eglnyt, it would likely be based on when a scheme member reaches maximum accrual for the benefits. If we both retired in 2 years on same pay, and ive worked for 41 years and you have for 39, I could take home more than you. This is wrong. And, the benefit is no longer definable. The fixed rise suggestion is better because the benefit IS still defined relative to salary.
I'm beginning to think that the proposal's implications have not been fully thought through. Would it help if I said I can see a scenario whereby an ATCO who started in 1996 could potentially bypass (legitimately!) the effect that this cap may have on everyone else? I'll let you or someone else work that one out!
I agree with some of the principles behind the proposals, but I think there are too many flaws with it as it stands.