OA to be paid to Libyan Aircrew
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
