Cyril
You're really wound up about this and I posed a few questions a page or so ago which you declined to comment on. Can I now repeat what I said and ask you to comment please?
There are clearly some very strong feelings on either side of this debate. I can understand why the majority are not in favour of their money being spent in this way but no one has yet successfully argued why AOA funds should be used for this appeal. Indeed Loopdeloop says the appellant has enough wealthy backers to fund his fees without the AOA getting involved at all – so why did they?
Whether the appeal is won or lost the only people affected will be those who are on a UK base who wish to work beyond 55 and stay on their base. The outcome will not affect either way anybody else’s chances of achieving NRA 65 so the majority are funding an appeal which affects a minority. Even if the appeal is won the final outcome for those affected is unclear. The company is not likely to offer NRA 65 on present terms and conditions. They may well offer COS 2008 to all on the UK base thus complying with the judgement but where does this place those unwilling to sign COS 08? They would have been offered employment to age 65 as required but would then have turned the offer down thus voluntarily choosing to cease employment when their existing contracts expire at age 55. This is about retirement age and not contract law. I would suggest that any legal action brought in order to force the company to offer a new contract to age 65 with existing T & C’s would be a very expensive and futile exercise.
How does such a scenario help the remainder of the workforce – it doesn’t. This is a UK appeal and the result irrelevant elsewhere. Thus those who believe a successful appeal will affect anyone other than UK based pilots are dreaming.
So please can someone explain why the GC got involved in the first place?