Easyjet cutting flights and jobs
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF: I agree completely with your point regarding yields. Disregarding the human collateral damage, when you're scraping round the bottom of the barrel earning a quid a seat, moving to somewhere with comparable fixed costs or indeed where you have an exisiting infrastructure that lets you make a couple of quid a seat is a no-brainer.
I also appreciate your frustration at the sense of a missed opportunity at EMA. There are after all, economies of scale, so the reluctance to expand and invest would naturally condemn this place to the foot of the profit table.
Where I can't follow your argument is when you mention that crew utilisation is the problem. It's as if crew utilisation is an end in itself. It's not, it's a by-product of your operation.
You wouldn't go and eat more to get more use out of a toilet so you could declare it good value for money would you? You wouldn't drive your car round and round so it had a better cost of ownership to mileage ratio? So why fixate on crew utilisation?
It is no fault of the EMA crews that this irrelevant metric of utilisation is being used as an argument in their (I imagine) unpaid dispersal to who knows where. Their numbers were such I'm guessing as to adequately operate the schedule at their base. If crew utilisation is the problem then why didn't anyone lay more flights on? Because they were either not profitable or not profitable enough.
The aircraft will be moved somewhere new. Why? So that the aircraft can find somewhere cheap enough/profitable enough that allows these people to 900 hours a year?
If that is even a fraction of the rationale behind this then it is the tail wagging the dog.
And yes, it's barking.
I also appreciate your frustration at the sense of a missed opportunity at EMA. There are after all, economies of scale, so the reluctance to expand and invest would naturally condemn this place to the foot of the profit table.
Where I can't follow your argument is when you mention that crew utilisation is the problem. It's as if crew utilisation is an end in itself. It's not, it's a by-product of your operation.
You wouldn't go and eat more to get more use out of a toilet so you could declare it good value for money would you? You wouldn't drive your car round and round so it had a better cost of ownership to mileage ratio? So why fixate on crew utilisation?
It is no fault of the EMA crews that this irrelevant metric of utilisation is being used as an argument in their (I imagine) unpaid dispersal to who knows where. Their numbers were such I'm guessing as to adequately operate the schedule at their base. If crew utilisation is the problem then why didn't anyone lay more flights on? Because they were either not profitable or not profitable enough.
The aircraft will be moved somewhere new. Why? So that the aircraft can find somewhere cheap enough/profitable enough that allows these people to 900 hours a year?
If that is even a fraction of the rationale behind this then it is the tail wagging the dog.
And yes, it's barking.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Norman
It is hugely regrettable that you have been used as a cipher to disseminate eJ corporate dogma on a public site. If you truly have inside information from a central eJ source then you ethically should have offered it to responsible individuals affected by these decisions in confidence. Giving it out on a public site for the benefit of the media, other operators, Goldmember and the **** who thinks that membership of the Moonies or the Taleban is a preferable alternative to membership of a professional association is a bit much.
Yes, I actually do totally agree with you that business is business and I hold some respect for the Gordon Geckos of this world but post credit crunch not one small base has been given the opportunity to discuss special measures to protect the employment stability of their location.
It is hugely regrettable that you have been used as a cipher to disseminate eJ corporate dogma on a public site. If you truly have inside information from a central eJ source then you ethically should have offered it to responsible individuals affected by these decisions in confidence. Giving it out on a public site for the benefit of the media, other operators, Goldmember and the **** who thinks that membership of the Moonies or the Taleban is a preferable alternative to membership of a professional association is a bit much.
Yes, I actually do totally agree with you that business is business and I hold some respect for the Gordon Geckos of this world but post credit crunch not one small base has been given the opportunity to discuss special measures to protect the employment stability of their location.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Grantham
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easyJet - a great team with poor leadership
Caudillo is spot on in his comments about the base team at EMA - they have done all that can be expected of them, something that cannot be said for the uninspiring management at easyJet.
My view of easyJet is mainly as a passenger as well as a retired senior director in business (I also have a flightdeck connection via my son who is an SFO with ezy). With regard to EMA, no management group I have ever worked with would regard the airlines efforts at East Midlands as a job well done. Since taking over GO they have neither gone forward nor backward - in fact they appear to have trodden water. In my experience you cannot run a successful business by standing still (for years in this case). In the meantime, as we know, lots of competitors have developed and grown their EMA offerings as one would expect of any well run business.
As a result of this spineless approach to business the based crews (brilliant in my experience as a regular passenger) have been severely let down.
It seems to me that easyJet is indeed scared of competition. MOL and his merry men have seen EZY off at EMA (I expect they'll paint it on the side of a 737 - 'Goodbye from EMA easyJet'), and they are giving them a run for their money at LPL, BRS and many other places. They also win the publicity war hands down.
EasyJet is a low profile airline, with a seemingly incompetent management at the highest level - think about the fuel hedging disaster in 2009, the crass high level decisions to try and save a few quid by charging flight crew for drinks etc. You may not agree with me, but from everything I've read on this forum (and everything my son whispers in my ears) I think the management of easyJet not worthy of the staff.
My view of easyJet is mainly as a passenger as well as a retired senior director in business (I also have a flightdeck connection via my son who is an SFO with ezy). With regard to EMA, no management group I have ever worked with would regard the airlines efforts at East Midlands as a job well done. Since taking over GO they have neither gone forward nor backward - in fact they appear to have trodden water. In my experience you cannot run a successful business by standing still (for years in this case). In the meantime, as we know, lots of competitors have developed and grown their EMA offerings as one would expect of any well run business.
As a result of this spineless approach to business the based crews (brilliant in my experience as a regular passenger) have been severely let down.
It seems to me that easyJet is indeed scared of competition. MOL and his merry men have seen EZY off at EMA (I expect they'll paint it on the side of a 737 - 'Goodbye from EMA easyJet'), and they are giving them a run for their money at LPL, BRS and many other places. They also win the publicity war hands down.
EasyJet is a low profile airline, with a seemingly incompetent management at the highest level - think about the fuel hedging disaster in 2009, the crass high level decisions to try and save a few quid by charging flight crew for drinks etc. You may not agree with me, but from everything I've read on this forum (and everything my son whispers in my ears) I think the management of easyJet not worthy of the staff.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA has shown the 80% of the population will take a long haul flight from AMS rather than from the UK due to APD and taxes but still GB refuses to see it
Which conversely infers that short haul carriers a la easyjet should see their passengers numbers increase whereas BA, Virgin and others should see their numbers fall from the UK.
Which conversely infers that short haul carriers a la easyjet should see their passengers numbers increase whereas BA, Virgin and others should see their numbers fall from the UK.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naughtimus Maximus -
I beg to differ. By the small number of posts you have made, it may be that you have not understood the nature of what goes on here. Large numbers of easyJet employees (in this case) are expressing their angst and cynicism at management actions regarding the closure of the EMA base. That is absolutely fine, but many of the comments reveal a lack of understanding of the issues. It is entirely reasonable under these circumstances to give an alternative view, whether or not you and I agree with it. In the same way that the nay-sayers are not 'ethically' required to only share their views with their fellow travellers, any comments by management should not 'ethically' be offered to 'responsible individuals' at EMA (whoever they may be). This is an open discussion forum and many views will be presented on it that you and I do not like. Those views are nonetheless valid and are entitled to be heard. There is nothing I have quoted on this public website that our managers do not want to be released. This is not a site solely for the disenchated and disaffected to rant forth on their particular subject. Everyone can be heard and I am absolutely delighted to hear different opinions. Don't shoot the messenger!
Claudio - I think you are wrong on the issue of utilisation. There is clearly an issue of the efficiency of our crews. Believe me when I say it seriously displeases me to hear the comments of Jet 2 and BMI Baby's managers in the light of our departure. I am personally up for a battle with the opposition but we must put our strongest team out if we want to win. It is absolutely vital in the forthcoming discussions that neither side have their 'golden cows' that are not open for negotiation. I am under no illusion abut the significant errors made by our managers in recent years. Nonetheless, it is with them we must deal. And it is them we must provide with a cogent case for not leaving EMA. Bearing in mind that other airlines seem to have a plan, there is no reason we cannot either.
It is hugely regrettable that you have been used as a cipher to disseminate eJ corporate dogma on a public site. If you truly have inside information from a central eJ source then you ethically should have offered it to responsible individuals affected by these decisions in confidence. Giving it out on a public site for the benefit of the media, other operators, Goldmember and the **** who thinks that membership of the Moonies or the Taleban is a preferable alternative to membership of a professional association is a bit much.
Claudio - I think you are wrong on the issue of utilisation. There is clearly an issue of the efficiency of our crews. Believe me when I say it seriously displeases me to hear the comments of Jet 2 and BMI Baby's managers in the light of our departure. I am personally up for a battle with the opposition but we must put our strongest team out if we want to win. It is absolutely vital in the forthcoming discussions that neither side have their 'golden cows' that are not open for negotiation. I am under no illusion abut the significant errors made by our managers in recent years. Nonetheless, it is with them we must deal. And it is them we must provide with a cogent case for not leaving EMA. Bearing in mind that other airlines seem to have a plan, there is no reason we cannot either.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to try and save a few quid by charging flight crew for drinks etc.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps, when bosses try and shortchange staff for food and drinks when they have a £BILLION in the bank and are about to make £30 - 50M profit during the worst recession in a century then the doors that need nailing shut are on the boardroom and the offices of certain managers?
With the relevant people still inside.
With the relevant people still inside.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Europe
Age: 51
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I do not have all the facts, all I can say is that I have visited EZY's commercial department once and an analyst showed me some of the market intelligence and yield models on his computer. Having a background and experience in marketing myself this stuff was really top notch and mind blowing and I am very confident that these base decisions have been taken while being well informed (unless these analysts became the victim of the headoffice headcount reduction in 2008).
It is hard to argue with a business plan that simply puts resources in the places that make the highest contributions, which is Europe at the moment. There is little real competition there, so let the likes of Ryanair, BMI and Jet2 fight it out among themselves in the UK. However, I do not understand how EZY can expand so quickly in Europe with 10 or so new aircraft still arriving every year until 2012, unless more new bases are on the cards.
Certainly it is very sad for the crews, as it was a struggle for many of them to actually get EMA allocated as a base by EZY as there were few aircraft with little pilot movement, and I wish them all the best.
It is hard to argue with a business plan that simply puts resources in the places that make the highest contributions, which is Europe at the moment. There is little real competition there, so let the likes of Ryanair, BMI and Jet2 fight it out among themselves in the UK. However, I do not understand how EZY can expand so quickly in Europe with 10 or so new aircraft still arriving every year until 2012, unless more new bases are on the cards.
Certainly it is very sad for the crews, as it was a struggle for many of them to actually get EMA allocated as a base by EZY as there were few aircraft with little pilot movement, and I wish them all the best.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Indian Nation,
Please don't be offended if I invite you to stick your computer models up your jacksy.
We are talking real lives here.
PS And business plans are sh1te as you have to move dynamically.
Please don't be offended if I invite you to stick your computer models up your jacksy.
We are talking real lives here.
PS And business plans are sh1te as you have to move dynamically.
Davidc8,
I hear what you are saying about the management and I'm not impressed either. About the fuelhedging, they messed up which cost the company £90 mil but that has happened to other companies too. At the worst EZY was paying £115 per barrel where as Ryanair didn't hedge at all and paid up to £147.60 a barrel. Ultimately that made Ryanair come out with a loss for the year where as we are still coming out with a small profit.
Regarding EMA I feel too for the affected crews and have a good friend based there too. Never the less it's been on the cards for years and fact is that EMA's yearly traffic has fallen by 20% for the first half of 2009 being one of the hardest hit UK airport so far. So I understand why they want to pull out and make more money elsewhere. I don't agree on the way they treat affected crews but I certainly understand why they want to pull out.
I hear what you are saying about the management and I'm not impressed either. About the fuelhedging, they messed up which cost the company £90 mil but that has happened to other companies too. At the worst EZY was paying £115 per barrel where as Ryanair didn't hedge at all and paid up to £147.60 a barrel. Ultimately that made Ryanair come out with a loss for the year where as we are still coming out with a small profit.
Regarding EMA I feel too for the affected crews and have a good friend based there too. Never the less it's been on the cards for years and fact is that EMA's yearly traffic has fallen by 20% for the first half of 2009 being one of the hardest hit UK airport so far. So I understand why they want to pull out and make more money elsewhere. I don't agree on the way they treat affected crews but I certainly understand why they want to pull out.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Liverpool
Age: 37
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that easyJet is indeed scared of competition. MOL and his merry men have seen EZY off at EMA (I expect they'll paint it on the side of a 737 - 'Goodbye from EMA easyJet'), and they are giving them a run for their money at LPL, BRS and many other places. They also win the publicity war hands down.
