CHQ Move Update
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Mawgan
Age: 48
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHQ Move Update
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$es?!
SNCOs/WOs will have accommodation in the Mess, as there are rooms available. The standard of room is s**t and they know it is, but they are building a SLAM block starting 1 Apr 06 that will be finished... well, when it's finished that will provide decent accommodation.
Officers will use the Mess, Mess Annex (portacabins), Converted airmens quarters, NOM at Halton and Uxbridge. There are about 20 spaces on site at High Wycombe and about 70 officers moving, so most will be at Halton (primarily) and Uxbridge. A SLAM block is planned for 2008.
Little mention was made of JRs - perhaps they don't matter?! However, they are bulldozing the JRM at High Wycombe to make way for a SLAM build, and a temporary catering facility will be used in the mean time.
I know it's been said before, but why oh why are we (the RAF) inflicting all this s**t on our people to move into an expensive area with no accommodation, poor facilities and no obvious cost savings? Does the NAO know about the waste that this will generate? In RAB terms we could save a fortune by closing High Wycombe and moving somewhere with more accommodation, room to expand and in a less expensive area (not necessarily Innsworth, either).
Does anyone know the reasoning behind this seemingly ludicrous decision? Is there any reasoning? Are our 'leaders' actually blind one-armed monkeys with pineapples shoved up their ar$es?!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Join Date: May 2000
Location: door or ramp, don't mind.
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!>
Just calling it "Combined HQ" is a bit vague isn't it? Combined from what?
Oh well, that's blunties for you!
<Further incoming!>
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Mawgan
Age: 48
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Just a thought from waaayy above my pay band.
Maybe, just maybe, HM Forces should take a few leaves out of the Israeli book due to this fact (many thanks to Wikipedia):
....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)
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].
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)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dorset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
LC
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
STH
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not Cambs Anymore
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOM
[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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Mawgan
Age: 48
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Nice place - not!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bucks
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HW is not all bad!
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!
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!
Stargazing
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: West
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..........
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..........
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Any thoughts?
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...