Let's just have the relevant Act and Section - and date - of the 'employment law' referred to in some of the above posts, plus any recent case law decisions. Then we can base our arguements on fact, or otherwise.
Nebulous claims of 'it's the law' may be correct. If so, let's see what the relevant section says, and whether it is pertinent to this case.
My guess is that all those above claiming to be 'Midland' pilots are in fact former BusinessAir/Commuter people now working for bmir, who feel compelled by association to argue the case for the seven/eight/twelve. I can't say I blame them - it's human nature.
It's also human nature to fight tooth and nail to protect one's hard earned position in a respected company, and the security/income/mortgage it provides.
As has been said earlier, this was kept very quiet and, apart from a point of principle, would not have mattered much if things had remained as they were.
This is a good lesson for the future - watch what the lawyers are agreeing behind your backs.
However, bmi lawyers have not had a great track record in the past.