However, I suspect it would be far easier to galvanise the membership had people been caught out through absolutely no choice of their own.
That is simply a convenient excuse to use, to ease the consciences of the majority who are happy to see financial gains at the devastating expense of their colleagues. Half of the BACC did not go for short haul commands, choosing instead to hold out for their long haul commands. If you had had to wait as long for the seniority for a short haul command as the group of SFOs in question, you'd be holding out for a long haul command too (unless you just don't like long haul). There have always been those who wanted the first possible command, and those who prefer long haul and so want to wait for a long haul command. You honestly hand on heart wish short haul commands were always taken at the first possible seniority? You'd still be an FO. You'd happily forego that 33% pay rise for me? I'm touched.
It was your own choice to join BA on a BARP pension and yet you feel NAPS pensions should be sacrificed to improve BARP pensions... So it goes around and around. Unless we start protecting something, we will eventually be left with nothing. BA simply target a small enough group at every stage. They have got their tactics well worked out, because they know BALPA cannot galvanise the pilots who will never stick together, and so the minority being targeted is just trashed every time. The majority are looked after at each individual attack, at the expense of the minority group of the moment. It's short-termism at its worst. In the long run, everyone loses.
Sadly this particular attack on the minority is truly devastating. They most certainly did not choose it, and I think it's fair to say they expected a little more support. I didn't expect to keep my currently projected pension - I was never that naive, but I didn't expect anyone to be happy to raid the pensions of 600 pilots to be divided out to all the rest. That is simply not on.