Virgin refuse to let Military staff travel in uniform
 

What a way to treat a heroine: Royal Navy girl who fought in Afghanistan told to cover up uniform on Virgin flight in case it offended other passengers | Mail Online

OK not technically a military issue but if the report is true it made my blood boil when I saw something like this reported. If there was an incident with a Virgin aircraft somewhere in the world, then the military would be the first on the scene.

Looks like a misunderstanding by both G4S (surprise?) and the check-in staff, as they chose to put their own interpretation on the situation. If Virgin actually has such a policy, it should be available for inspection by customers at check-in. Did anyone ask to see the directive?

The comments section seems typically frothy and uninformed. But then it's the Mail.

We've had these outrage posts '...because it might offend other people...' before and they'v been found to be B/S mostly.

So let's have the directive & an official Virgin statement before we go all Daily Mail.

According to my printed copy of the DM, Virgin have stated that it is not policy to stop personnel in uniform travelling with them. G4S have denied receiving a complaint. Perhaps after the Olympics farce the sight of a military uniform sent the 'security guard' into a spin. :rolleyes:
mmitch

Perhaps as a form of apology, Sir Richard Branson might provide this lady with a complimentary Upper Class flight home upon completion of her 3 month detachment? Without insisting that she wears those Viet Cong pyjamas again, of course.

I'm sure Sir Richard would be more than delighted to do so, once a thorough investigation into the actual events has taken place, rather than as a reaction to a poorly-formed article in a low-grade "newspaper. A more robust response may be found elsewhere.

While Virgin have stated that it is not their policy to ban people wearing uniform from their flights, I wonder what the Royal Navy policy of wearing "combats" to travel to the USA is? Perhaps if she had been wearing standard naval uniform rather than her combat fatigues (as reported in the DM) then the impression at the airport might have been better?

Virgin and G4S were wrong, but the last thing that I would want to wear on a transatlantic civilian flight is a uniform. I would like a drink for a start.

I don't call that outfit a uniform! Sad how standards have been allowed to slip.

Probably refused because Health and Safety would not allow any person on board who could not be seen in an emergency because of the camouflage :ok:

Jayteeto is spot on: why would anyone wish to travel in combat kit?
I detect more than a whiff of showboating here.. someone wishing to appear like a military person.

She isn't in the RAF. The article states she is in the RN.

If she has been home on compassionate she probably did not have any other uniforms with her, bar those she was wearing. Does seem sad that she feels she needs to travel in uniform on a transatlantic, I was always glad to get out of the damn thing.

Should that not read "Servicewoman" ?

I completely agree that wearing uniform on a long haul is not something I would like to do however...

The idea of a security guard telling that the uniform may cause offence and that I should change does not wash, especially a G4S staff member. That company is a disgrace. The person in question should be fired for not being aware of company policy and bringing them into disrepute. :mad:

I do wonder whether or not the a/c captain was aware. I seriously doubt it.

A few Tornado crews have landed in the USA (trails) and been dispatched ASAP to catch their Virgin flights home ( in flying suits). They got changed when through to the departure lounge or on the flight - usually got upgraded if boarded in uniform.

Air hostess's were very friendly apparently.

I;m not at Virgin, but have plenty of friends who are. I think you will find, with the number of ex-mil pilots, crew married to serving Mil, coupled with the services Virgin provide to the Military, there is no anti- military policy or sentiment at Virgin. I suspect this was an over-zealous security guard who raised the issue without understanding what his/her own rules are ( not an infrequent issue). Once raised, I suspect the quickest way to resolve the issue was to get the lady changed into a sleep outfit, on the flight and away. Its all very well ratcheting it up the 'my boss is more omnipotent than your boss' route, but such issues take time to resolve, which may lead to the flight being delayed, cancelled or the worst outcome of all, her being offloaded.
Much as we would love to be able to over-rule G4S, we can't.
The facts of this one will be interesting.

There's two stories here. However, regardless of the why she was wearing CS95/PCS whilst on a transatlantic non ops flight, it seems nothing more than a poor judgement call by G4S (not the first time!) and local Virgin ground staff. Hardly cause for Sir Richard to go on bended knee. :hmm:

What is it with Navy lasses selling their stories to tabloids, I hope she didn't receive any payment. I still can't fathom why anyone would choose to travel from LHR to LAX in Uniform unless she was hoping for some attention and or preferential treatment. I certainly don't believe the airline is at fault here.

It is essentially a bit of a non-story really isn't it? Navy girl wears uniform to travel, security guard gets it wrong. Ace.

My own thoughts:

1. Yes MTP is uniform. Would any naysayer care to mention what they consider a (modern, contemporary, relevant) uniform to be? She serves in the desert - not the Bravo turret of a dreadnought at Jutland.
2. Yes service personnel should feel free to wear their uniform in public. They should feel proud to serve and whilst on duty travel should feel free to display this openly.
3. Arguably service personnel should be encouraged to wear uniform in public. We generally give a good account of ourselves on and off the battle field. Generally someone representing themselves well in identifiable uniform will be good ambassadors for whomsoever they represent.
4. Members of the public and certain companies feel that they owe our service personnel a large vote of thanks. (They are quite correct). They can hardly display it openly if they have no idea who the service personnel are.

I currently live and work in the USA. On duty travel I wear MTP. It is a uniform and one that I have worn on Ops. I get occasional thanks from passers by, I have had the odd free snack on airliners and sometimes get to board the aeroplane first. I don't really see this as being a plus for me - although it is - I see it more from the point of view of people who just want to say thanks, and it's nice to hear/feel their gratitude. I live in a society that truly values their military and neither side of the equation has any bashful feelings about showing it.

MTP is comfortable and you get off the flight 'ready to fight'. Other uniforms aren't the same - I would rather wear hessian underwear than my issue blues for a long flight. I don't personally like wearing flying coveralls for anything other than when I'm actually committing the aviation....and mucking out the chickens.

From the original story (but I don't blame you for not clicking through. Poisonous rag):

So it would appear that the civilian friend is the source, and PO Howse is Innocent, OK.

She'd been flown home at short notice to attend a funeral, and had flown home in uniform with no issues. She'd been at home for almost 2 weeks.

On the way back, there was no reason for her to fly in uniform, other than in an attempt to blag an upgrade, which is what I believe she was after.