When Nostalgia Meets Reality: The Debate Over Modern Air Travel Etiquette

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy recently sparked a nationwide conversation about airline etiquette with his “Golden Age of Travel” campaign, which nostalgically looks back to the 1950s and 60s as a model for today’s flyers. Launching just before what the FAA predicted would be the busiest Thanksgiving travel period in 15 years, Duffy’s initiative aims to address rising incidents of passenger misconduct by encouraging Americans to dress more formally and behave with greater civility when flying. “Manners don’t stop at the gate,” Duffy states in the Department of Transportation’s campaign video, which contrasts orderly mid-century terminals with recent footage of passenger conflicts and inappropriate behavior. Speaking at Newark Airport, Duffy specifically targeted casual attire: “Let’s try not to wear slippers and pajamas as we come to the airport.” This sartorial suggestion, however well-intentioned, quickly became the focal point of public criticism, with many travelers arguing that the campaign fundamentally misunderstands the realities of modern air travel.

The backlash across social media platforms was swift and pointed, with travelers suggesting that Duffy’s focus on appearance misdiagnoses the actual problems plaguing contemporary aviation. Many commenters emphasized that today’s flying experience bears little resemblance to the romanticized “golden age” depicted in the campaign. As Bluesky user Terri De put it, “This isn’t the 50s when it was actually very pleasant to fly. Now we are squeezed in like cattle and it’s almost as bad as taking the bus.” Another user pragmatically noted, “As long as there’s a reasonable chance I’m sleeping on the airport floor because of flight delays, I’ll wear whatever I want.” These responses reflect a common sentiment that passenger comfort attire is a reasonable adaptation to an increasingly uncomfortable experience characterized by crowded cabins, frequent delays, invasive security procedures, and rising costs. Rather than focusing on passenger dress codes, critics suggest that addressing these structural issues would do more to improve the flying experience and potentially reduce incidents of passenger misconduct.

While the DOT cites concerning statistics about unruly passenger behavior—13,800 incidents since 2021 and one in five flight attendants reporting physical confrontations—aviation historians caution against an overly rosy view of air travel’s past. The International Air Transport Association reports that globally, disruptive passenger incidents occurred on one in every 395 flights in 2024, indicating a genuine increase in problematic behavior. However, the “golden age” had its own significant drawbacks that are often overlooked in nostalgic retrospectives. In the 1950s, cabins were filled with cigarette smoke, hijackings were more common, and flight attendants faced strict appearance-based employment rules that would be considered discriminatory by today’s standards. Perhaps most importantly, air travel was substantially more expensive, making it an exclusive luxury available primarily to the wealthy. And while passenger behavior might have been more formal, safety statistics tell a sobering story—according to Airbus data, the rate of fatal accidents per million flights has plummeted from 10 in 1961 to nearly zero today. This dramatic improvement in safety suggests that some aspects of modern aviation represent genuine progress rather than decline.

Interestingly, Duffy’s call for more formal attire comes at a time when airlines themselves are moving in the opposite direction, embracing more casual, inclusive, and contemporary uniform policies. Australia’s low-cost carrier Bonza abandoned formal uniforms entirely in 2022, allowing crew members to wear branded casual clothing like T-shirts and shorts, and permitting visible tattoos while making makeup optional. Similarly, major American carriers have modernized their appearance codes—Alaska Airlines created gender-neutral uniform options, United Airlines now permits some visible tattoos and equal grooming standards across genders, and Virgin Atlantic dropped mandatory makeup requirements for female crew in 2019. Perhaps the most casual approach can be found in the Maldives, where Trans Maldivian Airways pilots sometimes fly barefoot or in flip-flops. This industry-wide shift toward more relaxed, practical, and inclusive appearance standards stands in stark contrast to Duffy’s suggestion that passengers should dress more formally, raising questions about whether the campaign’s vision aligns with contemporary values and practical realities.

Despite widespread criticism, Duffy’s call for greater civility has found some supporters who agree that basic courtesy toward airline staff and fellow passengers would improve the travel experience. One Reddit user expressed a moderate perspective: “As long as you’re covered I don’t care what you wear. More politeness I can get behind.” Aviation experts similarly acknowledge that respectful behavior makes travel safer and more pleasant for everyone involved. However, many critics point out that passenger behavior doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it’s shaped by the conditions of modern air travel, including increasingly cramped seating, reduced services, operational disruptions, and a business model that often prioritizes profit maximization over passenger comfort. As one Reddit commenter observed, “Air travel at one time was an enjoyable experience. Today, not so much. Airlines treat passengers like a commodity.” Others suggest that developing alternative transportation options, particularly expanding domestic rail networks, would give travelers choices beyond flying and potentially reduce the passenger volume contributing to airport congestion and stress.

The debate over Duffy’s “Golden Age of Travel” campaign ultimately reflects broader questions about how we balance nostalgia with progress and individual responsibility with systemic change. While most would agree that improved passenger behavior would benefit everyone, critics argue that focusing on superficial aspects like dress codes misses the deeper structural issues affecting modern air travel. Without addressing the fundamental stressors—overcrowding, delays, diminishing comfort, high costs, and limited alternatives—behavioral campaigns risk appearing tone-deaf. The conversation highlights a disconnect between idealized visions of air travel’s past and the pragmatic realities faced by today’s passengers. Perhaps the most constructive path forward lies not in trying to recapture a selectively remembered “golden age,” but in acknowledging both the improvements and challenges of modern aviation while working toward solutions that make flying more humane, accessible, and less stressful for everyone involved, regardless of what they’re wearing.