The proposed redundancies are extremely bad news.
Changes to legislation have resulted in statutes that all companies have to adapt to and comply with. In many cases this will result in changes of previous policies that might otherwise be unlawful. Obviously, a policy has no supremacy to a law, particularly in a court.
Many companies are now having to amend their employment contracts and general terms and conditions to take into account these changes. LIFO isn't necessarily a violation of the
Equality act 2010, however when used in isolation it may well be. Many companies have now adopted a "matrix" of criteria to be applied in the event of redundancies, so that the requirements of the act are best complied with.
If Balpa allow Flybe to get away with disregarding the policies that all pilots have based their career decisions on it will set a national president! So this effects pilots everywhere!
I think you mean "precedent" but it doesn't matter. The statute has supremacy. You are of course correct in that it does affect pilots (and other staff) in most companies. BALPA (as a trade union and collective of its membership) would be the same as an individual in these circumstances. You would take legal advice. If that advice is that you have a weak case (however much it affects you, or you disagree,) then you must decide what you wish to do. Plenty of people have spent a great deal of money fighting cases that were doomed from onset. A trade union (using their own legal advice) would likely make their decisions in the realisation that it was the collectives money they were using to embark on that course of action.
Have they indicated to you what the advice they have received is? Presumably the negotiations taking place include various options and potential compromises. A bad time, and I wish you the best possible outcome.