Easyjet cutting flights and jobs
 

Just posted on the BBC news website:

BBC NEWS | Business | Easyjet cutting flights and jobs

I hope there is an element of MOL "throw the toys out of the pram" here, and that the overall crew establishment remains the same (or at worst you end up with a "BALPA" negotiated Winter retrenchment.)
Difficult times, at least whatever happens will have an element of "negotiation" to ameliorate the final outcome.
Another bleak week following on the surprise :rolleyes: final breath of Sky Europe.

To be honest, I don't think it is an MOL toys-out-of-pram thing. It's happening.

Press release

Apart from the usual "sabre ratlling" regarding Airport charges
I think the underlying facts are that everybody is still under
the cosh of the recession and the likes of Easy & Ryan are
going wherever they can to get more bums on seats......

Sounds hairy, however...

20% reduction of approx 500 crew

= 100 less staff

= approx 40 pilots and 60 cabin crew (2:3 Boeing ratio)

= 20 F/Os and 20 cpts for even numbers to remain

= Less than the total of your MXP and FCO waiting lists

They save capacity, flight-deck wise - everyone who wants to stay stays, everyone else can scuttle off or get a huge leapfrog up the list.

Very broad-brush but maybe not the death knell suggested? Albeit still a problem for CC.

The bottom line is more UK plc jobs go abroad.

Anyone's job could be next with this load of misfits running the country.

Those of you that have read the various Luton threads on the Airlines, Airports etc Forum over the past 2/3 years will know that the current situation at Luton was almost inevitable unless Luton Borough Council (LBC) took a realistic stance.

The business model at Luton (i.e. LBC as owner franchises the operations out to a third party) has and always will be untenable. LBC crow about it being unique ... yes it's unique because nobody else has copied it because it is unworkable.

You therefore have a position whereby LBC as owner get a hefty charge per passenger using the airport and obstinately refuse to do any deals or offer rebates that might save ot even create jobs.

In Albertis, you have an airport operator who bought out the original incumbent TBI for a vastly inflated sum (without carrying out adequate due diligence??), then table ambitious expansion plans for the airport only to have them shot down in flames by LBC as part of the expansion won't take place on their land. As a result, Albertis are very likely to exercise the break clause in their Franchise Agreement with LBC (in 2014 from memory) and in the meantime are doing all they can to maximise their income from their "investment" in Luton.

The result is that you have the airport owner and airport operator who have boxed themselves into a corner for different yet related reasons and who either can't or won't accept the reality of the current economic situation.

I'm not suggesting that this is the only reason for the announcement from EZY, but the position here is somewhat different to the "usual sabre-rattling" over airport charges frequently exhibited by RYR.


OLY1B

Alas, this is not MOL throwing his toys out the cot. It is the inevitable result of incompetent management at our regional bases who have fiddled while Rome burnt. We have had only 3 aircraft at EMA for many years and always said there were no grounds for increasing that. In the meantime, Ryanair, BMI Baby and now Jet 2 looked at the same market and disagreed. They have all in the past, or are now in the process of, installing substantial numbers of aircraft there. This base was there for the taking and we sat back and did absolutely nothing. Similar scenes are occurring in BFS, GLA, LPL and EDI. In stark contrast easyJet elected to go big at LGW (over 40 aircraft there this Summer) and it has paid massive dividends. There are some seriously incompetent people in key positions at easyJet who need to be leaving for pastures new. Ryanair, for all its ills, are aggressive, decisive and intuitive about taking on new markets. We at easyJet have instead employed sheep in sheep's clothing who are cautious, indecisive and without direction when it comes to the UK market. Our Flt Ops director, a 'European' himself, knows a lot about Europe, nothing about handling people and even less about the UK market place. Consequently he has allowed our regional bases to suffer through neglect and indecision. That leads us to where we are today. Bizarrely easyJet are frightened of competition and instead of fighting in our core markets are hoping to operate somewhere where no one else is. Such places only exist in the imaginations of our senior managers - there is competition everywhere and the sooner we draw our line in the sand to take them on the better.

Everyone has their part to play here. We need pilots and cabin crew to operate the aircraft, engineers to keep them flying and marketeers to ensure there are passengers to take. Right now, that last group are losing the plot by not providing aircraft in sufficient numbers at our regional bases. This needs to be corrected swiftly.

Now, what a big can of worms has just opened

So if East Midlands closes, Luton loses 20% of jobs plus Newcastle, Belfast, Stansted and Bristol in consultancy phase mode regarding flight crew losing jobs. How do the crews stand. Is it losing jobs on base by base basis or LIFO.

Plus will they still take on crew from CTC for 6 months or flexi schemes when they are making full time people redundant?

Over to you Balpa?

How many more airlines are going to follow this trend whilst the punitive taxes in the UK rise and rise to cover the Governments mishandling of the economy and their failed social engineering.

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.

Time will tell when there is a change in No. 10 but history has taught us that in our two pony race for Downing street little changes after the policies have gone through the Labour bloated behemoth known as Whitehall.

I think this is an open, honest and shrewd move by EasyJet as the travelling public will now want to know why their travel is being disrupted and will start asking questions of the airport operators instead of the carriers.

Hopefully the crews will be relocated if they wish.

I don't think the British travelling public, by and large, will think about it that deeply - certainly enough of them anyway. The first question they will ask is "so, who else flies that route"? Then they'll book with Ryanair or bmibaby, and that will be the end of it.

EMA is not about airport charges, it's because they think they can make more money elsewhere. The opportunities there that have been lost over the years to other airlines are huge - and nobody in management seems to be answering the question as to why the neglect was allowed to happen.

As ever NSF has hit the nail on the head. A lot of the announcement - made public before informing the workforce - is purely a tool to redeploy the workers elsewhere at the convenience of the company at the cost of the individual.

The ultimatum being redundancy, or if you are lucky and arrive in Athens on the 1st of march to open our new base on the insulting contract that can be found inside, then we may find a way of keeping you on.

People will take it up for 2 reasons:

We all have bills to pay and mouths to feed.

We are mugs and will accept it without contest because there are no options at the moment.

Other underlying issues in the press release include the concept of pay per flight training allowances, and worryingly, a floating seasonal supply of CTC pilots with little experience, little continuity, given no time to consolodate, who are living from hand to mouth in constant fear of termination, and no future on the horizon.

All of which leads to a very unsafe operation and an unpleasant environment.

The AA, Cortaulds and Debenhams are a very different place. The employees don't pay 100k plus to gain qualifications and there are numerous alternatives for similar money if you don't like the uniform. Right here right now the economy is being used to trample on the captive audience.

As share holders the workforce do have a vote, which includes any belief of confidence in certain individuals.

There - got that off my chest.:ugh:

Ken Clarke, local MP, on Radio Nottingham at 10 am today - have posted a question about this!

BBC Radio Nottm

The issue with EasjJet however is that less and less of the population can afford to fly due to the economy.

From an outside observer's point of view this has undertones of BA in the regions.....From little withdrawls here and there........the floodgates eventualy opened.

They got so fat and complacent that they forgot how to compete and ran from competition on every occasion until they were left with little but fortress Heathrow.

Could it be that Easy have just become too bloated with their own success and have forgotten how to compete themselves?

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.

Agree! Ken Clarke seemed to miss the point and blathered on about it wasn't a time to reduce taxation in the current circumstances and that jet fuel wasn't taxed anyway.

Since my last post I have coincidentally bumped into quite a senior chap within the company who is most definitely 'in the know' as to what is going on. I found my conversation with him quite illuminating - it certainly cast a different slant over what easyJet as a company is doing at East Midlands. None of what I am saying is breaking any confidences, and I hope it may be helpful to people, who like me, are concerned by these decisions.

The first thing that was pointed out to me is that it is not our Flt Ops Director who makes any decisions about where aircraft go - a surprise to me, but there you have it! These decisions are strictly the territory of the Commercial Dept - and even they cannot open or close bases without the specific authorisation of the AMB.

In a nutshell, we have struggled to make East Midlands cost effective over the years. On several occasions in the past, the possiblity of expanding the base has been mooted, but the same arguments that prevented expansion initially have still held good after further examination. There are a variety of difficulties with East Midlands as an area. The passenger catchment area is not huge (around 600,000 people), and it is not a hugely wealthy area compared with other parts of the UK. These demographics create a significantly seasonal pattern to the flying program there. In practice this has led us to really cater for a leisure market rather than a business one, with the routes out of there being much more akin to a typical charter airline rather than a business one. The yields are very low, and the European market offers substantial increases in yield when taking on legacy carriers instead of other low cost carriers.

Our much loved fixed-pattern roster has proved very advantageous to company and crews alike at big bases such as Gatwick, but has proved very inefficient at East Midlands. In practice that means the company has struggled to get more than around 620 hours a year out of pilots - which is way below the competition.

The issue of competition is a tricky one. On initial consideration it would appear ridiculous that we cannot take on the likes of Jet 2 and Ryanair. Ryanair, however, are employing around 40% of their pilots as contractors. They are basically the kicking boys of the company (are not all Ryanair pilots kicking boys?) who can be employed 'as and when' at regional bases. Their employers have no responsibility for their HOTAC, and if they end up staying on park benches, rear seats of cars etc on before, during or after duties then that is their problem. It makes for a hideous but flexible workforce. Jet 2 have a fleet of old bangers which have no capitalisation issues - their 737-300s are cheap to own and it is of no consequence if they are sat around over the winter doing nothing because their cost of ownership is relatively small. Our posh new Airbuses, however, are big money to own and our crew costs are higher due to the 'inefficiencies' mentioned earlier. They need to be constantly flying as time on the ground is money - the seasonal nature of our flying at East Midlands really does not help us at all.

The company are very keen that this 'redeployment' of aircraft is seen as just that. We are still totally committed to expansion but bases like East Midlands do not offer that possibility. The question rightly arises as to what happens to the people employed at East Midlands and other affected bases. The company seems again keen to emphasise that there is no intention to make anyone redundant as there are jobs for all - it is just a question as to where those jobs will be! We are an expanding company and doing well, but there is great pressure to maximise bases doing well and leave those where there is no future. Alas, Dortmund and East Midlands are in that latter category. It is also worth mentioning that nothing is absolutely set in tablets of stone - if the Spanish, for example, recant from their position at Luton then we will not have the reduction in flying being considered.

To some reading this, it may seem I am just trotting out the management line. To an extent that is true - what I have said above comes straight from the horse's mouth. I think it is nonetheless helpful to hear their perspective and I hope it is therefore useful for those affected to hear the logic of what is going on from their perspective - love it or hate it! I was pleasantly surprised during my conversation that the guy I spoke to had a very clear grasp of the issues. From the outside, that is not always immediately apparent, and I for one was somewhat reassured by the conversation. Clearly there are implications for us all in what is happening and we have to recognise the enormous pressure our business as a whole is facing. Nonetheless, to quote Chicken Run - 'the Poultry have a Plan'! Our management seem to be reacting to a difficult situation with some degree of sense, even if it did not initially appear so. There is nothing yet cast in tablets of stone, but it is difficult for me to see a way back for East Midlands. It is, nonetheless, good news that redeployment will be a available to all staff affected.

Don't know where your friend gets his population stats from NSF but within a 1 hour drive of EMA the National Office of Statistics reckons there are 5.2 million people.

Trouble is you have LBA, CVT, BHX, MAN and LTN (at a push)!

NSF

Thank you for the insight.:ok::ok:

You are correct in saying that what you are relating is the management position not yours but not sure why anybody would criticise you for doing that as relaying a honest discussion.

In the position they are in Management and are paid to make the decisions, good and bad.

Very informative and thanks NSF.

When Go opened East Midlands their view was that it would be the biggest UK base outside of STN. Mike Bishop saw the same potential and Baby was quickly born. Go expected Baby to 'topple' but it didn't happen. MOL joined the "party"

Easy took over Go and left East Mids in no man's land.

Whilst East Mids never did really 'fit' into the easyjet network (BHX would cost aside) I presume the same Commercial people who thought an A319 could be crewed with 3 cabin crew are the same people today who reason the closure.

The expression "WAFU" springs to mind as a collective description.

Good Luck to all the Guys and Gals affected.

Binder

It's taken a while, but I believe the reason H89 like 4 crew on the 319 is that they can sell more product than 3.:ouch:

First of all, my information is straight from the horse's mouth - whether you agree or disagree, it is nonetheless the company position. Regarding the presence of 600,000 people or 5.5 million people, it depends where you draw your circle! I would not want to comment too much one way or other but I think you will find that outside the 600,000 mark you get into the realms of other airport options. What is clear to me is that our company just felt the yields were not there and that these aircraft would make significantly more money elsewhere - almost certainly outside of the UK. My own view is they are probably right and it is difficult to argue with that view from a commercial standpoint. Trust me - no one loathes a victory by Ryanair over us more than I do, but it is difficult to argue the commercial case as laid out by easyJet.

bmibaby the low cost airline with tiny fares - cheap flights, hotels, car hire, credit card and parking

bmibaby remain committed to East Midlands Airport

Low cost airline bmibaby, which is part of the bmi group, has this morning confirmed it remains fully committed to East Midlands Airport and the wider midlands region.

The bmi group has operated from East Midlands since the airport opened in 1965 – and the bmi group has been an embedded part of the local community for the past 44 years, operating the first scheduled services from the region.

bmibaby will add extra capacity within the next 48 hours across its network to meet the market demand that will be increased by the departure of easyJet from East Midlands Airport.

Crawford Rix, managing director, bmibaby, said:

“We want to reassure the people of the region we will remain committed to East Midlands Airport. bmibaby has gone from strength to strength at the airport and we will continue to provide low fares to a great range of European destinations.

“As a result of easyjet’s decision to leave the airport, we will be increasing capacity over our current network over the next 48 hours, so that the east midlands market continues to have the capacity it needs.

“East Midlands Airport is home to bmibaby and we are currently exploring other opportunities to fill the gap left by easyJet at the airport.

“bmibaby is real champion of the consumer and this week uniquely has no credit card or debit card fees. We will continue to offer the highest quality low fares service to the market.”

Sorry Norman

Just repeating corporate dogma is not your usual tone of voice, the demographic and affluence argument is facile. The s.p.h alone confirms that while an average level of wealth is probably correct for the Midlands, the spending choices of the population are biased towards discretionary items. A £1500-2000 gross take on either two or four sector duties is not unusual. Perhaps a lack of awareness of the regions may be creeping in here? Be honest, it was'nt so long ago that one colleague droned on about not not wishing to undergo surgery in any location other than London. Both the M.R.I scanner and the prosthetic intervertabral disc are Nottingham University products. The very fact that you trotted out the catchment of 600,000 proves equivalence with my own geographical knowledge of Kazakhstan. I would add that I consider your posts to be on the ball but maybe not today. I do sincerely hope that you can support the crew position on the consultation process at EMA, one day LGW, in the abscence of BA, could become a primal swamp of competing locos and mutual support will be required.

Does not bode well than for Newcatle, they are mostly leisure destinations and low yield according to NSF.

They are going for the chop. Is this the reason Jet 2 are expanding at NCL I wonder. Remember they only announced EMA a couple of weeks ago

NSF - In your posts you are correct in that it is nice for people to hear how management is thinking and what their plans are. The problem is that it comes from you, or any one else for that matter, on an internet forum. This is complete rubbish and gives evidence of the extreme arrogance and lack of respect from management towards the employees. I am no longer with easyJet but have lots of friends still flying there and it is sad to see that some things never change in easyJet.

CP

I am sure East Midlands could work as a base but if the three aircraft are moved to europe (CDG, MXP, FCO) and do as well +15% then surely that is the correct decision. The AMB are obviously a little apprehensive still with all out expansion and choose to redeploy aircraft instead. It remains to be seen whether this is the preferable option. I for one can't help thinking that we are missing out on some good opportunities with our extremely measured expansion plans. Who knows...............

NM - I have made it quite clear that the information I published was received from someone in a senior position in the company. With their permission, I have published the gist of our conversation. It is, in my judgement, good to hear both perspectives. I can assure you that I am personally unhappy to see any base closures and feel there is still scope to change the working patterns there in order to avoid closures. I am, however, able to see the power of the management argument in the face of the economic realities. It is quite clear that the margins at East Mids are wafer thin - as they are for Ryanair too. The difference is that the flexibility they get from their crews make it viable - albeit only just. I am totally committed to our success as a company and it pleases me not one bit to recognise that Ryanair's structure is better than ours in this case. It is nonetheless the reality and future negotiations about a possible way back for East Mids needs to take account of these facts.

Captain Prop - you have elected to leave easyJet and I wish you well wherever you are. You are nonetheless completely wrong in how you perceive this forum. If you only want a rant from the disaffected and disenchanted then be my guest. I personally like to hear from all members of the aviation world, and in the stuation we are discussing here the views of management are absolutely critical - like it or not they are the ones who call the shots. No one is asking you to agree with the view that I have passed on, but that is nonetheless the view that has prevailed. I would strongly suggest to you that these views are in everyone's best interest to hear. I am no happier than anyone else about this situation but I have taken a view on this - that is that it is good to hear all sides of the argument. I leave it to others to decide which view they take.

... that's exactly the point I made on the easyJet company forum, 319.

This situation is largely the result of the untimely, naive and ill-considered intervention of the seriously mediocre "entrepreneur" Stelios, the net result being that Harrison now has the job of growing the Company with one hand tied behind his back.

Undoubtedly the opportunities are in the European market, yet we now have the paradox of having to rob aircraft from the domestic market in order to maximize the ROI - a sensible strategy given the recently imposed constraints on fleet growth, but I agree that we quite possibly missing out, whilst allowing others to consolidate their own positions and as we've seen before, fill the space we've just vacated.

The problem easyJet now have is self-inflicted - they just won't have enough aircraft. If only they spent more time playing hardball with their competitors rather than their own staff.

Captain Prop

I think NSF missed your point btw.

Most of all I feel for the guys and girls at EMA. It is a gutt renching realisation when it hits home that your operational base is being closed down. Although, as NSF states, redeployment is on the cards; the uncertaintly of where that will be will play heavy on the minds of the affected crew. I know that can't be pleasant for people who have many financial ties and family commitments within the area.

I am from the other divide that NSF shares no love for. It would be cold hearted to regard this as a 'strategic victory' over EZY. While it may appear commercially adventageous to Ryanair at EMA, it will not take away from the fact that something like this can and will occur to any one operator at any time. It did at VLC with FR. Serious capacity cuts at DUB, SNN and STN are also on the cards for the winter. It will almost certainly result in the relocation of crews and this undoubtably means to mainland Europe. Alternatively contract pilots in each base will see their hours seriously depleted as the airline pulls through the winter.

Whilst drudging through the NEMA car parks for sim checks using my "crew transpot" (size 8's :hmm: ) I have often been reminded of the old adage "where there's muck there's brass". No shortage of top-line motors in the NEMA public car parks & I used to see the same thing a few years back in NCL.
Funnily enough though, I reckon it is the pax from EMA/NCL/MME/DSA/LBA & other (perceived) "working class" airports that are probably more robust clients. As long as these folk are in a job they will continue to spend their dosh, unlike the "blue collar guardian/telegraph readers" who sit at home worrying about the FTSE100 or whatever it is that arouses them.
I think a large part of this retrenchment is also possibly down to simple overcapacity in S& Central England courtesy of Easy, Ryan, Jet2, Thomson & BMIBaby operating to everywhere the sun shines from every airport imaginable in the region.
Ryanairs tally of UK bases & destinations have always seemed a little excessive with some only 30-45 min apart, too much at any time methinks & now at this time it really is too much.

NSF - I think you missed my point.

I was not having a go at you or anyone else posting here. Whatever you post. In fact I said that I thought it was good that the information you had came out. Having said that - It should have come directly from management directly to the employees, before, or at least simultaneously as it hits the news! As you correctly pointed out - They (management) are the ones who knows! They are supposed to lead the forces, not letting the forces be misled. This is something that never seems to change - News reaching the ones it really matters to and to those whose life could be truly :mad: up as a result. I was with easyJet for quite some time and I have seen it all before.....

CP

NM - I will absolutely support the crew at EMA. I have made it clear that the figures I have quoted are directly from a senior manager. He says they are correct and I am not in a position to say one way or another. I am not in any way embarrassed to have quoted him because he is not at liberty to appear on here himself. As readers of my previous posts will know, I am not in the slightest awkward at calling a spade a spade when our Lords and Masters blow it. If I could possibly give my own opinion briefly - I too am most concerned at the situation at EMA and LTN, with NCL and others possibly in the future firing line. I also believe that with a bit of willpower being employed, easyJet could and should have invested more definitely in EMA. Allowing RYR into there unchallenged was a huge error. The issue for our management to ponder is that, whether you like it or not, RYR are able to make money there when we are not. There are a whole host of reasons for that, and by no means all of that is down to crew costs. Nonetheless, I have difficulty arguing with the fact that we can only get 620 hours a year out of our crews when we need 900. That has to be addressed, and I hope that BALPA will offer that facility to the management in the case of regional bases in the coming discussions. I am a realist and know that it is just so vital for us to make easyJet more economical than the opposition. That does NOT mean sacrificing our lives to make a few top managers rich - it does mean being flexible over rostering when the need arises.

Callsign Kilo - thank you for your realistic appraisal of what will happen at RYR in the coming months. There is no way that your company will keep flying at the summer rate over the winter - no doubt it will all be blamed on airport charges, credit card companies, the UK government, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. You have the same pressures as everyone else - in some cases it is better to keep aircraft on the ground rather than fly them. The fact remains that there are wafer thin margins in the regions and to pretend otherwise would be foolish. My heart goes out to the EMA employees, but the battle will only be won in an economic argument that presents credible options to keep EMA open. I am 100% for fighting this, but an emotional argument over the lovely employees we have will not cut it - we must provide concrete and credible solutions to the issues we face.

If the last straw breaks the donkey's back, wouldn't it be fair to say that the donkey was pretty much overloaded in the first place?

If the difference between make or break is 280 hours across 3 aircraft worth of crew, then the problem isn't the crew economies. It's more fundamental and points to an unsustainable business model. That's the realistic view.

Given the choice between flogging your donkey to within an inch of its life or breaking its back in order to turn a profit suggests you'd be better off loading it with something more worthwhile. To argue the closure of EMA with reference to crew costs would be disingenuous and dishonest.

Caudillo -

Indeed so - and that is not my argument. Crew costs are one factor of many that have led to this decision. It is not the salary levels that are the problem - it is the crew utilisation. I have some sympathy with our management concerns over this issue. We cannot ignore that issue but nor should we blame the situation on crew costs in entirety. I have learnt that in the light of easyJet's decision BMI Baby may be emboldened to increase their aircraft establishment. Jet 2 obviously feel a degree of confidence too, and Ryanair are positively delighted at the situation. What that means is that it is possible for aggressive low-cost carriers to make money at EMA - we appear to no longer fit that category. Clearly if we could make reasonable profits there we would still be there - the people who make these decisions are not madmen and simply react to market realities. My difficulty with the situation is that I believe that profit is possible there and we need to ensure that we are not driven completely out the regions. Nonetheless, the facts remain that at the moment there are significantly greater yields available in continental Europe than is the case at EMA - that will prove a very hard argument to overcome in the forthcoming discussions.

In my humble opinion, I believe that management should also contribute in reducing the pain of the staff by accepting no Bonuses for the next year like Willy Walsh did at BA, accepting unpaid leave and re-deploying management to other bases.

I would really be behind our management team, if Andy came out and said that he would accept to work out of Paris for a year, without moving expenses paid by the company.

I am sure that would provide a first hand understanding of what it is he asking of the crew to do.

I am sure all will agree that the best deployment would be for Corr to go back to Amsterdam....

NSF, I do not buy the BS coming from Orange land. They are playing with the everyday safety of the operation.

They should come out and categorically state that there will be no redundancies.

I also love the coordinated email from Max to the Gatwick crew regarding tough times ahead and expectations that we should have.

I thought Max was an honorable guy, but I guess when one wants to climb the corporate ladder honour, character and honesty are not part of the vocabulary.

We live in an era of corporate and personal greed, and looking after our staff is not politically correct.

It is really a shame that this is todays management, it is even more a shame that we accept it.

Nine more months to go....

Even better, he should just P..S OFF


Speevy

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".