OA to be paid to Libyan Aircrew [Archive]

Unchecked

13th Jul 2011, 12:37

"Pilots and air crews carrying out missions over Libya, and the crews of ships and submarines operating within 12 nautical miles of the coast, will receive the payment for each day they serve in these areas."

So, can we operate our boats and planes outside of this 12 miles? The cynic in me suggests we can and probably will.

Also, I do wish the media would stop using the word 'troops' each time the run a story about our forces. Especially as the army are barely involved in this job (cue howling derision from AH mates). Can we not make Joe Public aware that our AIRMEN and SAILORS are doing things just as valuable as those that our soldiers are doing?

Duncano

13th Jul 2011, 13:53

Don't worry I will be standing at the bottom of the steps charging them £29.02 every time they get in their Tiffy!!! :rolleyes: Should be enough for an ice-cream a day for each of the groundcrew.

Really annoyed

13th Jul 2011, 15:48

I bet all of the pen pushers and REMFS at Gioia will be up in arms about this. They will be protesting that they should also receive it no doubt.

2Planks

13th Jul 2011, 15:58

Refer any whinging REMFS at GdC to Al Udeid, that should allow them to reset thier perspectives.

Yeller_Gait

13th Jul 2011, 16:05

Tanker mates and AWACS need not apply.

Good to see common sense prevail but is a very divisive qualification.

Why the$*(% should they not get the allowance, for doing the job they are paid to do?

This is the problem with the UK Armed Forces today, this crap attitude whereby everybody deserves nothing, and should be grateful for what little they are given, and it is really sad to see on PPrune the number of people who have this attitude. What is wrong with giving people what they are entitled to, and compensating them for hardship? So what if it is not living in a sandpit, but they did not sign up to join the army.

With the number of people I read about on here who think that it is perfectly acceptable to be screwed by HMG, thank %8^& that I am no longer serving, and having to put up with "leaders" like you.

Y_G

kickthetyres

13th Jul 2011, 16:08

Looks like it's only going to the FJ/AH boys and girls. Clearly just a media ploy as it's going to cost the MoD virtually nothing.

:D You gotta hand it to them.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Operational Allowance extended to Libya operations (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/OperationalAllowanceExtendedToLibyaOperations.htm)

Lonewolf_50

13th Jul 2011, 16:08

Al Udeid isn't such a bad place for a few months. Wouldn't want to live their for years at a time, however. :p

Canadian Break

13th Jul 2011, 17:11

Not too sure what the problem with the Deid is; I certainly used to look forward to my few hours a week there rather than my "permanent" home in Basra COB where the locals were not appreciative of our efforts, and demonstrated their feelings on a regular and noisy basis!

Chris Griffin

13th Jul 2011, 17:42

Perhaps I should have expanded somewhat in the earlier post, unfortunately I didn't have time.

Good to see common sense prevail in that Op allowance has been approved - having experienced Telic and Herrick since inception, Ellamy, by far, has been the most interesting th I've experienced so far; eg several unknown hostiles airborne and numerous spikes from various systems.

Without going into too much detail, the divisiveness is due to the qualification criteria does not appear to include AWACS or tanker crews, which I understand has been met with total disbelief.

Anyone who has experienced Ellamy will know nothing can be achieved without both elements, with both elements still operating under an albeit reduced threat.

The fact that the FJ and Apache fleet should qualify is beyond question, however, all enablers should qualify too as there is now a huge perception of being kicked in the teeth again.

Just This Once...

13th Jul 2011, 18:21

Did the SAM threat respect the 12 mile limit?

No, didn't think so. Still, as most of the crews (Sentinel, VC10 etc) are still spending a good part of the year supporting HERRICK they will still attract a OA for a fair % of the year. Given the amount of time people are away it would not surprise me if they changed the rules to pay it when at home - it is getting to the stage where the domestic risk from SWMBO is higher than the op risk!

sevendwarfs

13th Jul 2011, 19:06

Another headline grabbing story - how many people will actually qualify for this payment?

Wensleydale

14th Jul 2011, 07:58

Chatted with some of the AWACS guys at Waddington airshow. I was told that although the crews are in a hotel, some bright spark has declared field conditions and therefore no LOA (newspapers/internet not provided however etc etc). All meals are subject to stringent limits - all expenses on receipt only with no "carry over" should you have a really cheap meal or miss breakfast, and dinner at just 18 euros a day. (Try dining out for that in europe these days). The scuttlebuck is that they are paying between £50 - £100 per week out of their own pockets to make life bearable. It appears that the bean counters expect the crews to eat in snack bars, stay in their hotel and watch television all day when not at work. Considering that "Rates" were meant to give the same standard of living as that enjoyed in the mess then they must be serving a lot of pizza and burgers & chips at Waddington these days!

I know that some of you will counter with "living in tents/field kitchen" etc etc yet a welfare package is usually put in place to cover this. While I remember the extravagant rates that were paid when the AWACS operated out of Aviano for 10 years over the Balkans crisis, we have gone too far down the other way. Morale is a fragile thing, and the bean counters must realise that sending crews away for 4 months of the year (admittedly in 2-week steps) affects quality of life - this must be compensated for at the detachment. If the AWACS, with its now small number of available crews, is to stay in theatre for another long stint as happened over the Adriatic then allowances need to be made. Crews should at least break even and not have to pay to fight - the operational allowance would go a long way towards achieving this should our masters decide to pay it!

FODPlod

14th Jul 2011, 10:28

...and the bean counters must realise that sending crews away for 4 months of the year (admittedly in 2-week steps) affects quality of life...

4 months of the year? In 2-week steps? You mean they get home every fortnight?

I'd keep quiet about that bit if I were you. HMS York and her ship's company have just returned to the UK after being deployed for 13 of the past 20 months (Nov 09 - Jun 10 and Feb 11 - Jul 11). The submarine HMS Tireless has just returned from a 10.5 month deployment east of Suez while HMS Turbulent is currently away for the same period. Not having free daily newspapers and access to the internet can be a real pain, can't it? As for TV...

Not criticising, just comparing. I fully agree that personnel on deployment are entitled to eat decently at no personal expense. Mind you, the victualling allowance for those on board ships is only c.£2.49 per man/woman per day. :)

Chicken Leg

14th Jul 2011, 10:51

I was told that although the crews are in a hotel, some bright spark has declared field conditions and therefore no LOA (newspapers/internet not provided however etc etc). All meals are subject to stringent limits - all expenses on receipt only with no "carry over"

Is that quote intended to get a bite? Ok, I'll play!

There on operations for crying out loud, it's not designed to be a holiday. Allowances are intended to cover expenses incurred, not as a way for the recipients to make a few bob. If breakfast was missed, for whatever reason, then no expense was incurred, therefore no allowance entitlement. Surely?

You don't like the fact that field conditions are declared, yet you want the OPERATIONAL Allowance? Surely you can see the contradiction in that?

Nobody should have to supplement their meals from their own pocket, by the way and if that's genuinely the case, it needs to be addressed. Is it really insufficient, or is it a case of not liking that 'foreign muck'? Either way, that doesn't mean that the Op Allowance is necessarily the correct way to do it.

Grabbers

14th Jul 2011, 11:02

Wensleydale

Not only are we as a light blue Service engaged on Op Ellamy, we are also engaged in a battle for our share of an ever decreasing pie full of defence budget filling. One of the major weapons in this constant battle is the precision use of the media. As I'm sure you'll agree the other Services media comms people are usually much more adept at getting their message across.

Were the rules to be extended to those currently flying E3D and AAR/AT assets could the same logic not be applied to the groundcrew, hangers-on, REMFs etc. How long before we see headlines such as "Chubby RAF Tech receives danger money in case he chokes on his Pizza!" or "HR guru gets taxpayers cash to buy suntan lotion and ice-cream on his half-day 'war'"
Accompanied with suitable picture of flag draped coffin or seriously wounded soldier recuperating at Headley Court the whole thing wouldn't reflect well on the RAF as a whole would it?

I agree with your point that morale is fragile but I disagree that 'allowances must be made'. Perception is reality and whilst the sums are negligible in the great scheme of things the bottom line is there is no cash.

As an aside, as a result of this decision I wonder how many 'support' roles will suddenly become disestablished...?

uncle peter

14th Jul 2011, 12:05

Fodplod

There is always someone worse off somewhere. I absolutely despise the way people use that as an excuse for not improving t+c's for others when it can so easily be done. It also demeans the effect such sporadic dets can have on family life and the ability to take leave. For some tanker mates including an ex stude of mine, the current commitments will see them away for over 6 months this year, as well as 4-5 months last year and a projected 6-7 months away next year should they remain.

Chicken leg

Would you prefer all those currently deployed to be in tents so it neatly fits your assumption of the hardships of Ops and how it should be? Incidentally I believe that option was costed and found to be a factor of 150% more expensive than current arrangements, but i guess that cost doesn't matter as long there is the perception that some hardship is involved. Nowadays it is quite correct to state that allowances are intended to cover expenses incurred. The point being people are apparently having problems feeding themselves on the allowed amount. The rates at the moment I believe are capped actuals with receipt proof so your assertion that people are wanting to somehow profit, instead of feeding themselves, is a disgrace.

I understand those who were the first to deploy on the op were given normal rates in order to feed themselves - (about 50 euros a day). When field conditions were then retrospectively applied they then were presented with a bill for all rates received despite no other method existing to get food. I also understand this issue is still ongoing.

Grabbers

Op allowance is being met from the Treasury reserve although the point of the country being broke is not lost. Your point wrt to support staff elements (ground crew, hangers-on and remfs... sic) is largely moot as precedent exists currently in Herrick where those who support the daily grind from other countries qualify if they are over afghan whereas the support elements do not.

You are quite correct in that moral is fragile, and I expect some will see this as quite a large slap in the chops.

I now leave the floor open to those about to state how others have got it worse and how we should all live in shoe boxes in the middle of the road with a cup of cold gravel.

racedo

14th Jul 2011, 12:21

Govt paying up now as the conflict comes to an end in Libya.

NATO has shown limitations of air power.

FODPlod

14th Jul 2011, 12:25

Chicken Leg

14th Jul 2011, 12:35

The rates at the moment I believe are capped actuals with receipt proof so your assertion that people are wanting to somehow profit, instead of feeding themselves, is a disgrace.

My assertion??

All meals are subject to stringent limits - all expenses on receipt only with no "carry over"

My comment was in response that an allowance should provide for a carry over. And if you are telling me that allowances haven't been regarded as a profit making facility in the past, then you're sadly naive; did you not see a very long thread on that very issue about a year ago on this site?

It seems you conveniently ignored my comment that:

Nobody should have to supplement their meals from their own pocket, by the way and if that's genuinely the case, it needs to be addressed.

Still, recognising that I made that point wouldn't have fitted your argument, would it?

Regarding your question about what I would prefer; I remind you of Grabbers' point:

I agree with your point that morale is fragile but I disagree that 'allowances must be made'. Perception is reality and whilst the sums are negligible in the great scheme of things the bottom line is there is no cash

So it doesn't matter what I think, but stating hardships like:

I was told that although the crews are in a hotel, some bright spark has declared field conditions and therefore no LOA (newspapers/internet not provided however etc etc).

Doesn't do your sympathy cause much good.

BEagle

14th Jul 2011, 12:57

If you eat at home, it will cost you A = (ingredients) + (preparation). Preparation means electricity/gas/charcoal for cooking, plus hot water/detergent for washing up etc.

If you eat out at a catering establishment, no matter where you are, it will cost you B = (ingredients) + (preparation) + (staff cost element) + (restaurant profit element).

Now, it's entirely plausible that the cost of ingredients at the catering establishment is going to be greater than the cost of ingredients bought at your local supermarket. Preparation might cost about the same, or possibly less given economies of scale. But you will be faced with the staff cost element and restaurant profit element - no hotel restaurant is run as a charity.

Thus the minimum allowance, where you have no choice in the matter, should surely be (B-A) ?

Of course Pie Command can tuck in whilst airborne to some extent - so the impact on their pockets will be less than it will be for a non-flier. But the impact upon non-fliers is likely to be financially punitive - through absolutely no fault on their part.

Anyway, why isn't there a contract in place to feed the five thousand as we had in Riyadh 1991?

If it's 'field conditions', then ask for some hexamine stoves and compo and start brewing up in mess tins on the restaurant tables.......

Sentry Agitator

14th Jul 2011, 15:18

Mate - you've moved me to log in for the first time in ages.

You don't do any of us any favours by posting what you did. I know you mean well but the fact that your previous colleagues (of which I was one for several years) told you 'stuff' in good faith shouldn't then mean you can then blab what they told you on here.

We are where we are. Its a nasty sandwich but we get on with it because of the professionalism of the people and the fact that they don't want to drop their mates in the proverbial.

I feel that I am quite lucky. At least I can afford to put my hand in my pocket to make good of the bad. Its the young (engineering) kids with families back home to support whilst they also work bloody hard to support the rest of us in doing the bidding of the penny pinching serpants that I really feel sorry for. They are the ones that really need the OA and who will get nothing.

SA

Chicken Leg

14th Jul 2011, 17:16

Its the young (engineering) kids with families back home to support whilst they also work bloody hard to support the rest of us in doing the bidding of the penny pinching serpants that I really feel sorry for. They are the ones that really need the OA and who will get nothing.

And nor should they. You do understand what the OA is and what it's for, right?

Of course they should not have to put their hands in their pockets to feed themselves, but that just means they should get an adequate food allowance, not the OA. And yes, I fully support the fact that those allowances should be receipted actuals, too.

BEagle

14th Jul 2011, 17:54

Odd that, SA. I'm told that the food is on contract and extremely good, as is the laundry service. If folk want to go out and eat, that's their choice just as it would be at home....eat out and you pay to do so. Which sounds entirely reasonable to me.

Anyway, good luck to all involved!

criminal

14th Jul 2011, 18:45

FODPlod

Were there not three desks to choose from when you walked into your local careers office?

You made your bed, now get out it's someone else's turn to sleep in it!!

ulsteraviator

14th Jul 2011, 19:00

FODPlod,

Well said CRIMINAL! How many RN servicemen actually know that they're within 12nm when they're on board? Surely the submarine crews don't, and I'd bet that most of the ships company don't either. It's only risk if you know where you are!

And on the subject of submarines, does Gaddaffi have a sub surface capability? If so then it's probably a dangerous place to be, if not then its as dangerous as usual - which you get specialist pay for.

Also, why shouldn't the RAF lead a higher quality of life, we're recruited for our style, caddishness and love of the finer things in life. Join the Navy for the opposite.

orca

14th Jul 2011, 19:01

Everyone gets extra money for being away (LSA) which increases in line with how long you've been away...seems quite fair to me. It seems obvious that someone with 1500+ days away gets more than someone with 50+ days away.

Op allowance has always been in place for those actually in harm's way. Which seems quite fair to me. A tanker driver on an Ellamy race track is in no more danger than if he was picking up convex in AARA5. An AH driver is in a whole load more danger in Libya than if he was pootling around SPTA.

There will always be a bunch who hanker after the tax free deals our coalition partners get. I have more sympathy with that point of view.

I speak as someone who supported Herrick from the base of the boulevard, thereby quite rightly not qualifying for OA and someone who doesn't qualify for the Ellamy allowance either despite having spent a long time far closer to the baddies than those on the tanker tracks or in the E3 lobes. I qualified for OA twice for Herrick for service in country and believe it was right to receive it in those cases.

exairman

14th Jul 2011, 19:25

For those that do get the OA, do you still get it on the days you do not fly? If your support staff do not get it then should you still get it?

xenolith

14th Jul 2011, 20:18

OA to be paid to Libyan Aircrew

Why is OA being paid to Libyan aircrew?

Justanopinion

14th Jul 2011, 21:14

Hopefully this will answer some of the questions

The regulations that will appear in JSP 752: Tri-Service Regulations for Allowances:
CHAPTER 10 SECTION 11
OPERATIONAL ALLOWANCE – INTERIM REGULATIONS
1
GENERAL
10.1101. Aim. The aim of the Operational Allowance is to recognise the significantly increased and enduring nature of the danger in specified operational locations (SOL), over and above that compensated for within the X Factor.

ENTITLEMENT
10.1106. Scope. The Operational Allowance is paid for each day that eligible Service personnel are in a SOL where the Allowance has been declared as payable. The geographical boundary includes personnel serving on RN ships in specified waters and those flying sorties over or into a designated operational area, provided that they directly support the operation. Detailed eligibility for aircrews will be issued separately. The intent is that those aircrew deployed to a forward operating base and flying regular sorties into the SOL will be paid the Allowance as if they were in a SOL. The intent for those who operate from the UK is that they will also be eligible for payment, but only at the daily rate, for times when they fly into or over the SOL in direct support of operations.

Seems fairly black and white to me

Wensleydale

14th Jul 2011, 22:19

SA,

I feel that I am quite lucky. At least I can afford to put my hand in my pocket to make good of the bad. Its the young (engineering) kids with families back home to support whilst they also work bloody hard to support the rest of us in doing the bidding of the penny pinching serpants that I really feel sorry for. They are the ones that really need the OA and who will get nothing.

Everyone from Waddington who I spoke to at the air show had something to say about the quality of the det.... the giste was that morale was not as good as it could be and one of the main causes was the application of allowances. The point that I was trying to make is this.... We shouldn'd be reliant upon OA, but on adequate rates. We should be either on rates (or capped actuals that actually cover the cost of eating) plus LOA, or under field conditions with food etc supplied. It seems that neither apply and the lack of carry over means that you have to dip into your own pocket to eat a meal of the same standard that you would receive in your appropriate mess. I totally agree with your comments about the younger members of the det not being able to afford this.

F-Plod,

4 months of the year? In 2-week steps? You mean they get home every fortnight?

But try it for 10 years straight as happened to a good number of AWACS guys during the Balkans campaign!

W

FODPlod

14th Jul 2011, 23:37

Okay, I'll play along ;-).

FODPlod

Were there not three desks to choose from when you walked into your local careers office?

You made your bed, now get out it's someone else's turn to sleep in it!!If I had walked into a local careers office, I'd still have chosen a fighting force in which I slept in a bunk at sea when deployed operationally instead of sleeping in a bed made up by a chambermaid in an Italian resort hotel for two weeks at a time and then complaining about the receipt of 'actuals' for restaurant meals and the lack of a free daily newspaper and internet access. Don't you realise how such drips must appear to members of the other Armed Services or to the general public? I've already agreed in my first post that deployed personnel are entitled to eat decently at no personal expense so where's the problem?

FODPlod,

Well said CRIMINAL! How many RN servicemen actually know that they're within 12nm when they're on board? Surely the submarine crews don't, and I'd bet that most of the ships company don't either. It's only risk if you know where you are!...

Where have I mentioned anything about risk? I responded to a comment about the inadequacy of the Local Overseas Allowance being paid. That has nothing to do with risk-based Operational Allowance. As for risk existing only "if you know where you are!", have you any idea how illogical that statement is? But since you have broached the subject, here are a few headlines for your edification...

HMS York brings aid to Libya as crisis deepens (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/hms_york_brings_aid_to_libya_as_crisis_deepens_1_2460399)
Royal Navy Clears Mines From Libyan Harbour (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/mine-countermeasure/hunt-class/hms-brocklesby/news/royal_navy_clears_mi.htm)
HMS Liverpool fires on Gaddafi forces (http://www.bfbs.com/news/navy/hms-liverpool-comes-under-fire-libyan-coast-49537.html)
HMS Liverpool comes under fire off Libyan coast (http://www.bfbs.com/news/navy/hms-liverpool-comes-under-fire-libyan-coast-49537.html)

...and here are some views of the beseiged port of Misrata from one of the ships. Do you still think the members of a ship's company wouldn't know how close they are? From CO to most junior chef or mechanic, they are all 'in the same boat' and simply get on with their job 24/7, watch-on, watch-off except when at action stations. And they sleep on board in bunks. :)

http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/images/Brocklesby%20view%20of%20Misrata%203%20med.jpg (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/img/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/mine-countermeasure/hunt-class/hms-brocklesby/news/misratah-close-3.jpg)

http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/images/Brocklesby%20view%20of%20Misrata%20refinery%20fire%202%20med .jpg (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/img/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/mine-countermeasure/hunt-class/hms-brocklesby/news/misratah-refinery-fire-2.jpg)

vascodegama

15th Jul 2011, 05:37

orca-where do you think the tanker tracks are?

criminal

15th Jul 2011, 11:38

FODPlod,

...instead of sleeping in a bed made up by a chambermaid in an Italian resort hotel for two weeks at a time and then complaining about the receipt of 'actuals' for restaurant meals and the lack of a free daily newspaper and internet access.

Where have I mentioned any of those things? We are certainly not operating from anything like this, nor are we receiving anything but LSA.

However, whether you are jollying around the world or on ops, you will wake up from the same bed (even if it is shared by someone else), you will receive the same standard of food (at no extra cost to yourself) and you will do the same job in the same place of work. So effectively, nothing has changed for you.

Maybe you should pay the difference to the people who are out of pocket as you are effectively at war from your own bed?!

Corporal Clott

15th Jul 2011, 21:34

RUMOUR ONLY!

Next sneaky trick will be that only those on OA will get a Campaign Medal (if issued). Or OA recipients will get a gong that can be worn and non-OA recipients will get a non-article 5 medal that they will be able to accept but not wear (like Afghanistan).

REPEAT RUMOUR ONLY!

The REME groundcrew on OCEAN will not get gongs at present as she is more than 12 miles off the coast. That is not rumour, but fact, and the ship's company were moaning about it on BBC South West tonight.

Saves a few bob though at roughly £15 per medal that would be about £6k or 5 mins of Typhoon flying! :ugh:

CPL Clott

high spirits

16th Jul 2011, 06:17

There are of course a lot of remfs who sit around in the relatively safe confines of bastion and khandahar claiming an op allowance whilst driving an air conditioned wagon the 300 yards from their cabin to their blunt desk. They then type out endless e-mails, mank about how Aircrew only do 10-12 weeks, or make some new sign to put up about what you are not allowed to do anymore.

To be honest, I think that tanker and AWACS crews deserve better. Surely a graduated op allowance is the way forward. I wouldn't begrudge the private soldier who lives in a PB and gets malleted every day on a hot patrol if he got more than me. Likewise I might expect to get slightly more than the fat WAAF who doles out the blueys..

There must be a fairer system. Employment of the existing regs for ellamy is just sheer laziness.

Daysleeper

16th Jul 2011, 07:59

Why is OA being paid to Libyan aircrew?

Makes perfect sense, if OA is danger money then surely out of all involved they are running the greatest risk

what with all those Tiffy and Rafale mates waiting to mallet them...:}

Foxee

16th Jul 2011, 08:17

Let us be clear about what OA is for. It is paid to personnel subjected to the "risk and rigour" of the operational environment and is in addition to the X Factor within basic pay. Note that it isn't paid to those suffering just the rigours (which the X Factor is supposed to cover). Believe it or not, even that fat WAAF handing out the blueys is subjected to both risk and rigour, albeit on a different scale to a soldier under constant attack in a PB. Aircrew overflying Libya, and Sailors within Libyan territorial waters, are indeed subjected to the risk and of course the rigours of the operational environment.

I can not hold anything against someone who gets an allowance that I don't, especially given that they qualify for it and I do not. LSA is being paid to those supporting Op ELLAMY away from home and rightly so. When OA didn't exist, everyone just got on with their job on Ops; why with it now being paid do so many people complain about not getting it?

Willard Whyte

16th Jul 2011, 10:45

Aircrew overflying Libya, and Sailors within Libyan territorial waters, are indeed subjected to the risk and of course the rigours of the operational environment.

Indeed, but only at 11.99 miles, not 12.01 miles.

uncle peter

19th Jul 2011, 18:41

TC "Sharkey" Ward's take on OA. Still chuckling to myself 40 mins after reading it.

1. Britain’s warships operating off the coast of Libya, delivering Apache helicopter strikes against Col Gaddafi’s armed forces and conducting naval gunfire bombardment of targets threatening rebel positions, are indeed under threat of retaliation by the Gaddafi regime. Modern artillery is quite capable of engaging targets accurately well beyond a 12 mile range.

2. During the conduct of such seaborne operations close to the enemy shore, the warships have to run action station routines which impose difficult living conditions for all personnel.

3. The MoD statement that “The allowance is not paid to those whose deployment represents no increase in threat, or whose living conditions are not made arduous by their deployment” is quite explicit. As such it does indicate that personnel on board warships conducting operations off the Libyan coast do indeed qualify on both counts for the payment of Operational Allowance.

4. The fighter aircraft operating over Libya remain at altitude well outside range of small arms fire from the ground. Col Gaddafi has no surface-to-air missile systems left with which to threaten these aircraft. And so the aircrew are not under as much threat as the personnel on board the warships; but they do spend the large majority of their time in comfortable hotels at an Italian tourist resort. It is therefore a clear injustice that these pilots are paid Operational Allowance when others who are much more in harm’s way are not.

5. Air to air refuelling tankers, AWACS aircraft and the RAF Sentinel aircraft do not venture into or over Libyan airspace. Are the aircrew of these aircraft who also live in ritzy conditions ashore also being paid Operational Allowance? If they are, an even greater injustice is being inflicted upon our Royal Navy heroes and heroines.

...and hacks are taking him seriously. More suited to stand up I wager.