Good or Too Long\Too Much??
Dearest Union reps
In response to TM's recent email regarding moving to flexible roster pattern, I would like to inform you, the Union and ultimately the Company of my TOTAL AND UTTER DISGUST at what is being suggested by those in LaLa Land. I am in agreement with the Company that things have to be done to combat the problems caused by fuel prices but where I end that agreement is when all the cost cutting measures have to be born through Cabin Crew, Flight Deck and Passengers.
A short list to prove this follows. These are all cost cutting plans that have been or are going to be introduced:
- Single Engine Taxi in (more work for FD)
- Single Engine Taxi Out (LGW STN Trial) (More work for FD)
- Use of Ground Power where possible (More work for FD, puts CC and pax in an uncomfortable working environment in 30°C+ Cabins)
- Use of only 1 a/c Pack on Ground (see previous point)
- Reduction of dry stores onboard (CC cannot offer pax what they want all the time)
- Flying slower (more work for CC, FD and worse for pax as there is less buffer in schedules for delays)
- Baggage charges
- Speedy Boarding
- Excess baggage charges (last three points are moving towards a 'nickle-and-dime' mentality instead of just raising fares, which people will ultimately pay if all airlines charge passengers what it costs to fly them, rather than them feeling that they are getting charged for everything, which makes the company look bad in the eyes of Passengers)
- Moving CC to 'Flexible' (read Random) rostering.
The final point is where I take most offense. TM's email stated that 6/3 rostering in smaller bases is inefficient, this point I can accept, and things should be changed at the those smaller bases, DTM especially to try and save their jobs, and make them take random rostering or risk having their bases closed. Another reason she stated was that on some days there is a surplus crew and on others there is a shortfall in crew. I would like the Company to state why this is MY problem that there are not enough crew on each day, which brings me to another point as to why this excuse is not a good one. EasyJet has the same amount of aircraft flying each day so each day there should be the same amount of people available to work. It is not as though on one day there are all aircrafts flying and then the next there are 20 aircrafts less causing a surplus amount of crew. Furthermore, if it is the case that there is not enough crew in one group, then move crew to another group. We get to keep out fixed pattern and the Company has the right crew in the right group. It is not as though they don't do it anyway. I have changed groups 3 times during my time at easyJet, after my probation, when I got promoted to SCCM and when I transferred to ***. All of these I did not have a choice. I didn't mind so much changing groups. I still had the fixed Roster. This is one big reason why people choose to work for easyJet. From a lifestyle point of view, its the only good thing, because during the 6 days on, I am worked to the bone, but at least I always have 3 days off, and I know exactly when those days off are going to be. If Tina Milton and her cronies are trying to deliberately p**s people off, then they have succeeded.
She also stated that moving to flexible rostering 'gives Rostering a better opportunity to balance duty hours and associated workload in order to better manage high hours and the losses in sector pay and commission that can result'. Rostering IS the main problem as to why crew are getting HCT's, being moved to other bases to operate and having some crew working 100 block hours a month and others only working 30. To move the blame for this level of incompetence to CC is totally unacceptable. I have personally seen and operated with crew from another base when I know that someone of similar group and rank has been sent to the other base to work. Why couldn't the said 2 crew members remain in their respective bases and remove the costs of hotel and positioning and as TM put it, 'Alleviate the disruption of taking people away from their home base to operate'. A big reason for this is that within this organisation, many times the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
Moving back to my initial point of all cost cutting measures are coming from everywhere except hangar 89 and easyLand. The only thing that I have seen the 'Powers that Be' (ie Management) to help reduce costs this year is to have their pay frozen. The only problem with this is that is only Upper Management and they all got offered share options first to cover the money they would have lost otherwise. I would place money on the bet that Our Fearless Leader Andy Harrison will jump ship as soon as the share price starts moving North again. Now I don't think that is an acceptable form of Management that works well with the 5 Pillars or whatever this months brainwashing feature is.
Who thinks of these ideas? I mean 5 Pillars and 'Low Cost With Care and Convenience'. I will tell you who, one of the 533 people in easyJet who are in a Management Position. That works out to be nearly 1 Manager for 7 Cabin Crew. How is this cost effective? Some of them I understand. Like we need 8 Senior Crewing Officers, 25 Operations Officers and 17 Crewing Officers. But is there any need for a Technical Library Supervisor or a Crew Planning Analyst? Surely the Crew Planning Manager should be able to analyse his or own Plans and does not someone else to do it at a cost of probably GBP30000 per year? Or the Regional Cabin Crew Managers? Why?? The now Cabin Crew Managers are doing exactly the same roles as they were when they where Base Cabin Crew Managers, there is just an extra step in there in the Chain of Command before it reaches TM? Maybe that is why? She is trying introduce more and more management to move her further and further away from the people who she is in charge of? The biggest number of employees in easyJet, the Cabin Crew.
I believe that all those who are employed in a management position on the list that is available on inside easyjet entitled 'Management Structure' should have to write a formal letter proving why they are an asset to easyJet rather than just another level of Management. On the easyJet website under Company Overview, they state the following:
'easyJet favours an informal company culture with a very flat management structure, which eliminates unnecessary and wasteful layers of management. All office-based employees are encouraged to dress casually. Ties are banned - except for pilots! Remote working and 'hot-desking' have been characteristics of easyJet since the beginning.'
EasyJet's management structure is now anything but flat. If even only 10 managers were removed from their positions or their positions were no longer viable, the company could save nearly half a million Pounds a year. I am all for cost cutting and trying to increase profits, but where the cuts are coming from are not balanced. Cabin Crew, Flight Deck and Passengers are the ones that losing the most or on the flip side, putting the most into the company to achieve their goals. If ever some of the Managers left their Ivory Towers in LTN, and came down and saw what we had to deal with and the way we have already cut nearly as much as possible, they might see the light and realise that just because they are managers they are safe. There is no need for managers when there is no one to manage. If the Company is trying to get people to leave easyJet then they are going the right way about it. The last 2 years or so have seen this Company nose dive. I thought the summer of 2005 was bad... that was paradise compared to what it is like working here now.
Although there are many more points raised in here than the just the removal of 6/3, and most are outside the control of the Union, the 6/3 pattern is very important to alot of people and we need to fight to keep it, if some people do not want the 6/3 anymore, then they should be able to choose to go off it, the Company would like that. But we should ALL fight to keep it. It is high time that those in LaLa Land take responsibility for the problems they have either caused or chose to ignore which have now compounded into bigger issues.
I know this is long, but I hope it does not fall on deaf ears and some, if not all of it is shown to the company in our fight/negotiation. I am passionate about my job, but I am also passionate about my life.
This was sent to the The Union, I was tempted to send it too AH and TM as well, but thought I better wait
Good luck everyone!