Delta Air Lines is reminding potential flight attendants that they need to be wearing proper underwear. According to Forbes, the Delta AFA union represents over 28,000 flight attendants, of which we can safely presume that more than half, are probably female.
In Delta’s official online uniform style guide, it covers the permitted (and prohibited) A to Z fashion and uniform wardrobe options, and personal grooming rules. It has a specific section relating to hosiery, stating:
- Hosiery is optional when wearing a dress or skirt. When worn, hosiery must match your skin tone. No textured, patterned or opaque hosiery or leggings are permitted.
- Skin-toned compression hose are allowed.
- When wearing heels or flats with pants, hosiery/socks are optional.
- When wearing dress shoes or loafers with pants, socks are required. Colorfully printed socks allowed; no characters and/or words.
There are no categories for underwear or undergarments, as well as the absence of “grooming guidance” such as body adornments and facial piercings generally favored by the Millennials and Gen Z new hires. Such new flight attendants falling primarily within the above age and generational demographic– seem to require more specific clarifications by the promulgation of new additional rules and by Delta… since there was previously no rules (other looking professional) against neon colored hair, facial modifications, tatoo’s, nose piercings, eyebrow piercings, glitter nail-polish etcetera.
The airline recently released a two page memo for “appearance requirements” for future hires outlining strict guidelines for how one should look during the interview process, training and throughout their career.
Delta outlines stipulations for grooming, hair, jewelry and clothing — and includes a specific rule regarding underwear. According to the memo, potential hires and current flight attendants must wear “proper undergarments,” but they “must not be visible.”.
This is a new change to appearance requirements meant to make the guidelines “more specific,” according to a Delta spokesperson.
“In the interest of transparency and clarity for all prospective candidates we are encouraging people to “dress for success” and give a great first impression as they aspire to join the flight attendant ranks,” the spokesperson said.
The document lists a range of specific guidelines aside from the need for underwear.
The new rule requiring “proper undergarments,” but being invisible, raises more questions, than it’s declaration clarifies.
The letter of guidance cites “Delta Flight Attendants spend the most time with our customers and are the face of our airline,” the document says. “The customer service experience begins the moment a Flight Attendant puts on their uniform.”
In the subsection for hair, it states attendants must have “natural looking” hair color with “no stark highlights or unnatural shades.” If their hair is longer than the shoulder, it must be “pulled completely back and secured away from the eyes,” and if it still extends past the middle of the back, it needs to be pinned up.
When it comes to grooming, “personal cleanliness and hygiene must always be maintained.” It explained that “eyelashes should appear natural, avoiding extreme length and volume,” while “facial hair must be trimmed and neatly maintained.” With eyelash extensions being the new fashion grooming rage and a boon to women dreading the daily routine of having to apply make-up, extensions come in varying thickness and lengths that can range anywhere from glam, to stunning, to looking like a try-out to be one of RuPaul’s drag queen contestants.
The memo stipulates “No neon colors, multi-color, adornments, glitter, hand-painted designs or airbrushed nails permitted,”. When it came to flight attendants’ nails, Delta included numerous regulations, writing, “Fingernails must be clean, neat, trimmed and, if polished, chip-free.
It also stated that “visible tattoos” were not permitted and “must be covered by clothing or waterproof makeup” with a nod to the generational trend of the new crop of Millennials and Gen Z new hires who are generally inked/tatooed. Additionally adding– “tattoos must be covered, but bandages are not suitable for coverage of tattoos at any time.”
Delta says that clothing “must be professional and fit properly” — “dresses and skirts should be at or below knee length.” — “Athletic shoes are not allowed, and shoes worn must be closed-toe flats, heels or slingback.
The document lists a range of specific guidelines aside from the need for invisible underwear. A few of them beyond our understanding… like an “ear-stretching gauge”.. do we need to be born after the new millennia to comprehend what device that is?
They also said that during the interview day, “profanity, chewing gum and the use of phones or earbuds are not permitted”… pretty obvious rules that shouldn’t have needed to be stated. If someone’s going to exhibit that kind of behavior.. why would Delta want to hire them in the first place? The neon-streaked hair might also be a clue as to who they want to hire, or not.
We say… let them curse and chew gum during the interview and reveal themselves as not being a serious or desirable flight attendant candidates… NEXT!
According to Delta.. “We will work with you to accommodate a specific manner of dress or physical appearance in keeping with religious beliefs or practices unless it causes a safety hazard or other undue burden on the company,” the memo clarifies.
Our take? These new requirements pretty much appear to be “common sense” rules, probably necessitated by new hires flaunting their body adornments or facial modification harkening back to the hilarious portrayal by Rosanna Arquette of the multi-pierced girlfriend of drug dealer to Vincent Vega (played by John Travolta) the in the classic-cult movie Pulp Fiction,
However a lot of these common-sense rules seem to need to be articulated to the new generation of flight attendants whose societal guidance comes from solely from their school of social media, Instagram and Tik-Tok influencers.
However, since Hosiery.News is dedicated to hosiery news, the only rule that has evoked so many comments, is the underwear and hosiery rule that is covered by (pun intended) the stated hemline policy “Dresses and skirts should be at or below knee length.”. Practically speaking, any over-the-knee dress length is highly unlikely to ride-up high enough to expose any thigh or [im]proper underwear.
Delta then for some unknown reason added this rule: “Proper undergarments must be worn but must not be visible.” without defining what a “proper undergarment” might be, and how they might be visible. What are we talking here… a corset?
What possible undergarment could be revealed underneath a knee-length uniform dress? What kind of knickers could be so revealing? Inquiring minds want to know!
I have recently actually caught a glimpse of the reveal of the stocking top bands of a few flight attendants (Southwest) who are obvious hosiery aficionados, and who wear stockings and garters under their uniforms. How could that be? Unless Southwest doesn’t have the same steadfast over the knee length rule.
Unless they’re wearing bodycon uniform dresses (which I’m sure don’t exist in the real world), one shouldn’t need to worry about pantylines reveal, or even the bas-relief suggestion of garters (stocking suspenders) underneath.
Is this vague rule as what constitutes “proper undergarment”– an oblique attack on the lingerie industry or maybe Victoria’s Secret padded push up bras as “improper underwear” to flight attendants who want to have fun with their feeling sexy after hitting their hotel room after a long hard day, disrobing from their flight uniform and rediscovering or liberating their sexy-sub-surface-self to relieve the day’s stress with a relaxing finale? Food for thought… or maybe just a packet of peanuts or pretzels.
In a separate but related story, is another major airline over-the-line attempts to define and dictate underwear colors and styles. British Airways bosses have recently apologized for telling cabin crew members what bras to wear under new “transparent” uniforms following complaints from passengers. According to British Airways, the see-through blouses were issued as part of a new uniform, unveiled earlier this year, designed to “take the airline into the next chapter” and for a non binary crew.
BA heralded the launch as “marking a new era” for the airline, but now some of its female flight crews have criticized the translucent blouses revealing the bras underneath as being “cheap”, while others complained that passengers were constantly commenting on their underwear. The flimsy blouses were so sheer that shortly after issuing crew members with the controversial Ozwald Boateng-designed uniforms last year, the airline then sent out detailed guidance on what kind of underwear that flight attendants should wear.
Because flight attendants would choose their own style and color of underwear, the airlines, and the adverse passenger comments, necessitated the airlines issuing a new underwear rule: “Undergarments should be plain white or nude, with no lace, patterns or writing.”. This airline dictum provoked hornets nest of controversy.
BA executives have now backed down and removed the rule of what underwear is to be worn. A source said: “It’s been a humiliation for crew constantly queried by passengers about their bra.”
British Airways is making female uniform blouses at least 43% thicker because the original design was so sheer that it was partially see through, leading to widespread complaints from staffers and an intervention from a flight attendant union after employees were told what underwear to wear.
According to blog site Paddle your own Kanoo, in a now retracted official guidance memo, British Airways directed flight crew members to wear white bras and t-shirts and to avoid wearing lacy or patterned bras because the design might be visible through the silky blouse.
The guidance was recently ditched after the official cabin crew uniform members issued a formal complaint, suggesting that it was absurd that they were forced to raise concerns over the guidance in the first place.
Earlier this year, British Airways was forced to seek feedback from disgruntled workers over the new uniform. After digesting the results, the UK carrier admitted that the new look garments “were not quite hitting the mark”.
The airline has now told female employees that it is exploring two new fabric options for the blouse, which will be at least 43% thicker than the original fabric. British Airways is also redesigning the collar of the ivory colored blouse because it was prone to makeup stains from facial contact.
But one thing for sure, those baby boomers who are old enough to remember the earlier years of airline travel before it became mass-transit, must recall now-defunct Braniff Airlines featuring Emilo Pucci uniforms with white go-go boots, or their gorgeous taupe colored Halston uniforms, have to chuckle at the evolution of the post gender equality movement of the 1990’s as it relates to rise and fall of hemlines, and the ageless professional and powerful attraction of women’s legs in dresses.