NEWS

You do not board a Spirit plane if you are barefoot, scantily clad, or have offensive tattoos.

The American low-cost airline Spirit Airlines, which filed for bankruptcy last November, is making headlines now with its new rules on tattoos and onboard clothing that can ground more than one passenger.

The new “code” prohibits travel on airliners Spirit Airlines to barefoot passengers, those who wear clothes that reveal too much, expose private parts or show tattoos that are offensive, lustful or obscene, according to the media that have reported the news, such as CNN or the KSAT channel. .

Those who do not wear shoes or use “inappropriate clothing“They will not be able to set foot on the plane, the media reports.

These measures are part of the new rules for passengers, which not only cover how the traveler is dressed but also what they have taken before boarding (alcohol or drugs), if he suffers from a contagious disease or if his behavior is violent or disorderly and interferes with the work of the crew.

In this regard, it establishes that the passenger must be willing or able to sit in a seat and wear a seat belt during the flight.

The media remember that months before the update of these regulations Spirit Airlines had prevented two young female passengers wearing midriff-baring T-shirts and a young man wearing a hooded sweatshirt with a printed legend containing a swear word from taking a flight.

In the middle of this month, the company based in Dania Beach (Florida) announced the elimination of about 200 jobs in various departments with the aim of reducing expenses after declaring bankruptcy last November.

In an attempt to cut costs, the airline had previously laid off hundreds of pilots and had also offered furloughs to flight attendants and stewards, in addition to reducing its network and reaching agreements to sell part of its fleet of Airbus aircraft to raise funds. funds.

Spirit Airlines is in financial crisis since Jetblue broke off a $6.6 billion purchase agreement; Previously, the US Department of Justice had opposed the purchase agreement for violating antitrust laws.



Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button