OA to be paid to Libyan Aircrew
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA to be paid to Libyan Aircrew
From BBC News:
UK forces operating in Libyan airspace and territorial waters will be paid an extra £29.02 a day, tax-free, backdated to the start of military action in March 2011.
BBC News - UK Libya troops to get operational pay, Liam Fox says
UK forces operating in Libyan airspace and territorial waters will be paid an extra £29.02 a day, tax-free, backdated to the start of military action in March 2011.
BBC News - UK Libya troops to get operational pay, Liam Fox says
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: St Andrews
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry I will be standing at the bottom of the steps charging them £29.02 every time they get in their Tiffy!!! 
Should be enough for an ice-cream a day for each of the groundcrew.
Should be enough for an ice-cream a day for each of the groundcrew.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tanker mates and AWACS need not apply.
Good to see common sense prevail but is a very divisive qualification.
Good to see common sense prevail but is a very divisive qualification.
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
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 40
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA to be paid to SOME aircrew
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.
You gotta hand it to them.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Operational Allowance extended to Libya operations
You gotta hand it to them.Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Operational Allowance extended to Libya operations
Al Udeid isn't such a bad place for a few months. Wouldn't want to live their for years at a time, however. 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
The Deid
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!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
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!
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!
Originally Posted by Wensleydale
...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...
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...?
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...?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by uncle peter
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.
Originally Posted by uncle peter
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.