There is absolutely nothing in our rostering agreement preventing anyone from reaching 900 hours in a year. Not at a big base, not at a small base. If a small base generally struggles to meet these hours due to short sectors, then it is dead easy to swap crews over between bases during let's say one in four weeks to even out differencies. Nothing prevents this, and sure a bit of moaning here and there but everyone could be at 900 hrs, earning good money, and not having to put the house up for sale every now and again.
I flew 100 hours in August, with plenty of rest and a bit of standby even, doing weeks with 20 sectors. So what's the problem? Seasonability? Well, so so sorry, but that is the business of aviation. Tough luck investing money in that!
There will always be a base at the bottom of the revenue list. Get rid of EMA, and there will be another one down the bottom, over and over again, and easyjet will end up chasing the rainbow.
It is greed and only greed driving the company. The image of easyjet being rather stable will disappear amongst the customers, booking months ahead suddenly a gamble, just as risky as booking with a new starter. That could cost big money, and customers will just wait to book "deal of the day" with any airline.
If continental bases are so smashingly good, then why don't they already expand at a greater rate?
Anyhow, there is no issue over crew "flexibility" that's for sure. 900 hrs is achievable using pen and paper without allmighty optimizer software.
But sure, pay negotiations coming up too, so probably no coincidence that these reductions were proposed just as negotiations on T and C are to start.
I'd rather be fired myself to protect the fixed roster pattern of my friends.
"In order to make a good omelette you need to break a few eggs".