What’s your story?
Share and find customer experiences
Connect with the people behind them
complaints made social
Less than a week after a U.S. Airways pilot arrested a college football player for allegedly refusing to pull up saggy pants, the airline is rocked by a revealing photo now surfaced: In the scandal, the airline allowed a man to fly, right before the Dushon Marman arrest, wearing just women’s underwear, a sheer shirt, black thigh-high stockings, and high heels.
It seems U.S. Airways is trying its best to steer clear of any issue with homophobia or sexual discrimination when allowing a "Drag Queen" to fly unscathed--and yet it just may find itself right, smack in the middle of allegations that the airline is involved with racial discrimination after arresting Dushon Marman. It's already been thrown out there: Marman's mother has already insinuated last week's U.S. Airways arrest to be racially based.
Regardless of what sparked U.S. Airways employees to do the things they did, the airline is probably going to be very regretful -- at least eventually.
On June 16, University of New Mexico football player Dushon Marman was removed from a US Airways flight at San Francisco International Airport and then arrested by the airline--simply while trying to return back to college following his best friend's funeral service in the Bay Area of California.
Only days ago, a US Airways spokesperson said the airline “does not have a specific dress code" but that "we do ask that our passengers dress in an appropriate manner to ensure the safety and comfort of all of our passengers.”
In the arrest of Marman, no passengers had complained of the athlete's attire or had any issue with what U.S. Airways claimed was sagging pants of the boarding passenger.
Reports of the U.S. Airways' drag queen passenger by the San Francisco Chronicle now prove that just six days before the arrest of Marman and his alleged saggy-pants, the U.S. Airways airline allowed a man to board a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, flight while wearing mainly women's clothing--really skimpy clothing. The man was scantily-clad in an outfit that included women’s underwear without pants and a short and sheer cover-up shirt.
Jill Tarlow, who was a fellow passenger on the Phoenix-bound flight out of Fort Lauderdale, shared a photo of the US Airlines passenger from flight out of Florida. That picture was taken and sent to U.S. Airways before the arrest of Marman. US Airways in fact confirms, to The Chronicle, that the airline received the photo before last week's arrest of Dushon Marman in San Francisco.
Guess what?: Wunder, a spokesperson for the airline, says U.S. Airways employees had been correct in not asking the scantily-clad man to cover himself on the Fort Lauderdale flight.
MSNBC investigated the matter further with US Airways, where the airline's spokesperson had a few interesting comments:
“In the case of the gentleman [Dushon Marman] flying of out San Francisco, it was ultimately not a matter of baggy pants," US Airways' Wunder told MSNBC. " It was a matter of him [Marman] not complying with crew instructions. In terms of the man in Florida: As long as you’re covered you can fly. In the picture, that man is covered. A little unorthodox, but covered."
Now that is interesting: When Dushon Marman's pants were supposedly falling down, US Airways included a little tidbit in a statement regarding the incident of sagging pants: The airline said Marman's boxers were showing, not that he was indecent. So, Marman too was "covered"--and according to U.S. Airlines' own spokesperson, "As long as you’re covered you can fly." And that means the student's eligibility to fly should mean none of those "crew instructions" should ever have been issued, period.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like Marman would've had a case for harassment charges against the airline for telling him to pull up his pants when his body was still covered by boxers.
According to the U.S. Airways theory, apparently a passenger is supposed to comply with even irrelevant instructions. If a flight attendant decides on "instructions" for a passenger to start doing jumping jacks on-board, and the passenger refuses, does that mean the passenger risks spending the night in jail?
C'mon, U.S. Airways--you've been caught with your shorts down.