Edda Elisa Pilz says she was stopped at Berlin Brandenburg Airport until she zipped a jacket over her workout clothes.
BERLIN — German fitness influencer Edda Elisa Pilz says she was temporarily stopped from boarding a Lufthansa flight at Berlin Brandenburg Airport after a gate agent objected to her sportswear and required her to cover up before she could enter the aircraft.
Pilz said the dispute unfolded during hot weather in June as she approached the gate wearing a sports bra-style athletic top and fitted shorts. She said the agent told her that she was not dressed appropriately for the flight and described her as being naked. Pilz ultimately put on a jacket and, at the agent’s direction, zipped it closed. She was then allowed to board. Available reporting does not show that she was permanently banned from Lufthansa or prevented from taking the flight after she complied with the request.
Pilz described the encounter in social media posts and later interviews, saying she was surprised because she considered the outfit normal sportswear. According to her account, the dispute began as her boarding pass was being checked. She said she asked what she was supposed to wear and questioned why the athletic clothing was unacceptable. Pilz also said she had not been aware of a detailed Lufthansa dress code covering specific types of tops or shorts.
The disagreement continued after Pilz retrieved a jacket, she said. She alleged that the gate agent would not let her proceed until the jacket was fully zipped. Pilz also said the agent blamed her for holding up boarding while she was asking about the clothing requirement. Pilz has said her main complaint was not that an airline could never set clothing standards, but that she believed the rule was unclear and that the agent’s manner was disrespectful.
Lufthansa responded to reports of the encounter by defending its ability to make judgments about passenger conduct and clothing while also distancing itself from some of the language Pilz said was used. The airline said passengers are expected to dress in a way suitable for public travel and in a manner that does not significantly affect the well-being of other travelers. Lufthansa also said it takes complaints about passenger treatment seriously and indicated that the incident would be reviewed internally.
The airline’s published conditions of carriage give Lufthansa discretion to refuse transportation in several circumstances. Among them are situations involving safety, security, public order or cases in which carrying a passenger could significantly affect the health or well-being of others. The conditions do not list detailed clothing rules for sports bras, cycling shorts or similar garments. That leaves airline personnel with some discretion when deciding whether a passenger’s clothing creates a problem.
That distinction became central to the dispute. Pilz was not turned away for the entire trip and was not publicly identified as being barred from future Lufthansa flights. Instead, according to her account and reports of the incident, boarding was temporarily withheld until she added and closed another layer of clothing. Describing the episode simply as a permanent flight ban would therefore overstate what the available evidence shows.
Some details surrounding the trip have also been reported differently. Several accounts described Pilz as traveling from Berlin toward Austria, while other German reports identified Munich as the flight’s destination. The difference does not change the central facts of the encounter at Berlin Brandenburg Airport, but no public record reviewed establishes the precise itinerary with certainty. Pilz’s account, the airline’s response and multiple reports agree that she was eventually permitted to board after covering her athletic top.
The episode spread widely across social media and news outlets, drawing renewed attention to how broadly worded airline standards can be applied at individual gates. Pilz, who was already known for fitness content and appearances on German reality television, argued that similar summer clothing is common in other public settings. She also questioned whether clothing expectations were being applied consistently to different passengers.
As of Sept. 5, Lufthansa had not publicly announced a detailed finding from its internal review of the encounter in the reports examined. The airline’s current published conditions continue to give it authority to refuse carriage in specified circumstances, but they do not provide a garment-by-garment passenger dress code. Pilz was able to continue her trip after covering up, leaving the dispute centered on how the airline’s general standards were interpreted and communicated at the gate.
Author note: Last updated September 5, 2026.