Robert f Jones wonders whether he is missing the point. Well the point is simply this. Peter was 43 years of age at the time of the accident, with 12700 hrs of flying time to his credit, an unblemished record and a loyal long serving employee of BA, whose pilot training had been sponsored by BA. He was offered and accepted so called "early retirement".
Why should anyone of his age and position retire early. It leads one to suspect that it was not a matter of retirement but was one of resignation. Is it not a possibility that there may have been irresistible financial inducements, sufficently persuasive, particularly influential at such difficult times when he was unable to exercise best judgment, for him to accept to be fitted out with the gentle cloak of retirement. So the ultimate question is was he gently leaned on, pushed or shoved out of BA.
The question for law is whether or not there is a case for constructive dismissal. Ofcourse in seeking redress in law would the outcome of such a course of action be likely to yield a better remedy for Peter and his family.
It would seem there simply is no accident without a victim.