Originally Posted by CousinEddie

I'll take some heat here I'm sure. The hat should stay full time for international ops as it is now along with the other requirements.

There I was in the departing customs line in PEK a few months ago. It was the four of us, a full AA crew in front of us, and a full Air China crew in the adjacent line. The Captain of the AA crew was sporting his leather jacket, epaulets on it, no hat, and a bit of a limp as he walked. One of the FOs had no hat and a uniform so creased and wrinkled that in looked like it had spent the last 48 hours on the floor of his hotel room. Most of the flight attendants had various non uniform coats on and looked sloppy in general, like the two pilots.

Looking over at the Air China crew, well, they looked immaculate. Each and every one of them. As I looked back and forth, the difference was night and day. It was quite pathetic really. I thought if I was spending thousands on a business class ticket, which crew would I want to spend 12+ hours in the air with? Easy choice when spending the big bucks that the airlines fight so hard for.

I'm not picking on AA by any means. I've seen similar things with our crews. While we may roll our eyes about it, image still matters. That line I was standing in back in PEK proved the point.

Flame away.

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops

This isn't intended as a flame in any way. That said, if you honestly believe that how you look standing in the customs line drives revenue, I think you are kidding yourself. Loyalty programs drive revenue. We crapped on our MP members post merger and they (rightly) went elsewhere. An exec actually said our mp members were too "entitled". Now we are trying to buy them back.

Good marketing use of airframes drives revenue. How about we not stuff high revenue pax on 737s out of hkg for tags basically destroying a market. Or 777 ord to hkg that can't support freight, so we basically destroy another revenue stream. The horrible decisions made by our management have done far more to destroy revenue than you can possibly imagine, but hey let's make sure we wear our hats. The list goes on re just how badly we are being managed on a daily basis. That's what costs us revenue imho. We offer a pretty crappy product in many markets.

Originally Posted by CousinEddie

Or the one that clears San Bruno Mountain by half a wingspan, right?

Originally Posted by sleeves

I agree with Eddie. I can't control MGT. decisions. I can control how I represent the company and our product. Being professional, and looking the part is part of it.

Originally Posted by Grumble

Which realtor would you rather work with, the one that shows up in a 10 year old Prius wearing flip flops, or the one wearing a suit driving a nice SUV/car? Which would you rather have representing you?

First rule of being good, is looking good. Getting respected as a professional means looking like one first. 99% of the traveling public never interact with us on a regular basis. What they see is what they know/perceive. That said, I wear what the FOM says. Hat/coat in winter, shirt only in summer.

Originally Posted by sleeves

I agree with Eddie. I can't control MGT. decisions. I can control how I represent the company and our product. Being professional, and looking the part is part of it.

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops

You need a hat to be professional? Or does it just make you feel that way? What part of a hat makes you even look professional? It is an absurd throwback. Not saying you can't or shouldn't wear one if that's your deal, carry one, commute with one, etc.

The funny part is ual doesn't give a crap either. As soon as there was pushback on the ual side, they made it optional. The whole part of the year thing is 100% cal.

Originally Posted by sleeves

I don't need a hat to make me professional but it does help portrait to others, whom may only see me and not give me a check ride before getting on my flight that I am professional. If you were to show people a picture of a pilot wearing a neat professional uniform including a hat and a pilot not portraying that image, most people are gonna go with the guy in the hat. Maybe UAL made it optional because it allows the company to minimize you and your perception to the public? You wore a suit to the interview for the job right? Was it to portrait a positive image of yourself? When you interviewed you knew that hat wearing was gonna be a part of said job right?

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops

Said job? You mean the one with a pension that the executives kept but stole from me and my peers? How about the part where my pay was cut by half, and many of my peers were furloughed... Twice. Is it that job you're talking about?

Again, the public doesn't care. They've made that perfectly clear. United doesn't care either. Cal, however, seems to care. They also cowered under Abbot, Pierce, et al. Well played. The changes coming to flt ops bare that out. When Bo gets pushed out we truly have lost a battle. But hey, I am sure that Muir has your best interests. Just like Abbott did. So, how important is that hat again?

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops

See, I think the first rule of being good is actually being good. I will gladly take a realtor that gets the job done wearing flip flops and driving a Prius over ego, a nice suit and a Bmw.

.

Originally Posted by Grumble

That's a noble ideal, but it's not the world we live in.

Same reason you show up for a job interview looking your best. Every time you show up for work, what your passengers see when you walk up to the gate is the first, and likely only impression they'll see. Show up looking like a second rate slob, doing a great job is only digging yourself out of the perceived hole you started in.