Female Asiana crew want to wear pants

Photo credit: GETTY

Photo credit: GETTY

THINK again if you believe female cabin crew should only wear dresses and skirts. Asiana Airlines has been asked by South Korea’s human rights commission to ease its dress code to allow female flight attendants to wear pants. The ruling is not binding, but the airline said it would consider pants as an option in future uniform designs.

Many airlines, notably those in the west, have already included pants as part of the uniform for their female crews. For the Asiana crew, it is a victory for the 3,400 female staff who are said to be subject to a very stringent dress code that includes no glasses (which the airline has now allowed), a limit on the number of hairpins and manicured nails at all times.

Three reasons have been cited for the relaxation. First, safety, the one reason that no one wants to refute. But really, where does one draw the line? As Asiana spokesperson Min Man-ki said, “(We) cannot expect flight attendants to wear track suits and sneakers just for safety.” Now one imagines if the sexy qipao worn by female crew of Chinese carriers such as China Airlines, and the unique sarong kebaya won by those of South-east Asian airlines such as Singapore Airlines are any less safe. It is almost inconceivable that they should trade those for pants.

I risk being branded sexist to say I will not forget the elegance of a Korean Air flight attendant in her hanbok paring a pear. Indeed, as Mr Min explained to CNN, “The uniform was designed based on hanbok, Korean traditional dress — women didn’t wear pants traditionally when they wore hanbok.”

At which point therefore does maintaining a certain image become sexist, and upholding a certain standard of grooming become unreasonable? Which, perhaps, goes to explain the noticeable difference between the immaculate presentation of Asian crew compared to the not so fastidious image of American crew. I am told that in the early days of one Asian airline, the crew would stand in line to be inspected lest their nails were unpresentable or their hair was falling out of place.

A second reason cited for Asiana’s consideration was comfort. Perhaps so, and an important criterion. Then again, Mr Min’s comment about track suits and sneakers may be as applicable here. But that would be stretching the argument a little too far. Sure, some budget carriers have gone the way of t-shirts but for the “hang lose” image they wish to project.

Third, the rights to choose. This is probably the thrust of the move upon which the first two reasons were included to lend support to. Denying women that rights would be deemed to be discriminatory, though male crews are unlikely to ask to be permitted to wear dresses and skirts. And dare anyone say that women do not look as good in pants!