Video: Too hot to fly — the sequel!
posted at 5:00 pm on September 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
With thanks to TGT11. Once is an overeager employee, twice is company policy. Why? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
The interviewer looked a little like Harry Reid.
Bradky on September 12, 2007 at 9:58 PM
The terrorists have won.
Oh well, at least we still have Hooters Air. Wait…
CliffHanger on September 12, 2007 at 9:58 PM
FLASH: Southwest Airlines changes name: Burqa King.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 12, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Be careful what you ask for - imagine your seatmate dressed like that but being Janet Reno!
Bradky on September 12, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Shouldn’t that be the “flying whee-mams”?
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 12, 2007 at 10:17 PM
In this day and age, I think a woman’s skimpy clothing ought to be the last God-damned thing an airline is worried about. I hate to fly because of the problems and lack of security in the f___ing airports, and these idiots are concerned about some girls dress? Or lack therof!!!!
4shoes on September 12, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Indeed I do and indeed it does.
Here, for example, is an absolute textbook illustration of that particular hatred, one that - as in this case - is almost always fueled by deep-seated sexual insecurities:
Most of us - those over the age of 12 - don’t talk about women like that, or even think like that, certainly not in those terms … and don’t have much respect for those who do. That kind of talk generally comes only from those who are perpetually rejected by women, or who are perpetually trapped in their adolescence.
Misogyny was probably a little too polite in hindsight, now that I re-read what you so proudly belched out. That you don’t even recognize for what it is is frankly frightening. It reads like the rant of a serial killer. Read Ted Bundy’s diaries some time. He had very, very similar ideas about women. Those slutty knob gobblers of yours.
A hatred of women is a pretty apt description of your behavior. A pretty deep hatred.
No offense.
Professor Blather on September 12, 2007 at 10:20 PM
AZCON’s “Steward” rules regarding the order of kicking off flights:
First: The Obese who board last and sit next to me.
Second: The smelly.
Third: The brokers and agents who talk you up for a 3 hour flight, and as the pilot re-lights the seatbelt sign, discloses to you their profession and their willingness to help.
Fourth: Little poorly behaved kids.
Fifth: Snorers.
Sixth: Really loud laptop typers.
(There are about ten more before I ever get to “young girls wearing summer clothes in the desert in the summer”)
AZCON on September 12, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Oh. The irony.
Tell us more about hypocrisy. Please.
For the record, I’m judging you on one thing: your behavior.
Maybe you ought to examine it. Or at least go look up “self-awareness” and “self-parody” and “sociopath.” They’re all under “s.”
Carry on. Tell us more about how you “know” these “knob gobbling” “sluts” and can judge them - but we can’t judge you on your own words and actions.
Professor Blather on September 12, 2007 at 10:25 PM
You can have our new neighborhood psycho. I’d prefer to go back to being called a liberal for suggesting Coulter calling Edwards a “faggot” might not be the height of conservatism.
(There. That should get the thread high-jacked until morning)
P.S. You’re just jealous of Mitt’s hair. It’s awesome, isn’t it?
Professor Blather on September 12, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Only if she comes from a Muslim family. Not everyone with an Arabic/Farsi name is a Muslim. (See Lebanon and Iran.)
baldilocks on September 12, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I’m suspecting that this girl is of Persian (Iranian) descent. Many who are here in the states are Christians and Jews.
baldilocks on September 12, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I can’t believe some of you people keep using California as a basis for “normal”. Nothing and nobody is normal in California. Vegas either. You shouldn’t use two of the sleaziest places in America and say “Oh, that’s normal attire around here”.
Personally, I would really like to hear from some of the passengers who witnessed the incidents. The chicks showing up on TV will of course pull and adjust (maybe even lower the hem) on their clothes and say “This is exactly what I wore”.
I’m more interested in how they wore them. I think this is less about being innocently bumped off flights and more like publicity hounding to me.
Two incidences so close together is pretty suspicious too. The liberals keep screaming “we are losing our rights”. Are they trying to “prove” it by staging these acts?
Guardian on September 12, 2007 at 11:22 PM
I’m betting this is an islamist attack to subvert our precious liberties. After all if she isn’t wearing a burka then she is under dressed.
All humor aside, if Southwest were going to act on atire complaints, any complaint from a islamist loon would result in this response from Southwest to any woman not wearing a burka or niqab.
Low grade dhimmi perhaps?
drewmesq on September 12, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Bing. She’s “milking it”, if you will.
Jaibones on September 12, 2007 at 11:31 PM
It’s too bad i can’t respond to you the way i want to, but the rules apparently apply to me and not you, and you’re not worth getting banned over.
That’s an accurate description of how women i know who dress like that behave, that’s not misogny, that’s reality. And for the fourth or fifth time, i don’t have a problem with it, but i’m not going to shy away from pointing it out just because it offends your delicate little sensibilities.
fo
I know it may come as a shock to you, but if you call people names, they’re going to respond in kind. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s treating you the way you deserve to be treated.
I’ve been commenting here for about a year. And nothing i said even comes close to your serial killer analogy.
forged rite on September 12, 2007 at 11:33 PM
That’s why I specified “distant” relatives… she’d never dare dress like that if she had any close relatives with the mindset to be worried about:
RightWinged on September 13, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Sorry to break the news to you, but probably 80% of SWA flights to Las Vegas are boarded with Californians. If you look real close at a map you might be able to see how close Calif. is to Las Vegas…hence the reference to Calif.
Just a guess…but I would say if any girl wanted to party or make a few bucks, a 45 minute flight to Vegas wouldn’t be out of the question. And most girls don’t party in a moo-moo.
right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:46 AM
definitely hotter than the first chick
jediwebdude on September 13, 2007 at 1:07 AM
right2bright, you **** *** ******* ***** with a **** ******* **** in the ***** **** ********************* fruit loops *** *****!!
Hope that helps.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 13, 2007 at 2:36 AM
Once again, this from the airline that once put their flight attendants in hot pants.
otcconan on September 13, 2007 at 4:10 AM
In the context of our long war with the Islamists, this is something we should celebrate: More hot women with Arabic/Farsi names dressing like this in public.
This is America, m*****f*****s! Infidels and proud of it!
p.v. cornelius on September 13, 2007 at 6:03 AM
“rivlax,”
Very insightful!
When I listened to the reporter in the news video clip I caught that and thought something similar.
I wondered who on the aircraft complained about the woman’s attire and how did that give carte blanche permission for the flight attendant to crap on the female traveler like that?
When my wife and I were traveling with our then 2 1/2 to 3 year old back in 2000, bound for San Jose, then Boulder, our daughter sat quietly for three hours straight. After some other well behaved children on the aircraft came up to our seat and made her acquaintance, she joined them a few rows back where they sat with their parents. During the next twenty minutes to one half our or so, our daughter and the other children quietly moved between each of our rows, their parents and ours, staying to talk, play a game, etc.
The behavior of all the children, our daughter and the other family’s daughter, was remarkable. They should have been applauded rather than punished. Could the adults, who assumed the right to do whatever they want while on the aircraft, and moved around freely, without complaint, not have more patience with children who sat still for more than three hours before even meeting the other children, and then behaving quite well when they DID play together?
Nevertheless, a flight attendant appeared, bent over, in my face and that of my wife, and, with an intense scowl, and a great deal of anger, scolded my wife and I that the passengers have complained about the children.
I did ask who complained and what was the complaint, but she wanted no part of it and was clearly intent on enforcing her anger, and whatever the passenger, or passengers who “complained” wanted.
This was blatantly unfair and unjust. A passenger or passengers complain, and whoever is the target gets burned.
In the meantime, we had so many adults bumping us, gabbing, and so on, as they moved around the cabin, and we never once complained, even though they made our flight experience quite unpleasant. The same could be said for the flight attendants who moved about the cabin, had unpleasant dispositions, and trampled us repeatedly.
Why the double standard?
Why can adult passengers trample us, bump us, babble and chatter, but they are not targeted as innocent, well behaved children who, after showing more patience and politeness for three straight ours on the plane than most of the adults displayed, quietly and politely play with other children, keeping the walk way clear, and they and their parents are attacked as if the flight attendant wanted to kill us?
Perhaps in the future I will adopt a similar attitude and complain every time someone walks past me, including the flight attendants, explaining how it is uncalled for, and so unpleasant, to have someone smash me in the face with their shoulder or elbow, or luggage, or food or drink cart, and so on, something which is all to common an occurrence when I fly.
Nevertheless, you might be on to something with the complaint coming from a Muslim.
I cannot fault a girl for wearing a short dress, even if she also shows some cleavage. It is not so uncommon. Women in general, just the way they are made, show their shape, even when wearing a sweater, or any kind of dress or skirt. It is just the way they are made.
Like you, I am now curious and I would like to see an investigation into this and see, who lodged the complaint which got the two women singled out.
Was it, by any chance, a member of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage?
William
William2006 on September 13, 2007 at 7:46 AM
I think women degrade themselves when they dress like sluts in public.
They should not be thrown off a plane but they should cover up.
We lose credibility when we dress like prostitutes. And there are other/better ways to get attention.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on September 13, 2007 at 9:11 AM
If we all flew naked no one could hide exposives!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 13, 2007 at 9:41 AM
In both of these situations the hotties both said that the flight attendant told them “this is a family airline”……What airline ISN’T a family airline?
I worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I’m willing to bet that in both of these situations it was just jealous flight attendants themselves who were imposing their will on these girls and just using the excuse that a passenger was the one who complained.
AZ_Mike on September 13, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Hate to break to you but I have seen women dressed like that here in Arizona (Tempe), Dallas, Miami, New Orleans and even in my home away from home state of Minnesota.
The first woman dress was a little short but I would only complain if she didn’t sit next to me. The second woman’s dress was any but inappropriate. When it gets warm out why shouldn’t a woman have the chance to wear a SUNDRESS? It’s not like she was wearing a bikini on the plane (still no complaint unless…). 250,000 plus miles flown and I’ve only sat next to one hottie and she had just got engaged! CMON!!! I guess I used up my prayers and wishes hoping I land safely.
BTW….I’ve seen plenty of women on planes with a ton of cleavage showing. I just don’t get what the frak is going on now.
Ladies, I plea with you to continue to display and share your God given gifts with all of us! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
VikingGoneWild on September 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Wow - you’ve met a quite rare subsample of the population, it seems. Every girl?
So why are you, who doesn’t have a problem with it, arguing on behalf of those who do? Odd.
That’s right, dam-it. What forged rite is alluding to here is that Southwest Airlines is apparently the setting for the next blockbuster sequel, Sluts On A Plane.
We have it on good authority that in this picture, Samuel L. Jackson has traded his cool police gig for a job as the fussy, know-it-all, jealous
stewardflight attendant, and is easily recognized once the k—–gobbling reaches a fever pitch:“I’ve had it with these mutherf—–g sluts on this mutherf—–g plane!!!”
RD on September 13, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Contention.
As far as I know, Southwest can selectively kick people off their flights if they want. You can just not fly them.
All other things aside, I guess we can safely say the art of modesty is lost.
RiverCocytus on September 13, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Southwest Airlines Issues an Apology and Lowers Fares to Match Now Infamous Mini Skirt
Roh boy…
desertdweller on September 18, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]