What Companies Are Actually Doing: Middle East Evacuations and Danger Pay by the Numbers

As conflict in the Middle East continues to create uncertainty for global mobility programs, a new pulse survey from AIRINC offers a timely and data-grounded look at how organizations are responding — and where policy gaps remain.

The survey, conducted in 2026 and drawing from 97 participating organizations across a range of industries and headquarters regions, captures real-time decision-making on two of the most pressing questions mobility teams are facing right now: when to evacuate, and whether to pay more.

Most Companies Are Watching, Waiting, and Preparing

The first notable finding is just how widespread the exposure is. Of the 97 organizations surveyed, 82% currently have international assignees in GCC countries affected by the conflict. This isn't a niche issue confined to energy companies operating in high-risk zones. It spans financial services, high tech, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, and more.

Yet despite that broad exposure, the dominant response has been measured rather than reactive. Over a third of companies (35%) report that no evacuations are currently taking place, and among those that are acting, the approach skews heavily toward employee choice. Forty-four percent are offering voluntary evacuation options to assignees, and 43% to accompanying dependents, while only 16% have issued mandatory evacuation orders for assignees. A notable 23% are requiring certain business-critical employees to remain in location entirely.

The message from the data is consistent: companies are monitoring closely, but most are not pulling the trigger on sweeping program changes.

Where Evacuations Are Concentrated

For organizations that are moving people, the United Arab Emirates stands out as the primary pressure point. Sixty-six percent of companies report evacuations centered in the UAE — nearly double the next highest location, Saudi Arabia at 32%, followed by Qatar at 27%. When employees do relocate, the vast majority (84%) are returning to their home country, with 35% also being redirected to another company-approved location.

Some organizations are exploring more creative flexibility, including enabling assignees to work remotely from neighboring countries where they hold the right to work — a practical middle ground that avoids the full cost and disruption of repatriation while managing duty of care obligations.

Danger Pay: Lots of Consideration, Little Consensus

On the question of danger pay, the survey reveals a market still in formation. Very few companies are currently paying a temporary premium above their regular hardship allowance — ranging from just 3% in the UAE to 10% in Israel and Qatar. However, a meaningful share are actively considering it, particularly in Qatar (37%), UAE (34%), and Saudi Arabia (31%).

Where companies are paying or planning to pay, there is no clear standard on structure or amount. Responses range from percentage-of-salary premiums (5% to 20%) to flat amounts, with a significant portion still undecided. The AIRINC data makes clear that the market hasn't coalesced around a benchmark yet, which puts individual organizations in the position of making judgment calls without strong peer data to lean on.

The Broader Pattern

What emerges from the survey is a portrait of global mobility programs operating in a mode of structured vigilance. Companies are building cross-functional taskforces, tracking assignee locations in real time, extending travel policies, and preparing for tax and immigration compliance scenarios — all while holding off on formal policy changes until the situation warrants them.

That posture reflects a hard-won lesson from prior disruptions: flexible, responsive support tends to serve both employees and organizations better than rigid, premature program changes. For mobility teams still working through their own approach, knowing that most peers are in a similar state of watchful preparation may itself be useful context.