Have to agree with no_sponsor. At the time fuel was forecast to go up to $200 per barrel and EZY made use of a temporary decline to $120 I think it was.

Hindsight is wonderful, esp when you think what a fantastic year it could be with $450mil added to the years results!

no sponsor - regarding the pay for line training, the only battles we can win are those that people will fight for. The pay for line training deal was in retrospect a massive error. I thought initially that this would be a minor deal but I was wrong. The seasonal commands deal is a direct threat to every First Officer at easyJet. Knowing the incentive scheme in operation at easyJet, there are managers who will personally gain substantially for successfully bringing this is in. This will only happen if we let it - I remain totally opposed to it in any form and believe it is an issue to fight over.

Regarding the fuel hedging disaster, I have no sympathy whatsoever for whoever made that decision. These guys are paid staggering sums of money to get this right and instead have cost us around $450million! To say it was a difficult call at the time does not cut it for me. BA did not hedge like that, nor did most of our competitors. In the final analysis, their market predictions were right and ours were wrong. It was clearly possible to get it right, most airlines did and we did not - that is what you sack people for or pay big bonuses if you get it right. We at easyJet seem to have an unusual practice where we pay big bonuses regardless of whether you get it right or wrong - nice work if you can get it. And like I said earlier, why are we discussing seasonality when this catastrophic burden has been laid on our business by incompetent people who could and should have done better. As an aside, George Bush is being piloried for making the 'wrong call' over invading Iraq - ultimately history will judge him on that one issue from his presidency (it is too early for me to say one way or the other if he was wrong or not but that is another story!). The guy in the seat has to be held responsible for making disastrous decisions - for me it is not good enough to say it seemed like a good idea at the time.

There's still another side to the fuel hedging. I wonder what amount of money was saved when they were hedging on the correct side of the price. Perhaps that would need to be assessed before the hangman tightens the noose?

The infamous hedge was made about 3 weeks after the price of oil had peaked.

edit: I should say, may have been made 3 weeks after the price of oil had peaked.

The alternative is that is was made 3-6 weeks prior to the peak.

It was within spitting distance of what turned out to be the top of the market.

further edit: The timing was unfortunate but in fairness, locking in the price albeit at such high levels was necessary at the time. If you imagine an aircraft taking off and finding that the destination kept moving further away it's perhaps similar. I assume they didn't want to take the chance that it moved further than there was fuel on board to reach it.

It still makes me wonder why these people think they can predict, and put a number on what will happen in the year ahead.
I find it hard to predict a few minutes ahead in the commodities market.

If it was possible to predict the future I'm sure these guys wouldn't be betting for the company.

Interesting to see how the figures would compare over time if fuel were bought at market price.

Bad Bad News
 

latest news

First Officer requirements for Summer 2009 – Whilst there is currently no permanent external
recruitment of pilots planned to meet our 2009 requirements we are still seeking low cost ways of
ensuring we have sufficient pilots to meet our summer peak. Our objective is to minimise cost by aligning
future base pilot establishment to winter numbers. Therefore the additional pilots that are required for this
Summer (FO’s) will enter through a modified CTC cadet scheme or through other approved suppliers on a
flexible contract basis.

fu.. FU..:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

ba news
 

Thanks for expexted bad bad news Jphil68.
Can I ask you where you read it?
Thanks.

The above info was taken directly from our Balpa news letter 2 days ago!

The BALPA newletter is also a 'word for word' relay of our 'p-mail' weekly internal newsletter that is sent out to all pilots. It was an agreed statement between the Union and the Company. Of far greater interest to all easyJet pilots were the statements regarding future command opportunities. As things stand it looks likely that all future commands will be offered on a 'Permanent Part Year 75%' deal. That means you work full time for 6 months in the summer and then only 50% for the winter months for 78% pay. All a sign of the times.

Apologies for repeating if already stated but there is a VERY strong rumor that a very large Holiday Airline will be sending Temps to EZ for the forthcoming year.

Duration Unknown - though likely no more that 9 months due parent carriers requirement.
Fleet Unknown - though likely the NG as airline in question has surplus on fleet.

Deal is currently being negotiated or release to parent company pilots within 3weeks.

You misunderstand.

The SFO's that get promoted will be on 78% of the Captains salary - a significant payrise, NOT a cut!

The only other option, sadly, is for them to stay in the RHS on 100% SFO salary whilst contract captains fly alongside them for the sumer period.

78% is not ideal, but better than nowt!

Of course it's a pay cut, from the company's perspective the personel sat in the seat is irrelevant, they are paying less for the left seat to be occupied, how can that be right?

Its even more of a pay cut if they employ contract Captains and leave their own SFO's in the RHS!

so anyway i would like to have more infos if you have just regarding the pool or th jail:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{

In other words, the SFOs' who are promoted receive a 22% reduction in pay when compared to every other commander in the company.

It's a paycut. And a permanent one. I can see why you may think it is a rise if you are already in the LHS at ezy, but from the RHS, the view is a bit different. :ouch:

bit more - by your flawed logic, that it is a permanent paycut, you are expecting those concerned to stay on 78% when made substantive - errrrrr, no!

I dont like it any more than you but its the best of a bad bunch.

The only other option is to cut your nose off and sit in the RHS with a contractor in the LHS.

That is the option. sad but true.

What I expect is the company imposing this 78% proposal as a permanent new pay scale for all new captains. Yes I am becoming a cynic before my time, but I've learnt from some fairly cynical captains at my base! ;)

I don't want contract captains either, but I am uncertain which is worse for our T&Cs (both seats) from a long term point of view. Creation of a B-scale is Cor Blimey's wet dream.

Anyway, on topic, I have heard from mates in Thomson that they are sending 737 crews to ezy during the summer, as mentioned above. Bad news for the hold pool.

As a F/O sitting somewhere in the Command course waiting list (probably way down the list) I have resigned myself to no opportunities this year. To know that once I move seats I am forced onto a PPY 50%/75% roster at 78% of the salary is bit of a kick in the teeth. Why should I be paid 22% less than someone else doing the same job? Using rough figures I make the current CPT salary about 81k, so that's now going to be around 63.2k. I expect the company will still impose the 90% basic as well making it about 56.9k for the first summer season. This will just divide crews and and kill off what morale there is left. Forget fuel policy and going the extra mile. I certainly won't be doing favours, and that includes going one minute into discression. This is nothing but a huge pay cut, dress it up any way you like it.

POINTY END,

Have you actually read the balpa newsletter? Suggest you have a closer look as it covers some of your raised points.:ok:

Regarding holiday airline crews temping for Easy, i think this is rubbish as once again the companys intentions are stated on our balpa newsletter.

Forgive me if I've missed something, however would it not be possible for pilots to reject both this scheme and contract pilots?

Why wouldn't you want to?