A passenger was turned away from a Qantas Club for wearing uggs, reigniting debate over the airline's unusual smart casual lounge dress code.
I am glad that my "clean hi-vis uniform" is appropriate attire. Good on you QF! Now, if this can also be applied to inappropriate lounge behavior, too.
My guess is that is specifically specified to be inclusive to the waves of FIFO workers who're going through the airports and dress the part at the airport too
@Rain - good consideration. QF and their affiliates do fly many resource workers to/from their work.
If you go to the Qantas Club here in Perth on shift change day at one of Rio's iron ore mines, then >50% of the lounge is in hi-viz.
I love all the restrictions, but don't get the uggs thing. There are so many things to dislike about the small percentage of pax who seem to want to make your lounge experience terrible. Uggs doesn't make the list.
Yep. Loud "smart-casual" jack-asses barking about their deals, screaming nine-year-olds running wild, luggage-sprawl onto chairs, and drunk lonely middle-aged meltdowns; that's what's infesting the lounges here in the US, at least.
This comes to mind, since you say you travel there, you should recall that it can get quite cold Down Under (certain parts of AU and NZ) this time of year (it is the end of their winter after all). Ugg boots may actually be appropriate, both based on those conditions and historically. Sheepskin boots were originally from Australia. (Great way for surfers to quickly warm cold feet after coming out of the cold Southern Ocean...)
Those are incredibly big slippers if you count that as slippers. They look like shoes to me
@This_comes_to_mind Totally agree you and @1990_ below) on this! Not sure why they won't accept uggs when the UGG company was founded in the US by an Aussie and with sheepskin boots originating in Australia. All the rest I can agree on.
Totally disagree Ben. Long time lurker, first time commenter, I feel obliged to share this perspective.
How people dress is not a tiny matter of personal convenience, it’s a subconscious signal to other people what kind of place this is, and research has shown it actually changes how the wearer behaves. A lounge full of people who made a minimal effort to put on a proper t-shirt and pants reads as “this is a public, paid, somewhat elevated over the terminal space.” A room full of pjs, slippers, gym shorts, and flip-flops reads as “this is an overflow waiting area”.
Obviously I am not suggesting everyone dress in suits or business attire, that regulated era is long gone. But this is one person optimizing their own comfort with everyone else absorbing the visual and social cost. A classic externality
You want to not even put in minimal effort & look like a slob, great there is the whole terminal for you to do so. Love that Qantas has minimal dress standards, wish we could bring some of this to the US
@ Nerfington -- I respect your take! 🙂 I'd slightly quibble with this:
"A lounge full of people who made a minimal effort to put on a proper t-shirt and pants reads as 'this is a public, paid, somewhat elevated over the terminal space.'"
Isn't that exactly what lounges are, though?
@Nerfington - welcome!
Your point echoes the "Broken Window Effect". One unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing, regardless of neighborhood. The same logic applies here: a lounge's atmosphere and reputation are shaped by the worst behavior (and attire) it tolerates. If a lounge wants to differentiate itself from the terminal, that differentiation has to show up as enforced standards. The real question is what kind of lounge it wants to be.
So, how come lounges seemingly ignore people who put their feet up on another chair in the loung?
“the visual and social cost.”
This cost is 100% coming from your own expectations, not the person wearing uggs. It’s your choice if you let it bother you.
@bretmd, I agree. However, consistently enforced, well-detailed, and well-publicized standards by the host would overcome this variance.
@corycesar I guess the way that I look at it is - if you are letting someone wearing uggs bother you, then your mind would likely just find something else in the environment to bother you, different dress code or not. That’s generally how it goes with these minor quibbles, might as well let it go
My take: I mind my own business and focus on how I want to present myself. The world would be a difficult place to function if I were concerned with the conduct displayed by everyone around me.
100% agreed. Wish people tried a bit harder in general, it doesn’t take that much effort.
@nerfington - you are likely the same guy that tells kids to get off your lawn and talk about “backing my day”. I’m old (68) but don’t hang on the things from the past. The world has changed. You do what you want but don’t enforce your beliefs on others. They usually don’t impact you. If so it is likely a “you” problem.
I'd be supportive if they asked you to change upon entry. Or if they reminded people to change on the plane before landing. But otherwise it could create a surprise if you dressed for comfort to sleep.
So, Qantas found those boots to be... UGGly. *ba dum tss*
LoyaltyLobby included the passenger's own 'take' on the incident. Cassidy was like, 'I'm a Gold member, and just wanted a glass of wine before my flight... I love Qantas, and fly them all the time... Qantas please don't hate me.' She blames the Daily Mail for taking it out of context and going hyperbolic. I'm kinda with her on this one.
This 'incident' happened at the Qantas Club in Melbourne; it's winter in Australia now (and it can actually get cold there), so, you can't blame her for wanting to have warm feet.
I live in Melbourne, and don't have to stop to the level of UGGs to keep my feet warm during our temperate winters.
And of course she's a gold FF. As a friend who once worked for Qantas told me, "Golds are the worst!" in terms of delusional expectations derived from their status.
Did Sebby suggest her to demand 700k miles and free round the world ticket for the inconvenience?
It's really a no-bogans policy, which is necessary in Australia.
Agreed. Our dress standards are not exactly high, but if they didn't have the smart-casual requirement, then the Qantas Club would be full of Jetstar passengers heading for Bali, dressed in a Bintang singlet and bare feet.
Uggs are Australian, or at least were before selling out and in Australia are slippers only worn inside your own house.
This policy is not a surprise to me. People need to realize that different countries and cultures have different standards for dress in public spaces
Are Uggs really more offensive than Crocs? Why are Crocs ok in the lounge but Uggs aren’t?
UGGs are one thing that should be discussed-invented.
There’s nothing smart about Ugg’s.
I used to live in Australia and the new rules really sound non-Australian to me, in particular the no flip flop (they call them thongs) and no UGG rule. At least during my time, a large share of the population walked in flip flops during the hot months, in cold months some switched to uggs. And kids/adolescents often walked entirely barefoot year around.
I don't know if this has changed in general, or if it's only Qantas ...
i've entered the LHR one many times with flip flops on, but this last time got dinged for it and had to awkwardly struggle into some sneakers in the lobby before they let me in
More airlines should adopt a dress code. Dressing for comfort and not being a slob can easily be achieved.
Though “rubber thong” sounded like some form of kinky underwear before I saw the picture and it’s just flip flops lol
Yeah, the "rubber" part threw me off. I'm used to "thongs" meaning flip-flops or sandals, but rubber ones really got the imagination going.
Qantas makes it clear that uggs are not permitted.
No sympathy for the passenger at all.
Praise the lord, someone maintains decorum in travel. But as much as I think uggs look terrible, I also think they qualify as business casual.
I do find the specific ban on Uggs kinda strange - I can understand banning open footwear (flip flops/slides). As someone who grew up in LA where uggs and a miniskirt were pretty standard, it seems strange.
More airlines should follow Qantas' example. There is nothing in these rules that prevents you from being comfortable, or traveling in clothing that is well suited for log haul travel.
Then again, it is not often I see people in airports or lounges that would violate these rules. Except maybe the (Australian definition of the word) thongs in Australia. Without discussing the sartorial aspects of them, they are probably the worst possible footwear should an evacuation become necessary, and for that reason should be banned on planes in general.
I don't know what the fact that airlines hand out PJs has to do with lounge dress codes, or elsewhere. Hotels has bathrobes in the rooms, that is not an encouragement to wear them in the hotel restaurants.
“I don't know what the fact that airlines hand out PJs has to do with lounge dress codes, or elsewhere. Hotels has bathrobes in the rooms, that is not an encouragement to wear them in the hotel restaurants.”
This. Exactly this. Being allowed to wear PJs on a flight also doesn’t mean you should wear them into the terminal. So if you’re gonna change, you can change into anything.
So the PJ argument is a bit of a stretch at best imo.
Eh, you haven't lived until you've walked through airport security into a lounge after taking a swim.
As for Uggs... my vote would be on their own is ok, but if paired with a Juicy Couture sweatsuit outfit...