Spartacan
I don't think the people here who don't support the pilot are "upset" - they just think she's being unreasonable and demanding a bit much.
There could be many reasons why your lawyer neighbour's position might be different.
eg (In no particular order)
Perhaps her employers were able to agree to her request without causing any inconvenience to the operation of the firm - BA says it would.
Perhaps if your neighbour had asked to work (for example) a 2 day week her employers would have refused and offered a 3 day compromise - the pilot asked for 75% and was offered a 50% compromise which she turned down.
Perhaps your neighbour's firm were prepared to put up with inconvenience/extra cost rather than risk losing her talents altogether - BA has weighed up the pros and cons and decided what this pilot has to offer the company isn't worth the inconvenience/extra cost of giving in to her demands, (even though they've spent a substantial amount of money training her and won't reap the benefits of their investment if she leaves.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers had no reason to be concerned about a possible 'floodgates' effect - BA say there's good reason why they should be concerned.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers are more than happy to have some of their lawyers on a 3-day week - BA says it can cope with some pilots on her fleet working 75% but not 50%.
Perhaps your neighbour's employers decided there were no risks involved in allowing a lawyer who only works a 3-day week to deal with cases - BA says there are flight safety issues involved and they want pilots to be more experienced before they work only 50%, but will compromise at 75% until they gain more experience.
Please don't misunderstand - I haven't got a clue whether there's any force in BA's arguments. I'm simply suggesting that because your neighbour's firm could accommodate her wishes it doesn't necessarily follow BA can do the same because the circumstances may be entirely different.
overstress
Since it's highly unlikely all the 'antis' here are management bean counters, perhaps there's something in what they say. It can sometimes be more difficult to be objective if we know and like the individual concerned.
From what I've read in this discussion, some people aren't sympathetic to someone who was picked up straight from university, given sponsored flying training and the opportunity to work for one of the best and best-paid airlines in the world demanding after only a few years that BA change their rostering system (efficient or inefficient) just to suit her - and then accusing the company which sponsored her training of discriminating against women when they refuse.
Others argue that equality between men and women means just that - not preferential treatment for women.
Others argue the couple created their own problem, that it's a bit much to expect BA to resolve it and, if BA can't or won't, one of the parents should choose between their love of flying and concern for their child.
You may not agree with them, but surely you can see there are good arguments on both sides?
Can you help with one point which puzzles me?
If there's no truth in BA's impractical/flight safety/cost arguments, what do you think is their reason for refusing her request? Floodgates concerns?
Interesting discussion.