Most people who travel for business usually show up at the airport either dressed for going to an appointment or coming from one, so they are usually in business attire, which generally makes people look better than if they are dressed for comfort.
I’m sure that if Brad Pitt or Halle Berry came on a flight in cutoff jeans and a giveaway t-shirt, they’d still look great, but for folks in general, that is not the case.
The only two airport personal appearance things I’ve noticed is that 1) at Charles de Gaulle, there are tons of people wearing the most amazing traditional clothes, and 2) female flight attendants, to my eyes, tend to look like Uma Thurman in Gattaca.
Come to think of it, I have never known a truly beautiful woman who was poor. She either had a good job, or had a man with a good job, and thus at least looked successful.
I’ve seen all sorts of ugly guys who’d be considered successful, though.
Actually, this is contrary to my experience – it’s the women at the airport who are dressed in the shorts and tee shirts that look hottest. And most people don’t look that good in suits – they mostly just look uncomfortable. But that could just be me…
I read this last sentence as “So some of them are going to be hookers.” It was funny, although a bit strange since my first thought was “well, sure, there will be some hookers, and some hookers are attractive, but why would they as a group skew the overall attractiveness at the airport?” I was busily preparing a detailed reply in my head when I reread it more carefully, ruining everything.
I blame Eliphalet’s story of the underdressed hottie in Minnesota, which immediately made me think she was a hooker. Or perhaps I just have hookers on the brain.
I too vote for the income thing…if you have enough money to fly, you usually have enough for dentists, facelifts, plastic surgery, etc. People who travel on busses are either (1) cheapor (2) poor. Either way, they either don’t care about their appearances, or can’t afford to do much about it.
In support of my thesis: you rarely see grafitti at airports…while bus stations are full of it.
Being poor sucks! And (I also believe) poor people age much faster than rich people…the bad diets, lack of exercise, and excessive smoking and drinking can add years to your facial age. I’ve seen lots opf very attractive 50+ rich women (look at Farah Fawcett, for example). By contrast, if you are a 50+ poor woman, and have had the stress of several children, you can get very careworn.
See, from what I have seen, being attractive helps you become successful. Someone already noted the salesman/saleswoman example, but I think it goes deeper than that. Maybe this is way too much, but here’s what I see:
Attractive people grow up being attractive and acquire a positive self image
this image leads them to have good confidence, social skills, leadership
these skills are valued in the work force and lead to success.
Looking around, it seems to hold true with my friends. We are young guys now (23-24) and the ones with good jobs are also the ones who have luck with the ladies…
Now this might all be 8:18 syndrome - I used to date a girl who swore she looked at the clock every night at 8:18… it drove her nuts. “Damn, see, it’s 8:18 again.” I think that she just looked at the clock a lot more than she realized, but it only registered with her when it was 8:18… so maybe I am just noticing the friends and the people at the airport who support my theory.
Someone please do a controlled study where you take pictures of 5,000 people at airports and 5,000 people on busses or at the post office or in the park, and then have non-biased observeres rate them from 1-10.
Successfull by what standard? Are you and your friends bankers or lawyers pulling down six figure bonuses? Are you in your first job out of college making $30-50k a year? I don’t consider simply having a job as “successful”, I consider it the norm.
There is a tendency to judges ones success using ourselves and our immediate peer group as the standard. Kind of like the “everyone who drives slower is an idiot/ everyone who drives faster is a maniac asshole” thing.
I think it’s more complex than that. I think that people who grow up in relative comfort have more time to pay attention to their appearance. I actually read a similar theory having to do with wealthy people having more mirrors around the house or something. Basically at that early impressionable age, you have more time to think about grooming, fashion and exercising. Your peer group is more concerned with appearance and superficial qualities since they have fewer real worries. I knew very few people in college who were worried about starving or paying tuition. Most of us spent our free time grooming (professionally and socially) and partying. After years of this, you are ingrained with the subtle cues that establish you as a successful and attractive member of your class - hairstyle, clothes, mannerisms.
As an extreme example, check out that Paris Hilton show. Here are two girls who have never had anything more important to do than dress themselves. They basically travel around trying out crappy jobs in rural areas. To them and most of the audience, it’s a big joke because they don’t really need those jobs to survive. Imagine what Paris would look like in a few weeks if she had to stick her hand up a cows ass every day to pay the bills.
Are you serious? Dropping a couple hundred bucks on a cross country flight does not mean you have $10,000 for plastic surgury. Heck, most of the business travelers don’t even pay for their flights. They are reimbursed by their company.
People here are fitting their observations to preconceived conceptions. You think that wealthy people are more attractive therefore when you see someone who is attractive you assume they are wealthier and more successful.
Depends on the airport.
I’ve noticed, for example, Dallas tends to be loaded with attractive women in tight jeans with big hair. If your taste runs that direction, it’s quite startling to someone passing through. Heck, it’s startling either way.
Perhaps locale would be a good thing to inject into the comparison, no?
I look absolutely HORRENDOUS when I travel by plane. I get really cold in the damn plane (once they take off, they’re warm enough on the ground, but when we reach cruising alt it’s FREEZING to me), so I always wear sweats and a giant sweatshirt with warm shirts underneath, JUST in case. Of course it’s too warm in the airport, so the giant sweatshirt is tied around my waist, which looks awful.
Flying from Alaska to just about anywhere is a Looooooong plane ride. Most of us take the redeye, and try and sleep. So on top of having the giant “hope I can stay warm” clothing, my hair is slept on, and my face has creases from the tiny pillow pillowcase.
Third, as several others have said, I hate flying, I’m grumpy, I just want to GET there already, so I probably don’t look very approachable or friendly.
Most of my fellow travelers seem to fall into this category IME. I rarely see “attractive” individuals of either sex in airports.
** Why are there more attractive people at the airport? **
Back in the day when airports were more relaxed, on a day when I had nothing else to do I went to LAX just to watch the people. The idea was to try to guess the relationships between people, or what business they were in by their clothing, their general look or their demeanor. I noticed that there were a lot more good looking people at the airport than at , say, the county fair or the bus station. I always figured it was because all the best people were leaving town. 
What amuses me about airports and people is the way celebrities dress. Nearly always they were sunglasses ( even in winter and at night ) and sometimes a large floppy hat. I think the intention is not to be noticed but this has the opposite effect because they stand out like a sore thumb. “Normal” people don’t dress that way so ten-to-one it is someone famous in this get-up.
Successful for me in this context is judged by which of my friends say “I hate my job and I only do it for the paycheck” versus those who say “I love my job”. I guess this is inconsistent with the debate because we are primarily focused a wealth/attractiveness correlation, not happiness/attractiveness. I would argue that simply having a job (particularly one you like) is being successful. I know several people who have been out of college for over half of a year now and are still looking. I also have several friends who are ‘under employed.’
I don’t have a cite, but I know there are people out there (a lot, by my opinion) who would say “I can’t afford $400 to fly to Seattle… it’s just not in the budget.”
Also, what I have noticed and what I was referring to in the OP is in my mind an observed ‘inherent’ attractiveness. Even if someone is tired and weary from traveling and wearing sweat pants and not looking their best, you can still tell to some degree how attractive they are. I think it is a good benchmark to look at greyhound, as I previously stated, because those people deal with the same stresses of travel.
It’s interesting, we seem to have a pretty even split here. About half of you think are saying “I saw that too!” and the other half is saying “What are you talking about? You are seeing what you want to see.”
Many people you see at the airport are on the way to business meetings. Anyone important enough to go to a business meeting by air is probably at least mid management level. Promotion to this level is much easier for attractive people, thus they will be overrrepresented within this subset of the population.
I am guessing that you are recently out of college. “Success” for most college grads is usually defined by landing a good degree requiring job with a decent company. Nearly EVERY college grad will achieve this level of success within a year or so of graduation. Certain industries may also attract more good-looking people than others. This is not “success”. This is a self-selecting group defining success by membership in the group they selected (everyone who works here is the best because we only hire the best).
You need to look at where a person is 10 years down the road to determine if they are financially successful (which is what we are talking about because we are correlating disposible income used for traveling with level of attractiveness). Are the people managing the companies any better or worse looking that the general population?
Very few occupations allow people to advance based solely on their looks. It certainly gives an advantage when getting your foot in the door, but after that you still need to perform.
I’m sure there are plenty. I drop close to $2000 a week traveling to Seattle for business between the flight, rental car, hotel and food. It’s all expensed so I don’t have to pay for it. I also happen to be incredibly good looking (or I was until I got this fucked-up haircut - see my Pit thread).
I just can’t believe that the people are so ugly where everyone lives that the Airport is considered a babe hangout. Then again, I live in New York City and fly out of Newark so that may skew my perceptions.
Just for shits and giggles, I’m going to see how many hot chicks there are at SeaTac today.
Oh and has anyone noticed that NY Penn Station has a lot more uglies than Grand Central?
Maybe 40 years ago. When times were better people in geographically companies would spend a lot of time flying around - airfare is much less of an issue than time. Techies fly around all the time, as do first level managers in big companies. Real high level guys get people to come to them.
This has gone down somewhat because of teleconferencing.
BTW, Lindberg field in San Diego is a nice place to observe passengers.
Or they are consultants like me.
I, too, have noticed people at airports seem more attractive than those enountered in the real world. A couple of exceptions: Buffalo, where the airport is usually filled with the elderly either talking off on or returning from trips to Florida and Las Vegas, and El Paso.
Slightly off-topic - why do you encounter far fewer attractive people at a DMV office than in real-life? I had to title and register a car a couple of days ago, and the others in line with me appeared to be the dregs of society, to risk sounding classist. One man had an impressive hair band mullet, the likes of which I haven’t seen since the mid-1980s. A 250+ pound teenage girl had a lower back tattoo, with ornate script that read “JUICY”. All the women were either obese – not thick or chubby, but obese – or they had a hardened, grizzled, ridden-hard-and-put-away-wet Appalachian look about them.
Anytime I’ve been at a DMV office, from the grubbiest city neighborhood to the most upscale suburb, regardless of state, those waiting their turn look like they stepped off the set of the Jerry Springer Show. Certainly attractive, or even normal-looking people, need to title and register cars, get license plates, or get driver’s licenses.
I was actually thinking about the DMV earlier as a good control group for this experiement. I would think that drivers licenses would be just about as close as you can get to something that nearly everyone does. The grocery store would also work, but there is only one DMV, where as you have different consumer groups at Costco, Jewel Osco, and Krogers.
[QUOTE=Voyager Techies fly around all the time, as do first level managers in big companies.[/QUOTE]
As do high-end bar soap salesmen and insurance adjusters.