Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Free Mess Accommodation....

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
C

catmanmoo

LAC
13
1
0
Right, here's the issue and I'm sure its well known, but I just can't see a logical reason for it....

Why does a single guy with his own house have to pay accomodation charges, whereas a married guy in the same position does not?

Both claim get-you-home milage as is allowed, yet singly has to pay accommodation charge? I have been in long enough to realise there are many 'unfair' allowances etc, but what is the specific reason behind this particular discrepancy?
 
I think it's just never been changed from the days when singlies didn't have houses, also I would think that the powers that be believe that married people have more to pay out, so it's a bit more money to help them.


Good luck finding the answer cos I'm sure the 'manup/get married/leave if you don't like it' bridgade will be along soon!:PDT_Xtremez_42:
 
Married guys are afforded a little more latitude for the time when they inevitably get divorced and end up losing the house anyway.
 
catmanmoo said:
Right, here's the issue and I'm sure its well known, but I just can't see a logical reason for it....

Why does a single guy with his own house have to pay accomodation charges, whereas a married guy in the same position does not?

Both claim get-you-home milage as is allowed, yet singly has to pay accommodation charge? I have been in long enough to realise there are many 'unfair' allowances etc, but what is the specific reason behind this particular discrepancy?
Click to expand...

Because you can sell up and move closer to your new unit without it impacting on anyone else's life. No wife with a potential loss of career, no kids that change school and lose touch with their friends.
 
muttywhitedog said:
Because you can sell up and move closer to your new unit without it impacting on anyone else's life. No wife with a potential loss of career, no kids that change school and lose touch with their friends.
Click to expand...

Yes because selling a house, buying a house aomewhere else (with the potential for another move/camp closure etc) is so easy both practically and financially...

I accept that things are the way they are (own a house back home, live in block on camp when on shift), but it doesn't seem fair tbh. GYH softens the blow a bit so I have to be thankful for that.

What if somone has a family with kids etc, but they aren't married and the other half has a career back home? This argument has been done to death on here and the `well leave the RAF if you don't like it` brigade will be along shortly I'm sure.
 
value for money

value for money

If you think about it a married guy may spend 4 nights a week there and bash the gym or catch up on sleep of an evening.
The singly will be there 7 days a week draining as much power out of the sockets as they will allow without melting to power their beast of a PC, their 50 inch plasma, their toaster microwave and fridges. Spending an hour in the shower the morning after the night before and blocking up the bogs with kebabs and carrots.

Those who make the rules must assume if you are not married you will be in the block all the time? If you want to go and live in a house then they must feel you choose to do that.
I guess the option is get married and stop living in sin?:PDT_Xtremez_26:

I guess it will be the next blow to equal it out so we all pay the same. They now pay the same food charges.
 
Last edited:
On one topic, the striving for fairness resulted in PAYD, do we really need to wreck every other aspect of Service life by well intentioned but not fully considered whinging?
 
Well my tuppence worth says for a singly to buy a house, leave it empty bar weekends and live in the block is a lifestyle choice. A married guy hasn't that option.
 
Not really a lifestyle choice as me and girlfriend bought the house when I worked darn saaarf...true to form I was then posted and moving isn't an option as she needs to be near the big smoke for her career.

I assure you this isn't a trolling post or such like, but having thought about it, what costs do a married couple have over a co-habiting couple that requires free mess accommodation?!

Im not looking to open up a hornets nest, just an answer better than HRs "its just the way it is"....
 
If you feel so strongly about it then get wed.

A registry office do will be less than £200, which you'll get back in your "unfair" SLA charges in about 6 months.
 
Slight different twist on it from me.

Instead of the singlys getting it free, I think married guys should pay. They are serving as 'VOLSEP - Voluntarilly Separated' which means that it is their choice, not the RAFs for them to be unaccompanied. Yes, I recognise the pressures of spouse and childrens work/school etc, but the person made a choice on balance to live-in through the week in the same way that the single homeowner did. If you live there, why shouldn't you pay? (unless INVOLSEP of course but that status is rarely granted).
 
muttywhitedog said:
If you feel so strongly about it then get wed.

A registry office do will be less than £200, which you'll get back in your "unfair" SLA charges in about 6 months.
Click to expand...

He he, then I should have children to take advantage of private school grants, and then, and then....

Whilst I appreciate your sentiments and point, not really the answer to the original question...
 
Surely an incentive for the Married couple to not take up a quarter? The cost of full disturbance allowance+occupancy of a quarter is probably still greater than the cost of free SLA (even after the 'rent' paid for the quarter is deducted).

TLDR - cheaper to give free mess room than to give a quarter.
 
Shiny_Happy said:
Slight different twist on it from me.

Instead of the singlys getting it free, I think married guys should pay. They are serving as 'VOLSEP - Voluntarilly Separated' which means that it is their choice, not the RAFs for them to be unaccompanied. Yes, I recognise the pressures of spouse and childrens work/school etc, but the person made a choice on balance to live-in through the week in the same way that the single homeowner did. If you live there, why shouldn't you pay? (unless INVOLSEP of course but that status is rarely granted).
Click to expand...

Holy $h1t this is truly what is wrong with the Armed Forces these days. No wonder there's no allowances left with this - "I don't get it so no-one else should" - attitude. The bean counters must be rubbing their greasy little hands together - "Well, we asked you and you said this is what you wanted....."

Fcuk it - singlies don't get disturbance allowance so sod the married lads/lasses - let's get rid of that....what else.... oh yeah HDT, I don't get that so sod the guys who live out - it's their choice, bin that off as well.

We should be fighting for a better, more modern allowances system that recognizes the shift in demographic and family unit over the past 10-20 years. We should definitely not be bickering away what little allowances we do have, if I don't qualify for an allowance so be it, but if my colleague/mate etc does, good luck to them. #

The MOD screws us over enough without us trying to screw each other.
 
A slightly different twist on the slightly different twist:

Make everyone pay for accom, regardless of Pstat, but limit GHY to those who are returning to a "family" home during periods of absence. And by "family", I mean a spouse, not a "lifestyle choice partner".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top