I'm one of those people that try to see both sides of an argument.  Unfortunately in this situation, I do see both sides.  I didn't until I started to read some of the comments left by people passionate for one side or the other and they both make a good point.  What do you think?

The airline in question is United Airlines and I believe they are being unjustly accused of body shaming a 10 year old girl for her choice in clothing, but then again, leggings are what people of all ages are wearing now days and a comfy choice for sitting on an airplane for hours.  The problem is that the girl was flying from Denver to Minneapolis on tickets that were considered "guests of the airline".  That dubious honor comes with some rules and one was a specific dress code.  I get that, although who would have known they were guests of the airline?  You don't wear a sign, button or badge that says so, no one else would have had to have known.

Instead, this girl and two companions she was flying with were denied entry onto the aircraft.  It's not known how old the other two people were but I think it was wrong to break the three of them up and make the 10 year old fly alone, which she did because she had a change of clothing with her.  The other two did not.

So, I understand that there are rules to follow when traveling as a guest of the airline, but whomever gave them that status should have been aware of the rules and shared them with the three.  However, given that the three were traveling together and that none of the other passengers would have known, they should have allowed them on the flight and chalked it up to a learning experience for next time.  Instead, it has caused some commotion promotion or negative publicity for United Airlines and that probably could have been avoid.  Thoughts?

UPDATE:  After I wrote this blog, a United Airlines spokesperson claims that the threesome was kept together and were scheduled on the next flight.  So, what changed from their original flight plans?  The 10 year old had a change of clothes to comply but the other two didn't.  I don't get it.

More From B105