not unless the airlines change their view that anyone over 35 is suddenly less of a training risk which is primarily why the "old" age limit was there in the first place.
A training risk to whom? Nowadays, the candidate is having to pay for just about everything from SIM assessment through to Type Rating. The airline just picks up the line training, and that costs them bu**er all because they are getting a body to sit in the co-pilot seat for substantially less than it would cost them for a fully qualified person.
As mentioned earlier, the legislation states (vaguely) that in justifying an age limit, the act or policy in question must be a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". It would be disproportionate to disqualify a candidate from a training course on the presumption that he / she was less likely to pass it on the grounds of his / her age, when in fact the contrary is more likely to be true. Substitute "gender" or "race" for the word "age" and it makes more sense.
Of course some on the ball HR person might point out that if they don't interview anyone over 35 then they might be open to criticism/legal action so of course they can select 1 lucky punter and go through the hoops and then bin them at a later date.
I just don't see that this has any mileage. The true test is "proportionate representation", as applied to all other areas of anti-discrimination law. If a disproportionate number of recruits are under 35, two or three years down the road it will be obvious what is happening. In the meantime, I would predict a couple of lawsuits will already be in the pipeline.
LD Max