CHQ Move Update

[Mead Pusher]

Today a few lucky people received an update on the SLA situation for the CHQ move from Innsworth to High Wycombe. The update was given by the Stn Cdr at High Wycombe. The situation is as follows:

SNCOs/WOs will have accommodation in the Mess, as there are rooms available. The standard of room is s**t and they know it is, but they are building a SLAM block starting 1 Apr 06 that will be finished... well, when it's finished that will provide decent accommodation.

Officers will use the Mess, Mess Annex (portacabins), Converted airmens quarters, NOM at Halton and Uxbridge. There are about 20 spaces on site at High Wycombe and about 70 officers moving, so most will be at Halton (primarily) and Uxbridge. A SLAM block is planned for 2008.

Little mention was made of JRs - perhaps they don't matter?! However, they are bulldozing the JRM at High Wycombe to make way for a SLAM build, and a temporary catering facility will be used in the mean time.

I know it's been said before, but why oh why are we (the RAF) inflicting all this s**t on our people to move into an expensive area with no accommodation, poor facilities and no obvious cost savings? Does the NAO know about the waste that this will generate? In RAB terms we could save a fortune by closing High Wycombe and moving somewhere with more accommodation, room to expand and in a less expensive area (not necessarily Innsworth, either).

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this seemingly ludicrous decision? Is there any reasoning? Are our 'leaders' actually blind one-armed monkeys with pineapples shoved up their ar$es?!

:mad:

[airborne_artist]

I think you will find that this (http://www.moorparkgc.co.uk/) and this (http://www.oxfordstreet.co.uk/) are the reasons to stay at High Wycombe. Add on the extremely good grammar schools in Buckinghamshire that are every bit as good as boarding schools, but without those nasty fees, so giving more money to spend on reasons 1 and 2.

[Talking Radalt]

Who or what are CHQ?
As they're currently at Innsworth I feel I have to make no apology for not knowing.

<Incoming!>

[South Bound]

CHQ - Combined HQ - the colocation of STC and PTC at High Wycombe...

[Talking Radalt]

Well shouldn't it be CSPTCHQ for Combined Strike and Personnel & Training Command HQ?
Just calling it "Combined HQ" is a bit vague isn't it? Combined from what?
Oh well, that's blunties for you!

<Further incoming!>

[South Bound]

Could be Centralised as well, don't recall. Don't think they are changing the names of the HQs, just using CHQ as a term for the project...

[Mead Pusher]

CHQ was originally going to be a Combined HQ (a good idea), but now is just going to be a Co-located HQ (no need) and will be at High Wycombe (a bad idea).

So they took a good idea to reduce the overheads of the RAF by shrinking the HQ staffs in line with the rest of the Service. Then they took the good bits of the idea out and replaced them with some really bad ideas.

Great.

:ugh:

[Mr C Hinecap]

Do you think, perhaps, that the Airships were unwilling to reduce the higher AOC type post count by one? We'd then have one less higher development type job and put the RAF on more of a back foot in the higher Joint arena. Therefore we have 2 co-located HQs retaining the AOCs.
Just a thought from waaayy above my pay band.

[Training Risky]

Maybe, just maybe, HM Forces should take a few leaves out of the Israeli book due to this fact (many thanks to Wikipedia): The IDF as of August, 2004 had (according to unofficial estimates) 168,000 personnel, including 107,500 conscripts. The army had 125,000; the navy had 8,000; the air force had 35,000. Full mobilization to 576,000 could be quickly achieved with the reserves of 408,000[1].

....and have a cull of senior officers, worthy of Stalin himself!

If the glorious IDF can cope with a 3-star as overall Chief of Staff with similar manpower numbers, but better kit than our ragged lot.... we should be looking VERY suspiciously at the numbers of 3- and 4-stars we retain throughout the 'eucalyptus tree' that is HM Forces.

(Edited to add: MAJOR THREAD CREEP CAPTION)

[Brain Potter]

CHQ? Chania/Souda Bay aka LGSA.:)

[Rossian]

What happened to the precautionary principle of not having all your eggs in one basket??
The Ancient Mariner

[Lone Kestrel]

Unfortunately, it all comes down to cost, no matter what the risk!!! Also the RAF has to cut its HQ staff now that the front line is reducing – if not there will be yet more staff officers than aircrew!! The next steps to cull the airships a bit, but to be fair it is already starting.

LC

[SirToppamHat]

Unfortunately, it all comes down to cost, no matter what the risk!!! Also the RAF has to cut its HQ staff now that the front line is reducing

Whilst I agree with the driving factor being stated as cost, I am not convinced that the plans as they stand will actually achieve same. As for the reduction in HQ staff, how many branches have simply moved their staff out of HQ STC (rustication?) to free-up office space? How can this possibly be a better way of doing business with the amount of commuting required for weekly meetings etc?

STH

[modtinbasher]

[quote] Officers will use the Mess, Mess Annex (portacabins), Converted airmens quarters, NOM at Halton and Uxbridge. There are about 20 spaces on site at High Wycombe and about 70 officers moving, so most will be at Halton (primarily) and Uxbridge. A SLAM block is planned for 2008.[unquote]

I stayed in the NOM at Halton some years back in preference to the Red Lion (I think) in town. Bad move all round! It was the pits, no, it was worse than that. I stood in the bar one night and got into what eventually turned into a really heated argument over "what a pittance was given to the caterers to feed everybody". The chap arguing opposite me with the £1000 suit and £250 silk shirt was a guy from Chad, he eventually started throwing glasses on the floor to make his point, I ended up "talking us both down" from FL500. After it had all died down, I enquired of his status with the Mess staff and was informed that "that's the Mess Manager now since it was market tested and the contractor took over". My God, why does the RAF always seem to bite off it's own nose to spite it's own face? Good luck folks, I hope somebody else has the contract now!

[Mead Pusher]

I was in NOM a few weeks ago and I couldn't even get a glass of water with lunch because the tap was broken in the bar. The ice machine was broken too, so the coke was warm. At least a third of the toilets and showers were out of order. There was no hot water at least once a week.

Nice place - not!

:(

[Mr Blake]

Still a million times better than the Senior's Mess at HW, lovingly referred to as the Hotel Beirut:yuk:

[Zithro]

I'm at HW and it's not all bad. My understanding is that it was a free and fair competition between the 2 sites, with an option of going somewhere else, and HW came out as the cheapest. We have got a bunker and pretty goo IT system which must have helped the decision process.

The accommodation is a bit grim, I've stayed at NOM and it was pretty bad, but there's good and bad accommodation across the RAF. There are plans to improve accommodation, but it all takes time and money, so until it happens I guess we make do, as we've always done.

I know it's pretty tempting to keep looking backwards and bemoaining the fact that things are changing all the time, but that's always been the case, well certainly since my time in the RAF, and it's a fact of life. I can't see how an organisation that has shrunk from 100,000 to around 42,000 over the last 18 years could ever justify more than 1 HQ site anyway.

So in essence, we all need to just crack on! :ok:

[Rather be Gardening]

Zithro, 'fraid I can't agree with you there. Such basic issues as a reliable supply of hot water are pretty damn essential as far as I'm concerned. Willing to rough it OOA, but we shouldn't be asking/requiring people to live in distinctly sub-standard conditions in the UK. Surely there's a health and hygiene issue there!

Can you imagine any other company suggesting its personnel live under those conditions?

What would have been sensible would be to have sorted the accomm, then do the move. But I suspect that as long as their airships are comfortable in their big houses, the rest of us can go hang..........

[Kitbag]

Do we still need 'The Bunker'? Seems that on another thread it was suggested that we are still planning on dealing with massed attack, red hordes coming over the hill type of Cold War issues rather than the highly mobile, flexible approach our masters are touting. Or maybe they think they are a prime target for Mr Binbag?

Any thoughts?

[South Bound]

Z - I suppose it depends on how you calculate the cost. Just seems to me that there is bucket loads of space at Innsworth, most people stand a realistic chance of being able to afford a house in the local area and it is close to Shabby Wood (Future home to all things loggie). Remind me how much they spend on SSFA at HW???? How about car parking - they sorted that yet, or do you still have to get to work at 0730 to get parked? They going to do something sensible like knock down B-Block and build a multi-story?

I know where I would rather work anyway.

Hmmm, bunker - do we really need one of those?

We are not bemoaning change, it is just that the logic behind the choice seems flawed to some of us. I tend to agree with AA's view though...

[Mr Blake]

The complex is split between 3 sites, and an absolute nightmare to keep secure. There is in fact a public footpath straight through the heart of the domestic site, that is regularly used by bemused ramblers, and is completely open from 2 sides. (This was before it was discovered that a Al Quaeeda cell was operating down the road!) The accomodation is deplorable considering most people are weekend warriors due to the excessive house prices, and it is on National Trust land, so cannot be expanded on, or altered significantly. Apart from that and the reasons stated earlier, it was the ideal location for a Joint HQ.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Zithro]

Chaps,

All fair and reasonable points!

You are right about hot water being an essential, so I can't argue with that.

I'm not sure about the need for a bunker, other thain it providing office space (not my idea of fun tho', being stuck underground!)

I have got good news to report on the car parking - B Block has been knocked down and there is a load more car parking - hooray!

[Mr Blake]

Hope they cleared the asbestos up.:}

[Mead Pusher]

Zithro,

As has been said (but I'm going to say it anyway - that's what PPRuNe's about!), people don't mind moving and it is sensible to just have one HQ. However, a short delay in the move could sort all the accommodation issues and the plan is now to collocate and not combine, so it seems very poorly conceived.

But on the other hand, the current air officers get to look good for making the move happen early, so I guess we should all be very grateful to them - w:mad: ers.

[Zithro]

Mead Pusher,

I wonder how long a 'short delay' would be until all the accommodation issues are sorted?

Office space at HW is being sorted now - I sit in a pretty good office and am moving somewhere else shortly, but I'm sure it will be equally as acceptable. As for living accommodation, across the RAF there are examples of good and bad accommodation. I'm not a works services person, but I can't imagine that any living accommodation is being upgraded until there is an absolute requirement for it to be done, and in HW's case that requirement has arrived.

I can't see realistically how delaying the project would have made it any better! When Support Cmd moved down from Brampton to Innsworth (that ages me!) some people got to live in the new OM, but plenty of others lived in what is now the Mess Annex, which was pretty poor as I remember. Nicholsons Drive hadn't been built at that ime, so the MQs were pretty hit or miss in the degrees of modernisation.

I can't help but think that moans about accommodation are red herrings - or rather outlets for a deeper dissatisfaction for having to move from Innsworth to HW. I have served at both HQs in the last 5 years and would really struggle to say that one was better than the other.

Happy to discuss :)