Lets address this in two ways.
1) Money in vs money out argument. Your independent pensions expert only knows how much
you put in and how much
you will take out, because that is what you have told her. Neither you, nor her, know how much flying staff put in, how much BA put in on their behalf, or how much they take out. Thus, she is in no position to state that flying staff get better value out of NAPS as she has no data to compare against ground staff. She is also flatly contradicting the statements made by the trustees who do have that information. You would be advised, yet again, to drop this spurious claim as anyone with an ounce of analytical ability can see right through it.
2) I quote:
A. Flying staff with 5 years service gets a 18.75% pensionable pay rise and works with the comapny for another 25 yrs.
.
B. Ground staff as above, less the 18.75%.
.
These two staff earn the same amout of money every year, they both do 30 yrs with the company, the flying staff will pay more in pension than the ground staff, the company will pay more into the pension to match these payments, the result will be the flying staff gets better value.
So both staff earn the same amount of money, hence the pension they both earned during the previous 5 years are effectively identical in that they both get 5/accrual rate * salary at year 5. Sure the flight crew have a better accrual rate, but they also have a better salary. To say their accrual rate is better 'value' is like saying their salary is better 'value'. It's nothing to do with value, it's just better.
In the ongoing case you seem to have conveniently excluded the fact that the flying staff cannot work 25 years longer and retire on the same terms as the ground staff member. Lets say for arguments sake that both staff members are 35 years old. The pilot was planning to retire at 55, the ground staff (GS) at 60, as per the contracts. Under the new deal the GS will have to work to 65 (a five year increase) but will see their percentage contributions remain static. For the pilot to go at 60 (a five year increase) he will see his pensions contributions increase to 8.25% for the next 25 years. Did your pensions expert factor that into the 'value' calculation?
I sincerely hope that you didn't pay good money to this pensions 'expert' you claim to have consulted as she is clearly nothing of the sort. The ground staff have had their 'bite of the cake', which is only being compelled to work five years longer to achieve their pension. The price of an extra 5 years is 18.75%. You agree to work until 70 you get your 18.75%. Its as simple as that. Do you want it? You keep talking about all staff being treated the same but you seem to go all coy when I suggest you take a ten year increase to your NRA. Or perhaps you would like to keep your five year increase but all flying staff take a ten year increase without compensation? But then that wouldn't be treating all staff the same would it? Of course you won't answer these rather difficult questions as you have no real desire to see all staff treated the same. You want the flying staff to fund your share of the deficit.