Human Factor
I actually agree with you for once - you are entirely right that the two valuations are incomparable per se. An increase has however occurred, which is unsustainable.
Speaking as an accountant, I think that Blueprint's proposal is the best route to take - not as I believe it right that people receive less than the terms on which they were recruited (a moral argument with which I agree), but that longevity keeps rising and rising.
If actuaries and the doctors who advise them do not know how long people will live, and bearing in mind longevity can only really be derived from the average age at which people now are dying, I cannot see how it is sustainable to have revaluations extending out another 50 years that add another 6 months of liabilities on each occassion to any company.
Ironically, the only hope for the short term is for the economy to overheat, raising interest rates, which in turn will discount the liabilities to a greater extent than at present (effectively lowering the burden on the balance sheet).
The only point that I must disagree with is - as before - the point that debt has been paid down. This debt was arranged at the time the aircraft were bought, and is not only highly planned and visible, but is not a "free cashflow" that is available to divert. Without paying this (which was continually paid through all historical years), the assets would be removed by the banks, terminating all revenue-generating ability of the company.
BA's huge problem from a company perspective is paying a large amount into a scheme, which - if the valuations improve so that it is no longer in defecit - the company cannot get back until the last NAPS pensioner expires, which is galling if the amount is massive. To counter this problem, some companies have put the surplus payment in a escrow account or trust, so that it is not caught up in the pension, but is available to pay down the defecit - a better situation for all parties, as the company has resources available if the pension markedly changes, and the pension has the resources to pay all that was promised.
I realise that it is galling to lose what is effectively expected, but it cannot be a zero-sum game.
BARP must also be improved as a priority, as if you do not get the whole workforce on the same side, you will be stuffed. It is a desirory contribution from the company, which should be at least half the employees contribution up to the maximum permitted in a year dependent upon age.
The directors should fire all the management and start again with some fresh-faced 25 year-old MBAs in my opinion. At least they might understand how to motivate and engage the workforce. It's worth taking a chance!