To those who have queried, the facts are as I state them. The lady is grounded on full pay + allowances. It is against the sex discrimination act to discriminate against anyone on grounds of pregnancy so for the airline to do any less would be an open and shut case and would cost them a fortune.
The case rests around who should take the decision to ground. Should it be the company under duty of care under health and safety legislation or the individual under
the new Human Rights Act. The potential loss to the lady concerned is loss of flying experience and hence I guess potentially loss of future career opportunities due to less flying hours than otherwise would be the case.
Have to say some of the comments have been sadly sexist and the guy who senses a company conspiricy probably believes that Elvis is still alive and that the moon landings were faked.
Have to say that I rather admire what would appear to be a principled stand by the lady concerned although I disagree with her on the issue itself. Shades of disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it.