I must be missing something on 4 counts
1. The company claimed it had to go "onshore" because of NI contributions and the retirement age. It now claims "legal opinion" says neither of these are a player because the aircraft are not UK registered.... so why go "onshore"?
2. House of Lords (the 2nd highest Court in the land) says based guys are UK employees and afforded the protection of UK employment law. Subsequently, 1 QC gives opinion that flying a non-uk registered aircraft(as G Crofts did) exempts you from at least part of UK emploment law and that is now taken as gospel..... so you really can be half pregnant?
3. The company, albeit unwillingly, agrees to raise the pay of extendees on base from B to A. AOA legal opinion says UK retirement law doesn't apply and the company reverts to the status quo of paying B scales and picking and choosing who they extend... somehow this is a win for the AOA?? To win, someone must lose... how did the company lose...?
4. Joblow claims the based C&T will leave and seeks some leverage in the argument. However, the based C&T's were never slow in bragging that once they got flying age 60/65 there would be no requirement to stay in C&T and they would leave anyway.....