if they are clean and tidy? Because I can tell you for most people you ask this would not be acceptable. Once we accept there is a line to be crossed, the question becomes where that line is, and we argue for most that line is at smart casual.

Some of us will find it offensive if someone uses obscene language in a shared space, some of us would find it offensive if someone were to not shower before going to a shared space, some of us will find it offensive if someone were to dress inappropriately in a shared space.
Just saying "if you don't like it don't listen, smell or look at it" helps no one, so, is it again too much to ask to be polite and respectful of others in all aspects, not just the ones you happen to also find disrespectful?

 

[footy99]

Times do change, this doesn't mean we are to be less respectful of one another, or dress down when going into public

Let's start here. My usual dress in public is shorts, t-shirt and thongs. Same with almost every person in my town. Some go singlets. Especially the 80+ crowd, surprisingly. I can't pull them off. Each to their own. Critically, the few that choose to wear longer pants, button shirts and closed shoes don't go around judging the character of everyone else for not following their lead as if they're not being respectful to others in public! What each of us wears is perfectly acceptable on any plane and therefore in any pre-flight lounge. When I used to live in BNE, it was the same normal dress there too. Travelling between them doesn't mean being forced into changing style. Qantas knows that. It's the accepted norm. At least half the time I won't be doing anything requiring closed shoes on the trip so won't bring them. Fortunately that doesn't affect my ability to fly anywhere or therefore my access to any pre-flight lounges.

There are people out there who will be offended by all sorts of styles - "His jacket is way too big" "Her shorts are way too short" "Her thongs are fine but his aren't!" "His Hi Vis is too bright!" "He can't wear that hat inside!" "She's just trying to incite people with that burqa!" "His shirt is way too tight!" Ad nauseum. If you go around worrying about what all the highly strung judgmental people think of you you'll go crazy. Just wear your normal thing. If it goes on the plane, it goes in the lounge. The most important thing as you say is to be polite and respectful. Which importantly involves not judging others based on what they're wearing. The judgment will virtually always be wrong and reflect entirely on the judger, not the person being judged. As can plainly be seen "dressing down" is just a poor judgment.

Would it be ok by you if someone went wearing just speedos at the lounge if they are clean and tidy?

Pretty sure Speedos only don't get on-board. So they don't satisfy the "is it allowed on the plane?" test for pre-flight access. But on a similar attention-seeking note that might get on the plane (say a clown suit), I'd say go nuts! Each to their own. They're extreme examples though - if I chose to wear a clown suit to the lounge I wouldn't be shocked at a rejection.

Once we accept there is a line to be crossed, the question becomes where that line is, and we argue for most that line is at smart casual.

The line is: Can you wear that on the plane? It's a really obvious one when you consider the context of the lounge. The few exceptions to that rule that get rejected by discretion of the lounge manager will be pretty extreme cases, I suspect either deliberately trying to test the line or in combination with particularly poor behaviour/hygiene. Normal stuff that people wear every day is all good. Anything beyond that is personal preference. Whether you wear a 4-piece suit or shirt, shorts and thongs is all the same if you're clean and well behaved.

 

[TheBOSman]

Thankfully I'm leaving March 19th and won't be back in a QP for a while .

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...

Once we accept there is a line to be crossed, the question becomes where that line is, and we argue for most that line is at smart casual.

Some of us will find it offensive if someone uses obscene language in a shared space, some of us would find it offensive if someone were to not shower before going to a shared space, some of us will find it offensive if someone were to dress inappropriately in a shared space.
Just saying "if you don't like it don't listen, smell or look at it" helps no one, so, is it again too much to ask to be polite and respectful of others in all aspects, not just the ones you happen to also find disrespectful?

No one should smell, or shout on their cell. Or wear items that are inherently offensive (for example containing graphic images or slogans which are illegal).

But the problem with 'smart casual', as opposed to 'clean causal' is that Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Un get lounge access, while Gandhi is told to take a hike.

You can't avoid someone smelling or shouting (so we could ask them to have a wash or quieten down), but we can examine our own rationale in cases where we feel someone is not dressed to our standard because our standard may no longer be reasonable. Why do we want to control someone else?

If someone wants to turn up in the lounge wearing PJs I might think 'oh, good idea, why didn't I think of that?', or I might think 'nah, not for me'. But I'm not going to bar the person from the lounge because they have chosen to wear something I personally wouldn't.

As I mentioned earlier... the publicity surrounding this seemed to be very well timed with a membership drive!

 

[Claudius]

No one should smell, or shout on their cell. Or wear items that are inherently offensive (for example containing graphic images or slogans which are illegal).

But the problem with 'smart casual', as opposed to 'clean causal' is that Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Un get lounge access, while Gandhi is told to take a hike.

You can't avoid someone smelling or shouting (so we could ask them to have a wash or quieten down), but we can examine our own rationale in cases where we feel someone is not dressed to our standard because our standard may no longer be reasonable. Why do we want to control someone else?

If someone wants to turn up in the lounge wearing PJs I might think 'oh, good idea, why didn't I think of that?', or I might think 'nah, not for me'. But I'm not going to bar the person from the lounge because they have chosen to wear something I personally wouldn't.

As I mentioned earlier... the publicity surrounding this seemed to be very well timed with a membership drive!

im quite sure Gandhi could not get in the lounge:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Gandhi_costume.jpg

What he wore in his later life is the traditional clothing in his country and the social norm for his culture, if we lived in India, entertaining an Indian lounge, we could dress like that and gain access. Similarly in most Middle East countries, traditional wear is allowed in lieu of smart casual.

I find it remarkable that is so hard to understand for some people, seeing others dress in a certain way is just as disrespectful as swearing like a sailor. Personally I don't mind at all people using foul language, in fact I'm a huge fan of George Carlin, but would I swear in public? No, because even though this is not offensive to me, I understand it is to a significant subset of fellow PAX.

Equally, as proven by the polls and general opinion, a significant subset of people, if not the great majority, find singlets, thongs and beachwear to be inappropriate and disrespectful to wear in a lounge.

Now, as to the argument "it's ok in the plane therefore is ok in the lounge".

Two key issues with this line of reasoning, it's also ok to smell like a Neanderthal in a plane, to my knowledge no rule stops this, albeit there should. I literally almost passed out of asphyxiation once on a trip to BNE, good thing the crew allowed me to swap seats.

Secondly, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should, pyjamas in the plane (as long as they are long such as the ones provided by QF) is perfectly ok on overnight flights as you are going to sleep in a cabin. See the difference?
similarly if I were to sleep over in a friends house I would not show up wearing pyjamas for dinner, I would change clothes when the time to sleep arrives.

I will leave it there as I don't think this particular dead horse can bear another fresh beating, I just urge you to look at the facts with an open mind, and you may find is not just a group of conservative puritans or fashion police, but just trying to make a minimal effort to dress, act and behave respectfully, that's all.

 

[drron]

A few here I wouldn't let in-
Classy people of Walmart 2014 (newest entries 26 pics) - Seriously, For Real?Seriously, For Real?

 

[get me outta here]

Who knew so many men wear thongs. How many male AFFers wear pretty pink frilly thongs?

A few here I wouldn't let in-
Classy people of Walmart 2014 (newest entries 26 pics) - Seriously, For Real?Seriously, For Real?

 

[NFF]

Is Scottish kilt without undies acceptable ?

 

[TomVexille]

Is Scottish kilt without undies acceptable ?

Is there any other way to wear one?