can i suggest that we are woefully short of a full set of facts here? there are parallels between maritime and aviation law and i find it surprising that an employee on a local contract should expect its terms to be adjudicated subject to the laws of another jurisdiction. in that sense, i am on the side of those who cite the (enormous) implications if this has wider application. any multi-national firm can reasonably expect that its locally recruited and based employees would be subject to the labour laws of that territory. equally, the government of that territory has every right to be offended if a foreign court decides otherwise.
we must be missing something here; there is an element we cannot see that pursuades unite to pursue this and for a court to agree with them.
there is a contradiction also in those, on the other thread, who are advocating that this is the correct interpretation. if, as cc say, their job is so stressful- anti social hours, exposure to radiation etc-not to mention difficult passengers and bullying management- surely there is a case for a lower retirement age? rather like the armed forces, the police and the fire service.
should not unite be campaigning for a universal 45 retirement or redeployment to a less front-line role? I have recently used a european airline on several occasions, where there is clearly no early retirement for cabin crew. it is only a slight exaggeration to say, as a retiree myself, there have been times when i have been tempted to offer my seat to the cabin crew out of courtesy. i think unite are fighting the wrong battle.