To simplify greatly, is it fair to say the following:
1) a single scheme entrant on a high salary with no promotions will not have a much lower pension than if they had entered pre-2013
2) a single scheme entrant who enters at a low grade and has many promotions would have a much better pension if they had entered pre-2013
In general, my gut feel was to agree with your thinking
@NoRegretsCoyote , though I had to run some numbers to check. And of course this all depends based on individual circumstances and assumes my own calculations are correct...
For case 1), I assumed the following: 5 years at HEO, 5 years at AP, 30 years at PO (so that the person in Case 1 and Case 2 ends at the same point). Based on my calculations this person would be entitled to:
Lump sum: Approx. €154k (1.5x average salary, 1.31x final salary)
Pension (including full CSP): €51k (0.5x average salary, 0.44x final salary)
For case 2), I assumed the following: 5 years at CO, 5 years at EO, 5 years at HEO, 5 years at AP, 20 years at PO. Similarly, this person would be entitled to:
Lump sum: Approx. €122k (or 1.54x average salary, 1.04x final salary)
Pension (including full CSP): Approx. €43k (or 0.53x average salary, 0.37x final salary)
For comparison, for a pre-2013 pension (after 40 years service) which ends at PO LS2 (currently €118k):
Lump sum: Approx. €177k (1.5x final salary)
Pension (including full CSP): Approx. €59k (0.5x final salary)
So, on the basis of the above, both single scheme pensions are
lower than the corresponding pre-2013 pension, and case 2 is quite a lot lower.