"I have heard this discrimination argument used but I am wondering if it is just a convenient excuse.."
As far as the Funding goes "convenient excuse" or not discrimination is what this is
soley about. If Charlie wins; the company will not be able to force a UK based pilot to retire, or take a pay cut due to age, or use the 3 month clause to impose a new contract because he is of a certain age. As night follows day, this ruling will be used on the European bases and could possibly extend through to OZ and NZ given they have historically linked legal systems. HK could get very interesting on the Corporate Governance front. Basically, the Genie is out of the bottle and there will be nothing to negotiate. Whether you consider this a good thing or bad thing is very much personal choice.
The flip side is of course; Charlie loses. I would guess not a lot will change. Perhaps the company will go even more stingy with extendees... not sure. It will however, put to bed the "discrimination" argument for a time.
ATY; great summary of the obvious
... are you arguing for "Funding" or against?