The topic of airline uniforms often sparks lively discussions, particularly among pilots who wear them daily. A recent online conversation highlights the experiences and expectations surrounding pilot uniforms, using as a notable point of reference. This discussion revolves around comparisons of uniform quality, design, and the ongoing quest for the ideal professional appearance in the aviation industry.
Pilots, while valuing individuality, also recognize the importance of a standardized, high-quality uniform that reflects their profession’s dignity and functionality. The online forum post “Upntheair27” humorously juxtaposes M&H uniforms with the prestigious designer Giorgio Armani, stating, “Yeah! Makes M&H look like Georgio Armani!” This lighthearted comment, however, precedes a more critical point about the perceived shortcomings of M&H uniforms, specifically mentioning “poor quality etc.” This sentiment underscores a common concern among uniform wearers: durability and overall quality.
The conversation quickly pivots to a comparison with Brooks Brothers uniforms, reportedly being tested as a potential upgrade. The initial feedback suggests a significant improvement in “fit/quality” compared to the existing M&H uniforms. This comparison implicitly positions M&H uniforms as a benchmark – one that, according to user feedback, falls short of desired standards. Several specific design elements of the new uniforms are addressed in response to online speculation and pilot feedback:
Firstly, concerns about the tie color being “purple” are clarified. The poster indicates that the color is more accurately described as “royal/maroon/plum colored” and, importantly, that it “isn’t set in stone,” suggesting flexibility and responsiveness to feedback in the design process. This addresses a key visual aspect of uniform aesthetics.
Secondly, the discussion touches upon the “wings and hat brass.” The current silver versions being worn by wear testers are acknowledged as potentially looking “terrible.” This indicates an awareness of the importance of these symbolic uniform elements and that the final versions are yet to be released, implying further refinement is expected.
Thirdly, the “male flight attendant jacket” that circulated on social media and was likened to a “circus ringmaster look” is addressed. Reassuringly, the poster states it is “already being redesigned,” demonstrating a proactive approach to address design flaws and negative perceptions.
Beyond aesthetics, practical considerations like the overcoat and tech jackets are mentioned. The overcoat is now made of wool, with an option for cashmere, highlighting an upgrade in material quality. Tech jackets are being discussed as replacements for leather jackets, intended for practical use in various weather conditions, suggesting a move towards more functional and versatile outerwear options.
The forum post concludes by reflecting on the pilot community’s engagement with uniform discussions. It observes the pilots’ desire for both individuality and uniformity, acknowledging the inherent complexities in uniform design and acceptance. The author expresses optimism about the new uniforms, citing personal experience with Brooks Brothers’ construction quality and the convenience of their store locations in airline hubs for uniform procurement and potential last-minute needs.
In conclusion, the online discussion uses M&H uniforms as a comparative baseline to evaluate new airline pilot uniforms. The feedback suggests a desire for improved quality and design, with Brooks Brothers uniforms presented as a promising alternative. The conversation underscores the importance of uniform quality, aesthetics, and functionality for airline professionals and highlights the ongoing dialogue between uniform providers and those who wear them.
