As Korean Air and Asiana Airlines move steadily toward their long-anticipated merger, a heated debate has erupted over a seemingly simple detail: the color of flight attendants' jackets. What might sound like a minor uniform tweak has, in fact, become a flashpoint for concerns about privacy, workplace equality, and even human rights, with labor leaders vowing to take their fight to the highest authorities.
The controversy burst into public view on August 21, 2026, when 권수정, chairperson of the Asiana Airlines labor union, took to social media to criticize Korean Air's longstanding policy of distinguishing flight attendants' ranks by the color of their jackets. "Uniforms are not badges of rank," she wrote, her frustration palpable. "It angers me to see this kind of hierarchy at work, something I never experienced as an Asiana flight attendant." According to Moneyweek, 권 went further, declaring, "It is shocking that such a company still exists."
At the heart of the dispute is Korean Air's practice: flight attendants at the deputy manager level and above wear blue jackets, while those below that threshold don beige. This system, which has been in place for years, visually exposes each employee's rank and, by extension, their promotion status—not just to colleagues and passengers, but to anyone who happens to spot them on their commute or in public spaces. Asiana Airlines, by contrast, has never used uniform color to denote rank, and its staff are now facing the prospect of being folded into a system they see as fundamentally different and, to many, deeply problematic.
With the merger set to complete by the end of the year—Korean Air is targeting December 17, 2026, for the launch of the integrated airline, following conditional approval from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on June 25—the stakes feel higher than ever. The Asiana labor union has made its position clear: it plans to file a formal complaint with the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, arguing that the rank-based color system infringes on constitutional rights such as equality, personality rights, and privacy.
"Uniforms are not badges of rank," 권 repeated in her online post, driving home the point that the system, in her view, amounts to an unacceptable invasion of privacy. She contends that being forced to wear a color that broadcasts one’s rank—and, by implication, whether one has been promoted or not—amounts to a public disclosure of personal information. "Having to display my personal information on the street is a form of violence," she wrote, vowing to seek redress through the country's top human rights body.
The union's draft complaint, as reported by CFNews, makes the case that there is no objective necessity for differentiating uniform colors by rank, at least not in terms of in-flight safety or service. In fact, Asiana’s own history demonstrates that such distinctions are not required for smooth, safe operations. The union further argues that when uniforms are worn outside the aircraft—on commutes, in airports, or even on public transport—the color system exposes sensitive personnel information to the world, regardless of the employee’s wishes.
There’s also a psychological dimension. By making promotion status instantly visible, the system can stigmatize those who haven’t moved up the ranks, creating what the union calls a "labeling effect" that could lead to feelings of inferiority or even public embarrassment. As 권 put it, "Forcing employees to wear their promotion status on their clothing encourages a culture of discrimination against those who have not advanced." She also raised concerns about the adequacy of changing and storage facilities, noting that if staff are unable to change at work, they must travel in uniform—further increasing the public exposure of their rank.
The issue is not entirely without precedent. Back in 2013, the National Human Rights Commission recommended that Asiana Airlines allow female flight attendants to choose between skirts and pants, addressing what was then seen as gender-based discrimination. This time, however, the debate centers squarely on the reasonableness and fairness of using uniform color to mark rank—a question that goes beyond gender and touches on broader notions of workplace equality and privacy.
Supporters of the current system, including some within Korean Air, point out that there is a functional rationale for distinguishing ranks visually—especially in emergency situations, where it may be important to quickly identify those with greater responsibility. However, critics counter that such needs can be met by less conspicuous means, such as name badges, pins, or shoulder epaulets, which don’t broadcast personal information so widely. Indeed, Asiana’s experience suggests that a more discreet approach can work just as well.
Interestingly, the practice of using uniform color to indicate rank is not unique to Korea. According to Moneyweek, airlines such as Singapore Airlines use multiple colors for their iconic "sarong kebaya" uniforms to indicate different levels of seniority, and male crew members' ties also signal rank. But, as many union members argue, the context and cultural expectations differ, and what works in one setting may not be appropriate in another.
The timing of the debate is especially sensitive, as Korean Air is in the midst of updating its uniforms—not with a radical new design, but with improvements to flexibility, breathability, and storage. Despite these functional upgrades, the airline has made it clear that it intends to keep the rank-based color distinctions, a decision that has only fueled the union’s sense that management is clinging to outdated practices while missing an opportunity for more meaningful reform.
The National Human Rights Commission will now be asked to weigh in, just as it did more than a decade ago on the issue of mandatory skirts. The key question, as outlined by both CFNews and Moneyweek, is whether the differentiation of uniform colors by rank is a reasonable and necessary practice—or whether it amounts to discrimination based on social status, with no compelling justification. The outcome could set a precedent not just for the newly merged airline, but for other companies grappling with similar questions about transparency, privacy, and equality in the workplace.
For now, as the merger deadline approaches, the debate over a simple jacket color continues to spark passionate arguments on all sides—a reminder that, sometimes, the smallest details can reveal the biggest questions about how we treat each other at work and in society.