Correct, the bmir/Loganair case was supported by BALPA - who seem to be conspicuous by their absence in this particular case even despite the rumoured salaries on which Q400 pilots are being offered "new" jobs.
There are very clear similarities between the two cases. bmir and Loganair had a common shareholder. Flybe 1 and Flybe 2 had a common shareholder - the largest shareholder in Flybe 1 is the sole shareholder in Flybe 2. They are proposing to fly the same aircraft type on the same routes. There are obviously those arguing otherwise, presumably to suit their vested interests, but the two situations have so many similarities that it is surprising BALPA is not supporting TUPE action in the case of Flybe 2. And with yesterday's revalation about the intent of that shareholder, you'd think they should be getting involved to protect pilots interests.