Spirit Airlines Boots Couple From Flight In Brouhaha Over Saggy Pants

Wearing what you want to wear on a flight so you can be comfortable is one thing, but is it worth verbally abusing a flight attendant and getting kicked off a plane? Spirit Airlines says a man got quite upset with an attendant after she asked him to pull up his sagging pants.

An airline spokeswoman said the man and a woman he was traveling with over the weekend threatened to physically harm the flight attendant who’d made the request. The attendant apparently said since they were hanging below his butt, they were “excessively low,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

While you’re free to choose your own apparel, the spokeswoman added that crew members may ask customers to comply with various requests if it’s in the best interest of the other customers. Their code says travelers have to wear shoes and “adequate” clothing. So in this case, the best interest the attendants saw was for no one else to see his backside, as it wasn’t being adequately covered by his pants.

Apparently the man didn’t feel like complying, so law enforcement officers arrived and escorted the two customers off the plane. The travelers apparently left on the next flight out. No word on whether he pulled his pants up for that trip.

Man leaves plane after dispute over his saggy pants [Chicago Tribune]


Edit Your Comment

  1. alana0j says:

    Oh my gosh…are these morons not aware of the association sagging has with the butt-bangers in prison?

    • cactus jack says:
      • Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

        The butt portion may be false according to Snopes, but the prison link is confirmed.

        • cactus jack says:

          I see a distinct difference between advertising butt banging availability and how prison clothes tend to be worn.

    • Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

      That what they are advertising. They are bad *ss. Been there, done that, not afraid to go back.

    • chefboyardee says:

      Yeah, and your wedding ring comes from an original place of ownership during pre-caveman times. http://www.rd.com/advice/relationships/the-history-of-engagement-rings/

      So? Does it mean if you wear one now your husband owns you? People are allowed to wear what they want, even if it is ridiculously stupid (which I think baggy pants are). If you don’t like it, turn your head.

      • Riley says:

        Awesome. I am saving that link.

      • Marlin says:

        people can wear what they want, and private business can tell you to get the f__k off their plane

        • Kabusted says:


          • Blueskylaw says:

            That last 2 should actually be a 7. Your thought process is flawed. :-)

            • Kabusted says:

              Though it was completely random, I can verify the numbers as being the correct pattern, though it wasn’t intended…

              1+1 = 2
              2+(the original 1) = 3
              3+(the original 1) = 4
              1+(the original 1) = 1
              So to my pattern, the ! should have been a 3. Either way, it ≠ anything..

            • Not Given says:

              1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21?

        • YouDidWhatNow? says:

          That’s it exactly. I see no valid reason to make saggy pants illegal, so long as whatever’s on under the pants is still adequately covering your butt and your bits.

          However…there’s no reason that a private business can’t specify their own standards for dress code and enforce them. Like a nice pool hall I used to go to in college that had a simple dress code requiring collared shirts on men. That’s their right. Show up there in a t-shirt, and you don’t get in…and you have no legal basis to complain.

          If you want to wear your saggy jeans to court then you’re probably good to go, as a governmental agency, AFAIK, can only enforce a “dress code” to what’s technically legal. I believe you could show up for your tax audit at the IRS office wearing the world’s tiniest thong bikini…and so long as it legally covered the naughty bits, there’s nothing they can do.

          • Not Given says:

            I’ve seen those dumb criminal videos where the guy trips over his pants trying to run away. What if you had to make your way off a plane in an emergency and the passenger in front of you tripped over his pants?

        • TheCorporateGeek Says Common Sense Is The Key says:

          Exactly, enough said.

      • alana0j says:

        Ummm except for sagging pants are being outlawed left and right because it’s considered indecent exposure. I shouldn’t have to turn my head or cover my daughter’s eyes because we’re walking through the mall and some idiot in front of us has his whole ass hanging out of his pants. Covered by a thin pair of boxers or not, it’s still indecent. I don’t know about you, but I’m teaching my children NOT to show their underwear in public…

        • do-it-myself says:

          I guess you are also teaching your children to never go to the beach or a pool.

          • alana0j says:

            Oh my you’re hilarious! If you think that sporting a bathingsuit in a place where it’s appropriate is the same thing as showing your undies in a public setting…well I don’t quite know how to end that sentence.

            • YouDidWhatNow? says:

              OK, I’ll end it for you:

              “If you think that sporting a bathingsuit in a place where it’s appropriate is the same thing as showing your undies in a public setting…well, from a legal standpoint you’re correct so long as the undies provide adequate coverage as specified by the law.”

              Tasteless? Sure. Stupid? Yup. Illegal? Nope.

              • alana0j says:

                Hmm. I’d do it for you but I have to go to work. Do a quick Google search of where sagging is illegal. So yes, it is tasteless, stupid AND illegal, depending on where you are.

                • YouDidWhatNow? says:

                  I am aware of the fact that some municipalities have declared it illegal. I do not believe they have sufficient legal grounds to do so, and if challenged in court, I would expect those laws to be overturned.

                  In any event, the veracity of my statement above still stands – since it ends with “…as specified by the law.” If there’s a law where you are against saggy pants, then you’re not wearing clothing “as specified by the law.”

                  • TheCorporateGeek Says Common Sense Is The Key says:

                    If I can see your ass it’s indecent exposure. But only some money grubbing lawyer would even consider challenging it…none have yet and for sure the nappy thug wearing it that way don’t have the cash to anyway.

              • do-it-myself says:

                Thank you.


                I assume they were also wearing shirts and shoes. Sure, it COULD be up to a business what people should wear (clubs and restaurants do it all the time, but it is transparent most of the time).

                Also, a public setting=public setting.

                It’s damn tacky, but there’s nothing illegal about it.

        • balderdashed says:

          You’re correct that a number of communities have sought to outlaw saggy pants. But some lawmakers’ notion of what constitutes “indecent” exposure seems to have more to do with racism, than with what’s too racy. The article doesn’t say whether those kicked off the plane were African American, but the style of dress to which the flight attendant objected is clearly associated with young black males. The ALCU has challenged some of these “saggy pants” laws as a restriction on freedom of expression, and as racial profiling. The NAACP has criticized similar incidents of African Americans being kicked off flights as racist (including a well-publicized US Airways “saggy pants” case in 2011). I’m don’t much like the saggy pants style myself, but my tastes are irrelevant. I wouldn’t object to city ordinances or airline policies that provide that certain areas of the anatomy must be covered — as long as the rules are applied equally. Too often they aren’t, and for some who are making or enforcing the rules, race is a factor. To pretend otherwise is either disingenuous or naive.

    • Press1forDialTone says:

      We can only hope that somehow, someway, it will become true for
      saggy-pants butt-crackers that do time. I refuse to believe that Snopes
      is right (see below), I just choose to believe that they are wrong, so there.

    • baristabrawl says:

      Butt-banger? Classy.

      You’re 1/2 right. It did start in prison as a way to keep inmates from fighting. If you’re constantly pulling up your pants because they’re too big then you can’t shank your fellow prisoners.

  2. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Because I can see people’s butts while in a plane?

  3. DaveWW says:

    “How inconsiderate of you to ask me to be considerate of others.”

  4. Blueskylaw says:

    First class isn’t an airline ticket, it is a way of life. Pull up your FUC*ING pants!!!

    • chefboyardee says:

      People are allowed to wear what they want, even if it is ridiculously stupid (which I think baggy pants are). If you don’t like it, turn your head.

      I find “fill in whatever shirt you’re wearing, eg Ed Hardy, Dolce & Gabbana, NY Mets, whatever” to be ugly and offensive to my sense of taste, but you know what, I’m not going to bitch about it, because my neck swivels.

      • aerodawg says:

        No actually, on a commercial airliner, you do as instructed by cabin crew and don’t argue. For most intents and purposes, cabin crew is the next best thing to god himself when you’re flying.

      • eldergias says:

        There are public indecency laws. You can’t just “wear whatever you want.” You do actually have to cover certain parts of your body.

        • ARP3 says:

          Then they have to be enforced equally. If the issue is that the guy is showing his underwear, then if there’s some girl showing in too-short shorts or showing her underwear, she should have to be removed as well (despite my personal feelings). If the issue is that the guy is wearing something thug-ish, that’s not the basis to refuse someone (again, despite how I feel about those pants). I guess at some point the airline can specify a dress code, like employers do, but again, you’d need it to be sufficiently descriptive and equally enforced.

          • eldergias says:

            As much as I do love short shorts on a beautiful woman, I agree that whatever code you set needs to be enforced equally.

  5. Marlin says:

    No he was kicked off for being a a__hole.

    “A man was kicked off a Spirit Airlines flight atO’Hare International Airport over the weekend after he became “verbally abusive” to flight attendants.”

    Other stories say he was screaming and cussing at the attendants

  6. JJFIII says:

    Was he showing his ass or underwear? If ass, then the FA was ok, if not mind your own fucking business. I hate seeing fat broads with stretch pants and crocs on a plane, but they do not kick them off. I hate seeing JimBob in camos, body odor from the hunt and no teeth, but he doesnt get kicked off. Seeing a kids boxers is not a big deal and if that is offensive to you, get a life.

    • Kabusted says:

      I don’t care if you want to wear baggy pants, but the plane is someone’s place of business and they can set the standard of attire, including how its worn. Abide or move along. Becoming verbally abusive because someone asks you to comply? You’re an idiot and you deserve more than being allowed to take the next flight.

      • ARP3 says:

        Yes, then they need to describe what that is and consistently enforce it. As to being abusive, yeah, not cool. But I can imagine the frustration as all sorts of other freaks are getting on the plan and you’re singled out.

  7. aerodawg says:

    So I guess you could say the guy was making an ass out of himself?

  8. yankinwaoz says:

    I’m guessing in this case his ass crack was showing. The kids with the pants around the knees look have nice boxers on.

    I recently went to a nice restaurant for dinner. Seated 3 tables away, straight in my line of site, was a man with his back to me. His shirt was too short, and his pants too low.

    When he sat down, the back of the shirt naturally pulled up, and the pants were too low. So my dinner view was a hairy ass crack. I managed to change seats so I didn’t have to see it.

    I couldn’t figure out why neither he, or his wife/GF, noticed this.

    Tip to men.. wear longer shirts.The back rides up when you sit down.

  9. do-it-myself says:

    What I don’t understand is what the big deal is about people’s underwear anyway. No one cares at the beach! It should be perfectly acceptable anywhere else. It’s not indecent exposure if they are covered up, end of story. As stupid as it may look, there are many other things that look stupid as well that are “perfectly acceptable” by societal standards. I don’t like mullet hair styles, but I’m not going to say they shouldn’t be allowed!

    If these people want to unknowingly court themselves to others, like in the prison system, then that’s their own prerogative. Perhaps if someone told them the truth, then they would probably regret doing it in the first place!

    • EllenRose says:

      The guy was loudly screaming (albeit visually) that he was proud to be an obnoxious a-hole, whatcha gonna do about it? What’s with the loud (in reality) screaming when somebody does do something about it?

    • perruptor says:

      Enter text…Assertion of facts not in evidence. Neither the Consumerist post nor the linked newspaper story mention underwear. You assume the guy was wearing underwear, but there’s no reason to assume that.

  10. Portlandia says:

    So he was kicked off the plane for threatening the flight crew not because he had saggy pants. Misleading title is misleading.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      Actually it isn’t.

      “Spirit Airlines Boots Couple From Flight In Brouhaha Over Saggy Pants”

      The brouhaha is what got them booted. The brouhaha happened to be over saggy pants.

      • Portlandia says:

        The person got ejected for threatening the flight crew with physical violence. The baggy pants are just a red herring.

        • YouDidWhatNow? says:

          The “over Saggy Pants” is essentially a modifier to “Brouhaha.” It’s the brouhaha that got them booted…saggy pants is what the brouhaha was about. Not a red herring…it’s simply information about the brouhaha.

  11. HungryHippo says:

    The guy was kicked off the plane for showing agrression- specifically to a flight attendant. I am sure there was a chance he could have remained if he politely declined her request.

    Also all this discussion about sagging being illegal is not really due to actually seeing butts. Cities make it illegal to sag so cops can have a reason to stop people they suspect are drug dealers, gangs, etc. that typically have wear their pants to sag. Its specifically to profilining a certain group. This in itself is also quite lame because sagging pants is an urban style- a strong part of urban culture. Plenty of people that are not drug dealers or in gangs still can have pants sagging for their own reasons that are not illegal- aka Breakdancing artists, etc.

  12. Press1forDialTone says:

    Sir if you insist on exposing your but-crack, then the only seat we have available
    to you is our 10″ first class dildo seat. Please have a seat and buckle, we’re
    ready to take off. Sir, SIT ON IT!

  13. energynotsaved says:

    Travel has become a nightmare. I don’t know if it because we are treated like cattle by the airlines, or we have lost sight of our own obligations as humans. I just wish people would take the time to be respectful of others.

  14. axiomatic says:

    Look airlines… if this pants saggy idiot wants to look like an idiot. Let him. As long as his uncovered ass wasn’t out who cares!?! Somewhere someone thinks that whole saggy pants thing is still cool… but I don’t think it’s illegal or a reason to get the airline fashion police involved either.

  15. Uncle Don says:

    Ahhh, another obama supporter for sure. Aren’t they supposed to use Greyhound?