Recognition of Armed forces by US airlines, compared with UK

Would be interested to hear your views/opinions on the above topic.

For quite a while now, it has become apparent that the level of recognition displayed by US carriers towards serving Military personnel far outstrips that shown by UK carriers. As a case in point, AA offers all active military (Army, Navy, Airforce) access to their first class lounges, regardless of the class of travel. Equally, US and United also offer similar schemes whereby serving soldiers/officers are offered heavily discounted tickets.

It has also come to my attention that US immigration officials will fast track travelling service personnel and their families as a small, but appreciated, 'thank you'.

It is a sad testament to all UK carriers, not just Virgin, that the only recognition they offer is 5-10% off a limited range of Y class fares (not that is actually affects me as I only travel in J) - and the process by which one has to apply for said discount is complicated in the extreme.

Would it be too much to ask for UK based carriers to adopt a similar view to those in the US? Would there be much support for such a scheme?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

the Americans recognise and respect their military FAR better in every aspect. many places give free entry,discounts on food or goods to them. here the soldiers are respected. there was a story i saw of a guy flying first who saw 4 soldiers board in EC. he gave up his seat to the commander as a small thank you.....now cmon V flyers theres an idea

the Americans recognise and respect their military FAR better in every aspect. many places give free entry,discounts on food or goods to them. here the soldiers are respected. there was a story i saw of a guy flying first who saw 4 soldiers board in EC. he gave up his seat to the commander as a small thank you.....now cmon V flyers theres an idea

Surely any decent commander would have politly thanked the gentlemen but declined so he could sit with his men ?

I remember a few years ago queuing to vist a major US tourist attraction that offered free entry to 'military in uniform' and bought my ticket, a minute or two later a coach trip of US soldiers arrived (so 50 or so people) and were immediatly ushered to the front of the queue.

A fair few of the US people queuing felt that this was not accceptable - there was no outright opposition but more a reflection that we had all been waiting in line for a long time.

Would be interested to hear your views/opinions on the above topic.

For quite a while now, it has become apparent that the level of recognition displayed by US carriers towards serving Military personnel far outstrips that shown by UK carriers. As a case in point, AA offers all active military (Army, Navy, Airforce) access to their first class lounges, regardless of the class of travel. Equally, US and United also offer similar schemes whereby serving soldiers/officers are offered heavily discounted tickets.

It has also come to my attention that US immigration officials will fast track travelling service personnel and their families as a small, but appreciated, 'thank you'.

It is a sad testament to all UK carriers, not just Virgin, that the only recognition they offer is 5-10% off a limited range of Y class fares (not that is actually affects me as I only travel in J) - and the process by which one has to apply for said discount is complicated in the extreme.

Would it be too much to ask for UK based carriers to adopt a similar view to those in the US? Would there be much support for such a scheme?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

I totally agree having served my 23 years and see how over the pond treat and respect the forces serving and retired its not much to ask.

There are certainly cultural differences, but also thanks to the IRA (ISTBC) very visible differences in the ways in which military personal travel in the UK and US - in the UK they're not allowed to travel in uniform. So in the US you get a much more visibility and that contributes to the differing treatments.

I'm going to stick my neck on the block and ask why military personnel should get such preferential treatment, no one is forced to enlist anymore?

I agree that both the US and the UK have volunteer military services, so no-one is conscripted against thier wishes - but nevertheless, the Army, Navy and Airforce perform a role that is dangerous, stressful, and are required to make sacrifices that those in civilian life do not.

All the freedoms that people enjoy, and take for granted, and protected by those that willingly wear the uniform - and do so with no thought of personal reward or accolade. I think it is right therefore (and I appreciate Im bias) that companies, not just those in the travel industry, offer a few perks to those in the military as a small way of saying 'thanks'.

I'm not suggesting free first class travel on my MOD90, but I do think a lot could be learned from the US model.

Totally agree with you as having travelled to the USA many times over the last ten years, we have always been amazed at the high regard they put in their military personnel. We have both served, hubby 39 to my mere 8 and never got any discount only with Ford once we got a forces discount on a new car.

We do not want anything special but sometimes in the past even got looked down on for being military, and were so taken aback at Seaworld one year when they all stood up and applauded their Forces.We have always paid full taxes on everything as some even think you get cheap housing and free energy.

There are certainly cultural differences, but also thanks to the IRA (ISTBC) very visible differences in the ways in which military personal travel in the UK and US - in the UK they're not allowed to travel in uniform. So in the US you get a much more visibility and that contributes to the differing treatments.

I think that only applies to Northern Ireland, I often see military personnel in uniform, tho not on any flights yet...

I'm going to stick my neck on the block and ask why military personnel should get such preferential treatment, no one is forced to enlist anymore?

Personally, I think they should be "thanked" more because they have chosen to serve rather than been forced. I don't think anyone is saying they should be entitled to preferential treatment, but that it is nice to be recognised for the role they play in defending their country. Currently, those over the pond do it better, but I believe things are slowly picking up over here.

I hope US attitudes to anything military are never brought to Europe.

I hope US attitudes to anything military are never brought to Europe

Why is that exactly? Care to elaborate?

Personally, I think they should be "thanked" more because they have chosen to serve rather than been forced. I don't think anyone is saying they should be entitled to preferential treatment, but that it is nice to be recognised for the role they play in defending their country. Currently, those over the pond do it better, but I believe things are slowly picking up over here.

I disagree. Nor do I want to enter any sort of ranking about people who do difficult jobs. I'll also add an opinion that the volunteer aid worker caring for children in Africa is doing more for the world than someone in the military. Just goes to show there are many different points of view.

That said, I've always preferred the quiet respect the British have over the blatent fawning in the US. At Royal Wootton Bassett this is all to evident.

That said, I've always preferred the quiet respect the British have over the blatent fawning in the US. At Royal Wootton Bassett this is all to evident.

I agree that the US go over the top, much prefer lower key recognition, I think we do the public display of thanks in the UK much better, as in your example.

I agree, the fawning and somewhat over-zealous behavior of the US towards it's military is a little over the top, and it wouldn't sit well with the British culture.

I don't think the UK military would want such an overt and gratuitous show of thanks, but a recognition of the role they play in the nations security, even through small gestures of goodwill, would do a lot for morale.

I was injured in the 1991 Gulf war. I spent the following Five years in hospital, having lost all memory of my wife and children.. pre Gulf war memories(which sadly to this day these have never returned). I am wheelchair bound with long and short term memory problems. I'd like to add to this thread that I know of no service man or women serving or ex service who thinks that any one owes us an debt what so ever. I was proud to serve for 20 years in the Royal Navy and if I had the chance I would serve again.

I have to agree that the recognition and care for serving and ex serving members of the armed forces in the USA are absolutely exemplary. Ironically I am more concerned to the care shown to the families (mine were evicted from our naval family quarters whilst I was in Headley Court rehab and It was the Royal British Legion that rehoused us in the end)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -wife.html

a link to our story above and a link below about the film that is being made about our story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 232819.stm

That said, I've always preferred the quiet respect the British have over the blatent fawning in the US. At Royal Wootton Bassett this is all to evident.

Sadly, no longer from Bassett but now from Brize Norton. RAF Lyneham closed with the last 4 Hercules on Friday 1st July.

but nevertheless, the Army, Navy and Airforce perform a role that is dangerous, stressful, and are required to make sacrifices that those in civilian life do not.

Dangerous, stressful, required to make sacrifices that those in civilian life do not.
Rather like thousands of front-line NHS staff.
Threre's no overt recognition for them (or the role/service they provide) either, so as others have voiced already, I'm not sure why military personnel should be seen as "special".


DL

but nevertheless, the Army, Navy and Airforce perform a role that is dangerous, stressful, and are required to make sacrifices that those in civilian life do not.

Dangerous, stressful, required to make sacrifices that those in civilian life do not.
Rather like thousands of front-line NHS staff.
Threre's no overt recognition for them (or the role/service they provide) either, so as others have voiced already, I'm not sure why military personnel should be seen as "special".


DL

Please don't take this the wrong way DL, I totally agree front line Nhs staff aren't properly recognised for the role they play in life, but! How often do you defuse bombs, get shot out and risk your life to the same extreme as the forces do? I do also believe many professions are under valued.

I agree DL, a wide number of proffesions arn't properly recognised for the roles they play; NHS staff, Teachers, Firemen....but, as Hamster points out, the military are different. They risk thier lives to a far higher degree, are separated from thier families all across the world, subject to criticism when they fail, yet thier victories go unrecognised.

I do think the military are 'special' - we serve the nation, commit ourselves fully to unlimited liability, and perform our duties so that the country can sleep soundly in thier beds.

By recognising the sacrifice the military make, its not only honouring those currently serving, but the legions of those that have gone before.

I have the utmost respect for people who serve in the Armed Forces - especially since I grew up in Northern Ireland and saw first hand the crap they have to deal with - and have met a fair few since joining V-Flyer.

But I think UK Airlines are wary of more discounting and, with respect to the original poster, showing recognition to someone shouldn't default to 'have some money off'.

But I think UK Airlines are wary of more discounting and, with respect to the original poster, showing recognition to someone shouldn't default to 'have some money off'.

I agree that the default position of airlines shouldn't be discounted flights - and only used the examples of UA and US as a case in point with regards to what is currently offered by some carriers.

It's very difficult to judge what is a suitable level of recognition - ideas that I have heard have included better flexibility for changing tickets at short notice, lounge access, priority check in etc. To be perfectly honest, the vast majority of officers and soilders I know would be happy with a simple 'thankyou' at the gate.

I appologise if my OP seemed to suggest that the best way would be to just slash prices for the forces; this would be crass.

But I think UK Airlines are wary of more discounting and, with respect to the original poster, showing recognition to someone shouldn't default to 'have some money off'.

I agree that the default position of airlines shouldn't be discounted flights - and only used the examples of UA and US as a case in point with regards to what is currently offered by some carriers.

It's very difficult to judge what is a suitable level of recognition - ideas that I have heard have included better flexibility for changing tickets at short notice, lounge access, priority check in etc. To be perfectly honest, the vast majority of officers and soilders I know would be happy with a simple 'thankyou' at the gate.

I appologise if my OP seemed to suggest that the best way would be to just slash prices for the forces; this would be crass.

Oh that wasn't my intention either - I think it's a minefield!

[Decker]

<mod hat off>
Well this thread made me do a little soul searching and a number of considerations come to mind.

I believe that acknowledgement of the contribution made my forces personnel should be a personal thing not a corporate thing. I might be a shareholder in a company and have vehemently anti-forces feelings. Why should the directors choose to spend my money on their feelings? It isn't their personal fiefdom.

The personal danger one is an emotive one - especially when a poster on this thread has suffered so horribly BUT statistically there are more dangerous jobs that people also choose to go into that they receive no recognition for. In one study relating to the Canadian military the deaths per thousand man hours were half that of civvies. Now there are all kinds of contributory factors but the simple fact is that being in the armed forces is not an automatic appointment with the grim reaper.

Looking at a place like Iraq, during the period of British security provision from May 2003 to December 2007, 3,334 violent civilian deaths, and 2,099 civilian wounded, were documented, and are detailed in the Iraq Body Count database.

UK press and media coverage of UK involvement in Iraq almost always mentions the precise number of UK military personnel killed (which finally totalled 179). Sadly, there is no such sustained attention to Iraqi civilians and others killed, partly because of a lack of certainty about their precise number. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/b ... volvement/). Where is the public display of gratitude to the civilians who gave up their lives so that we can enjoy democracy? After all 20 times more of them died. Should Iraqi civilians get discounted air travel? After all they didn't even CHOOSE to be involved in the campaign.

(On the bright side from the same site "Non-combatant Iraqi deaths resulting directly from actions involving US-led coalition forces were half as many as in 2009, with a total of 32 reported by Dec 30 (2009: 67). Deaths involving Iraqi forces changed only slightly, from 103 in 2009 to 96 in 2010.")

Then there is the issue of vocation. Just because someone enlisted it doesn't mean they did it because they wanted to protect their fellow countrymen. It might be that the Ruperts view it as a vocation but where and when I grew up, for the boys from the Mersey and the Thames and the Tyne ("But there's no danger - ") it's a professional career. As one memorable mother keened during the Falklands conflict over her dead son - "he didn't join up to fight - he believed the adverts and joined to see the world and do interesting things" (paraphrased). Does such a person deserve automatic gratitude for what is effectively for them being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The point has already been made about frontline NHS staff so I won't rehash that.

The armed forces do a job I wouldn't want to do. So do Alaskan fishermen, toilet cleaners, brain surgeons and astronauts. How do we decide who to thank? That's where personal choice comes in. Personally I like the American campaign to thank personnel in uniform with a simple ASL gesture. I've bought drinks before for services personnel - I might not agree with the arena they're in but they're not the ones who chose it, they're just the implementors.

Finally to the OP - "It is a sad testament to all UK carriers, not just Virgin, that the only recognition...." is quite a weighted way of asking for people's opinions on the matter. "This is terrible - what do you think?" is not really a way to open a balanced debate. "I think that it is a sad testament..." however leaves the stage much more open. To quote one of my favourite bands "Opinionated weather forecasters telling me it’s going to be a miserable day. Miserable to who? I quite like a bit of drizzle, so stick to the facts". It might be that as an airline shareholder I applaud this move.

</mod hat off>

Decker thanks for such a considered post.

The issue of discounts to a specific group is a complex one and companies need to be careful that offering a discount to one group does not put off another ( who in effect have to pay extra to cover the lost income)

There are also cultural issue at play as well. The UK is very different to the US. I would me interested to know how the French, Germans and Canadians 'celebrate' their military.

I checked the VS FAQ and it states that they give 'substantial' discounts yo the forces and that you have to call customer services. I guess thats because they need some confirmation but I don't see that as being obstructive. Afterall pensioners often have to provide evidence to get their discounts.

I'd just like to add that although I don't know that many people in the military ( though i have a cousin who was shot and injured serving in N.I.)they would be aghast at being singled out in the way that often happens in the US sometimes to the point of rudeness by strangers interrupting, in my case, a guide talking about the capitol hill grounds. the veteran himself was totally embarrassed.

I agree with Tonty, an excellent post Decker - thank you. Interestingly, nevermind the weighting of the original post by RMAS, this debate has indeed turned out to balanced.

The USA airlines (and other corporates) may indeed recognise more overtly armed forces personnel than those similar institutions here. But that certainly hasn't always been the case, even in recent history - Vietnam wasn't that long ago. I know this is going to sound awful but, I guess, it comes down to how popular a specific war is.

I don't think it is the job of corporates to make distinctions. I think it is the role of government to properly look after servicemen and women, the veterans, the disabled and, of course, the bereaved. And they should do so a lot better than they do now - to such an extent that such wonderful charities as Help For Heroes wouldn't need to exist.

PS@Decker - HMHB - Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch. y)

From my perspective, the downside of recognition based on the perceived value of a traveler's profession is that I'll probably get beaten up on every trip I take from now on (evil banker, boo, hiss!)

As has been said before, this one is a minefield, there are so many different groups that could make a very persuasive case for 'special recognition' that service providers like VS have little option but to remain neutral at a policy level.