[stackskipton]

>I was also surprised to learn that they were paid differently by job.

US does this in roundabout way. Medical officers have various Special Pay along with Flight Pay, Flight Deck pay and so forth. Not to mention various bonuses for various ratings that have come and gone.

It makes sense from manning standpoint since certain ratings will have siren call of civilian jobs compared to others. (ITS, CTN vs YN, RS)

[yamazakiwi]

>US does this in roundabout way. Medical officers have various Special Pay along with Flight Pay, Flight Deck pay and so forth.

Everyone gets various special pay depending on their command and those don't compare to the Australians varying pay largely by role.

>It makes sense from manning standpoint since certain ratings will have siren call of civilian jobs compared to others. (ITS, CTN vs YN, RS)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are deployed on a ship then everyone has "siren calls". All 4 of those rates earn the same money and get additional pay for command based increases unrelated to their rate specifically.

[stackskipton]

>Everyone gets various special pay depending on their command and those don't compare to the Australians varying pay largely by role.

What special pay? Sea Pay or Hazardous Duty pay? That's obviously location based incentives and not rating based compared to Flight Duty pay, though that's consider "Hazard Pay"

>I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are deployed on a ship then everyone has "siren calls". All 4 of those rates earn the same money and get additional pay for command based increases unrelated to their rate specifically.

Siren call of much higher job prospects with a ton more money for ITS/CTN compared to YN or RS.

[yamazakiwi]

>Siren call of much higher job prospects with a ton more money for ITS/CTN compared to YN or RS.

What does job prospects have to do with anything? I'm not trying to be rude, I truly don't understand what you're talking about. The Australian Navy pays their sailors COMPLETELY different per role even if they are the same rank. I have no idea what flight duty pay is and it is irrelevant to my point since it clearly didn't affect me or anyone at my command, making your general statement that the US Navy does it in roundabout ways confusing and incorrect. My buddy was an RN, I was an IT, we made the same money, it's that simple.

For the most part ITS, CTN, YN, RS all make the same amount of money if they are the same rank in the US Navy.

You get paid from the Rank Table, you can look up how much each rank makes. When I was in, I made E-5 in 4 years and was paid the same as other E-5's despite what their job was, or how long it took them to make E-5. This is not a roundabout way to pay someone differently based on their role/rate.

It could be different now as they might want to incentivize growth of specific roles but in my time that was with enlistment bonuses, not rate specific pay (which I have never heard of).

[stackskipton]

Flight Duty Pay applies to anyone in aviation rating that flies. I know how pay scale works.

In any case, Navy still gives out enlisted bonuses for certain rates, https://www.navy.com/careers-benefits/pay/enlistment-bonus and they have changed over the years. I also know certain rates were eligible for higher reenlistment bonuses when I dealt with it. So it’s kind of like rating pay in roundabout way that’s really messy.

That aside, paying by rate makes sense if you want to keep certain rates and had trouble doing it. Again, when I was in that world as nasty civilian, almost every CTN was gone as soon as they ETS because E-4/5 pay was laughable compared to what they were being offered outside the military. I don’t know what current manning looks like now.

[yamazakiwi]

I know you know how pay scale works, I was describing to those who don't that the Australian navy has different salaries for different jobs which is in contrast to how the US Navy scales their pay by rank and then you went on a tangent about pay outside the military and Flight pay, and incorrectly implied what I was saying was related or comparable when it isn't lmao