I'm at HW and it's not all bad. My understanding is that it was a free and fair competition between the 2 sites, with an option of going somewhere else, and HW came out as the cheapest. We have got a bunker and pretty goo IT system which must have helped the decision process.
The accommodation is a bit grim, I've stayed at NOM and it was pretty bad, but there's good and bad accommodation across the RAF. There are plans to improve accommodation, but it all takes time and money, so until it happens I guess we make do, as we've always done.
I know it's pretty tempting to keep looking backwards and bemoaining the fact that things are changing all the time, but that's always been the case, well certainly since my time in the RAF, and it's a fact of life. I can't see how an organisation that has shrunk from 100,000 to around 42,000 over the last 18 years could ever justify more than 1 HQ site anyway.
So in essence, we all need to just crack on!
