Ron,
Point 1 - Incorrect, as has already been pointed out!
Point 2 - Yes, on the PA spine they were paid different amounts, in that they had different ceilings on the pay spine that they could reach, so their pay topped out at different amounts.
Point 3 - Compare rank ceilings, job opportunities, etc of Navs vs AEOs. In the latest round of redundancies they were looking for 2 Wg Cdr AEOs. There were currently 8, yes 8, in the RAF. How many Wg Cdr Navs in the RAF? It's not a pi**ing contest, but the Nav branch was much bigger, offered a wider range of opportunities and the prospect of greater advancement. In an RAF generally run by FJ pilots, most of whom had never ever met an AEO, the Nav branch had more impact, visibility, and effectively status. Officer aircrew were generally labelled as pilot, nav and rearcrew officer, the latter term encompassing commissioned LM, AEs and AEOs in one group. I'm not boasting, simply telling it as it was - live with it!
Point 4 - I'll try not to patronize if you try to get your facts right (see points 1-3 above)
Have a nice day!
Edited to add - My comments were (I would like to think obviously so) in relation to the relative proportions of Navs/AEOs who changed to the WSO brevet. We are therefore talking about the situation pertaining in approx. 2002, and the people who were in the RAF at the time. Lengths of training courses in the 40's, 50's and 60's are therefore irrelvant, as nobody of the that vintage (well there may have been the odd one from the late 60's) was still in to make the maintain/change brevet decision. Lengths of training course in the 70's and beyond would be relevant.
Last edited by Biggus; 22nd Jul 2012 at 07:57.