The MoD statement said: “Operational allowance is paid to those service personnel on operations where they are working at high risk over a sustained period.”
I therefore support the payment of the £29 per day operational allowance to all aircrew committed to a 6-month tour flying over Libya but not to anyone whose most hostile confrontation is liable to be with the hotel concierge after closing time. This also applies to the £5.3k 'windfall' bonus currently awarded on completion of a 6-month tour in Afghanistan/Iraq. However, I believe the allowance and bonus have previously been paid to everyone serving in theatre so would such a distinction in this case be seen as divisive? (And that's before we broach the subject of qualification for campaign medals!)
Deployed personnel are supposedly in 'field accommodation' yet being fed and watered in comfortable hotels and on base at considerable expense to the public purse already. This is just like in any mess back in the UK but without having to pay 'subs' so can an additional bill be justified for local overseas allowance (LOA)? After all, everyone is supposedly busy performing war work, not on extended local leave. I'm assuming they already have the benefits of free phone calls, internet access, postal facilities, etc?