Footballers often finish a contract and then sign with the same club on a new contract on reduced terms. However, if you remain on the same contract and get a pay cut solely because you are 55, that would appear to be (highly) discriminatory; however is this what Charlie is challenging?
I thought he was saying that the fact he has to retire at 55, when he is perfectly capable of doing the job, is age discrimination. I restate, the point of my post was to challenge those on here saying RA55 is discriminatory and indefensible and then use that "fact" to launch into all sorts of tangental arguments. The company can and no doubt will mount a robust Defence. Whether that Defence will prevail, can only be determined by someone committing a lot of time and cash to what I suspect will be a lengthy legal battle through, I suspect, the entire UK legal system.
Should the company prevail, they will then further argue that they were lawful in retiring Charlie at 55, but then offered him a further (different) contract on different terms (ie lower). I suppose that is why we call them extendees (amongst other names
), the company refers to them as retirees.
To anyone thinking the company will not mount a robust Defence. Imagine the cost to the company of losing this one. Compensation to every UK (possibly EU) pilot they have retired at 55. Those who can get a medical will come back in rank and seniority (time to command...demotion?). Back-pay to all those on reduced terms, including P-Fund. The plan to get rid of A-scale moves to the right 10 years. I note in the Age Discrimination Regulations that employers have to provide medical coverage to all employees (this cannot be declined on cost). I would guess this would also apply to loss of licence and death in service insurance. I bet the premium on loss of licence of 60 year old+ pilot (if you could get it) would be greater than the individual's annual salary..... I would also bet that should the company lose this one the Intracx Notice would have the "Unhappy Tony Face".... followed immediately by a Notice to the Stock Exchange of a profit's warning!
The point you make in your final paragraph is valid, however I am sure any Judgment would only apply to those in Charlie's circumstances (ie House of Lord's ruling saying he's a UK employee afforded protection of UK Employment Law, save for this clumsly worded sub-sectioned) . I don't see Air India pilot's arriving at LHR and successfully claiming Age Discrimination.... but nonetheless a can of worms as you say....