Bealzebub, thank you for posting the link to the Regulations. I think you should reread para 32 Exception for provision of certain benefits based on length of service, and in particular:
Where B's length of service exceeds 5 years, it must reasonably appear to A that the way in which he uses the criterion of length of service, in relation to the award in respect of which B is put at a disadvantage, fulfils a business need of his undertaking (for example, by encouraging the loyalty or motivation, or rewarding the experience, of some or all of his workers).
Any benefit which puts someone with more than five years service at an advantage to an equivalent member of staff with five years or less service must be justified. I believe this will be a legal can of worms which will only really become obvious towards the end of 2007 when we get the first cases decided in the higher courts.
On the face of it this could challenge any system of increments, seniority etc which gives credit to people with more than five years service. Promotion purely on the basis of service would almost certainly be discriminatory. The first officer with four years service could justifiably claim to have as much ability as one with eight years service and therefore it would be discriminatory to promote the eight year pilot automatically.
Similarly, increments which are automatically added to salary year after year would probably be unjustifiable on grounds of age discimination after five years.
These Regulations are going to cause considerable change in the field of employment and most people have not yet woken up to how far reaching they will be. Please note that in the USA age discrimination claims take the biggest share of all employment related awards made by the courts against employers.
RHRP