Posted on 09/07/2007 8:44:17 AM PDT by Drew68
It doesn’t take much to get thrown off an airplane these days, as Kyla Ebbert found out when a Southwest Airlines employee told her she was too bare for the air. Two months later, she’s still trying to figure out what was wrong with her outfit.
In an exclusive appearance Friday on TODAY, Ebbert modeled the outfit she says she wore on the flight in question. It consisted of a snug-fitting white top with a scoop neck that stopped just short of showing cleavage.
Over the shirt was a green sweater that buttoned underneath her bosom. It was finished with high-heeled sandals and a white denim mini-skirt with a fashionably frayed hem.
It was a lot more clothing than the 23-year-old college student wears on her job as a Hooters waitress. Her mother, Michele Ebbert, said she would have told her daughter if the outfit was inappropriate.
“But her outfit is fine, Michele Ebbert told TODAY co-host Matt Lauer. “She looks like every other college girl in San Diego.”
Not according to a Southwest employee identified only as “Keith,” who approached Ebbert after she had taken her seat on the plane and was listening to the flight attendants go through their pre-departure routine.
“He told me, ‘I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to take a later flight. You’re dressed inappropriately. This is a family airline. You’re dressed too provocative to fly on this flight,’ ” she told Lauer.
“I said, ‘What part of it, the shirt, the skirt? Which part?’ “ Ebbert continued, recounting her conversation with Keith about her outfit. “And he said, ‘The whole thing.’“ I said, ‘I didn’t bring any luggage with me. I don’t have anything to change into. What can I do to make sure I can get onto that flight?’ ...”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Put a bag on her head and she is good to go.
I think this photo is how she looked after SouthWest asked her to lower her skirt and raise her tank-top. It’s more likely that your standard journalistic fact omission is in play here. Not that there’s anything wrong with her outfit, mind you.
Six of us had a limo to the airport, the three women sat opposite us gents. The one 'lady' in the group had worn a skirt far too short for the event and ended up getting stuck in the middle with her feet either on the 'hump' or astride it.
As you can imagine, it was an interesting ride since she had nothing on which to brace herself during the ride.
I've always suspected that the driver's eyes were fixed into the mirror and he chose the bumpy, twisty route on purpose! LOL
What’s the matter with pant suits???? As a SAHM that was an engineer a few years ago, pant suits were very practical and good for the office. You can climb over equipment, sit in a meeting without flashing, crawl under equipment without showing anything revealing and still look professional.
I did this all as a 5’7” 120 lb blond haired blue-eyed 25 year old. After work and I church, I dressed more girly. But work was about being professional and practical.
So once she’s seated, where does one’s eyes have to be fixated in order to see something offensive?
Or is a mere glance of flesh now considered offensive?
Yes, the price of freedom includes things that may be distasteful to you.
I’m sure you’ll either get over it or stay indoors listening to your victrola.
Ever see what is sometimes worn under that ‘burhka’?
Trust me, some lingerie stores in the mideast will put Victoria’s Secret to shame.
I’d have to see more of her to make a fair decision......
What skirt are you talking about? All I see around her hips is a bandana.
Ah the good old days.
The "forefathers" preached and wrote a doctrine reflecting the idea that individuals have freedoms not the masses in total.
When individual "freedoms" are infringed upon we are to be protected.
Individual "preference" if perceived as doctrine is nothing more than a road leading to anarchy.
This being the case, you have the right as an individual with God given rights to avoid distaste by others in total if desired.
You also are blessed with the ability to reason via the human factor.
Whining however wasn't a dictated right placed in the Constitution.
Eagle Eye asks: “Ever see what is sometimes worn under that ‘burhka’?”
No, but I’ve heard they wear quite a bit of lingerie (or is it quite a little bit of lingerie).
Its amazing that thing isn't around her ankles.
LOL!You're a genius, Moe. There's just no denying it.
The girl's treatment was arbitrary and Southwest has no uniform dress code.
If her lawyer is competent, she'll get a nice chunk of "go away" money.
keep it up SWA!....its time we said ENOUGH to trash..
Let me guess, you're focused more on the "fair" than the "more". /snicker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.