Proper Use of Military Pesonnel?
 

This may be short-lived, and shoot me down if you like, but:

It must be true - Daily Mail says so - 80 RAF drivers are to be trained to drive fuel tankers as a contingency plan for the possble forthcoming strike by fuel road hauliers.

Presumably they will have some knowledge already, possibly as fuel bowser drivers (or they may just be plucked from a limitless source of LGV [formerly HGV] qaulified drivers); if so, this would leave a fairly large hole in manning of that speciality. Who would back fill (no pun intended) their posts at unit or depot level to provide fuel for our aircraft?

Notwithstanding any possible operational ramifications, is this a proper use of military personnel? Civil contingency planning involving military is supposed to cater for emergency situations; flood assistance springs to mind; foot and mouth; firefighter strikes (but only because of the protection of life aspect). I do not believe it should be enacted to interfere in industrial disputes (except the aforementioned firefighter case).

So, who is going to refuel your aircraft if 80 warm bodies are diverted to other duties?

Mister B

Anyway, shouldn't all available personnel be training for the summer jockstrap event...?

I would suggest that massive disruption countrywide affecting almost every tier of the economy and society at large - including vital services, would constitute an "emergency situation".

Same story on BBC News BBC News - Petrol strike threat: No 10 denies causing 'panic'

If all 2000 drivers go on strike then should be obvious that 80 cannot replace them. My take is that the 80 are to ensure fuel supplies to "critical" installations and not to supply fuel to the public.

MACC. Support to civil logistics and infrastructure. Petrol stations running out of fuel has a huge economic impact as well as the threat of civil unrest because of it. 80 HGV drivers is no big deal in the grand scheme of things for the military and pales into insignificance when compared to the demands of the Olympics. I'm surprised it's only 80 drivers being called on to be honest. Yes it is proper use of UK military personnel.

Who's going to fill the aircraft? The same civvies that do it now probably :hmm:

I've always thought that the striking truck drivers would think twice about giving the replacement drivers any stick for crossing the picket if they were from the forces.

That said, I suspect it is simply a SOP contingency plan for the government for what they perceive to be "vital services". It's the same when the firemen went on strike, they drafted the army in. At the end of the day, the army will always do as they are asked, civilians are a little more difficult to convince.

Military tankers drivers in the RAF? Not many I'll be bound. Obviously those that have been trained and done deployed service but the majority in UK will be contractor personnel.

If Serco and the like was offered the job would they accept given Union issues?

Given the likely massive financial losses that the fuel companies will incur with this strike it seems to make good sense to just fire all the employees and rehire people who actually want to do some work.

According to http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore...oyee-guide.pdf the maximum claim for unfair dismissal during an authorised strike is £50,000.

Seems like money well spent if you ask me.

PN,

...considering that, with the final demise of the Green Goddesses, "Serco and the like...." now provide emergency cover if the Fire Service go on strike, then I presume "Union issues" have already been considered and circumvented/discounted by the likely companies in question...?

Biggus, true I suppose but I would guess they have to volunteer. My contractors would have been very happy to work beyond the contract. OTOH under the same contract my colleague's contractors on an adjacent site guarded their working hours jealously.

Maybe the choice of service indicates the additional bodies the RAF has?

OC Ops at Marham* will have to drive his own 1.4l Corsa to High Wycombe for a meeting instead of getting MT to drive him there and back in the Galaxy.

Ho ho ho.

*Add your choice of (ever reducing) base here as required.

Be thankful. In many countries of the world 'proper use' of miltary personnel includes dressing them up in civvies and having them attend political events to cheer on el presidente. I'm comfortable that keeping vital services supplied with fuel in the event of strike action sits well within the role of anyones military.

FB11 - a rather snide remark. The original news report was of '300 Army' drivers to be used (DT, Tue 27 Mar), 80 RAF ones would just be its contribution to the emergency rather than an indication that the RAF was overmanned or under utilised.

Be careful what you wish for...come July there may well be mil pers emptying Portaloos in Stratford, so driving a tanker up and down the M6 may suddenly become an attractive proposition for those suitably qualified...albeit a busman's holiday...sorry:oh:

Err the last time they had a strike when the green goddesses where deployed I was still in, they sent candidates to Saints to the then driving school, they drove across the parade square circled around an instructor pulled up between 2 cones got out to be issued with an HGV, next man got in and did the same to the other side of the square..

The last tanker drivers one they had a mate in the cab with a pick axe handle in case any strikers got stroppy on the picket lines..

Oh Ken,

Do lighten up.

(Most of us on here do actually understand the manning levels of the services and the requirements to fulfil MACA/MACP commitments).

It was meant to be a light hearted distraction from geeks talking about the High Voltage arrtibutes of EMALS and AAG in the 'other' thread.

Apologies if it hit a raw nerve on how others percive RAF manning levels.

Or dress up as Policemen during a big strike by oh lets say Coal Miners:E

During the last strike in 2000 when we sent ASMT drivers to drive petrol tankers from the local refinery, nearly half the drivers we sent put their PVRs in as soon as they got back to the unit as they had been offered much better paid jobs with no prospect of an OOA tour!!

Need to start doing the numbers on this

2000 supposed strikers but reality is 15-20% will work and screw the consequences as they self employed and need the cash.

3-400 military drivers provided with escort if required so no traffic hold ups.

Now on a "normal" basis there are never 2000 drivers every week as taking holidays, sickness, training etc etc then you lose 20% on average depending on time of year.

Add in limited hours that drivers work, Govt will overlook during an emergency, then reality is that is by expanding the hours drivers allowed to work, police escorts if required and get in deliver and leave to next then in short term the pumps could remain in use.

Of course if you consider somewhere like Carlisle where say 15 fuel stations in the town but on a normal basis 3-4 tankers required from different companies to fill the tanks, now you do it with 2 where they fill everybody up.

The key thing that always worries Govt is public panic, if everybody figures they can fill up when they require and everybody is getting resupplied then there is no panic buying.

Also add in that Joe Public may be told to leave the car at home which many will do and you can probably reduce fuel purchases by 10% over course of a week.

Its all possible, tight but possible and requires a lot of luck all going your way.

I have a sneeking feeling that Govt want this to happen and win it because it makes Brokeback Dave look tough.

Babble. Just babble.

I went out for a sandwich at my local Tesco's (insert supermarket of choice - plenty are available) and what did I see - 200m of queueing vehicles just to get into the filling station, never seen that before.

I didn't realise we had moved over to Communistical Living, which line do I go to so that I may purchase a loaf of black bread, some sausage and a bottle of peons vodka?

if they strike, they strike. I'll drive a tanker....