I notice BALPA's (understandably one-sided) version of the dispute makes no mention of BA changing the rules after she joined. I wonder if that's because whoever wrote the piece forgot what some might regard as her best argument or because they realise it's not as strong a point as some have suggested here.
If the rules haven't changed, then she either knew or should have known what they were when she joined. If she didn't bother to check the T's and C's to which she was agreeing, the problem is of her own making.
It seems from the two BBC reports linked above that she not only wants to work 50% but also expects BA to adjust its rostering procedures so she and her husband aren't required to work at the same time.
Was this obviously intelligent woman really unaware when she embarked on her chosen career that airline pilots have to work irregular shift patterns?
Or that child-care would be a problem if she married someone who was also required to work irregular shift patterns?
Or, when she joined BA, that there is a bid system based on seniority?
Interesting that both she and the BALPA spokesman claim BA is so unreasonable and is effectively trying to "force" her out. If I've understood it correctly, she's had 18 months pilot training paid for by BA (£100k?), maternity leave within two years of starting work and, in her third year, an offer of a compromise by which she would be required to work only 75%. After all that, she claims BA's practices exclude women pilots and reinforce the traditional male dominance in its workforce.
I'm not in a position to express an opinion upon the staff morale aspect, but I certainly don't agree with the suggestion that the publicity is damaging to BA. I suspect many people will think she wants rather too much and BA is right not to give in to her demands.
Asssuming she didn't join BA on the basis she'd have the right to work only 50% as soon as she wanted and whenever she wanted, and based only upon what I've read here and in the press reports, I don't at the moment see any merit in her claim of discrimination. However, I'm not a specialist in employment law (which seems very odd in many respects), and the interpretation of 'discrimination' in alleged sex discrimination cases is often so bizarre, that I wouldn't be amazed if she succeeded in having her cake and eating it.
Opinion is strongly divided even in this industry-related forum. If she wins, I suspect public opinion will be similarly divided between those who think BA should have given in to her demands and those who think the law's an ass.