Further cuts in Aer lingus?

FlutterinBantam

Hmmm... seems like Greenfield hasn't thrown up as much saving as anticipated.

Aer Lingus still losing money, which is bad.

Are we in for more unrest out there.

let's hope not.

ImDave

"We expect significant challenges in 2011, with trading for the year likely to be impacted by fuel price inflation and increased airport charges in combination with difficult conditions in our home market. We do not expect that improvements in yield performance and ongoing cost savings can offset these increased costs. If current fuel prices persist, we expect that 2011 operating profit will be significantly below that of 2010."

Mueller was fairly bang on back in February. They will still turn an operating profit for year end one would imagine.

basill

Dear Employees,

I am afraid that the cost savings that we told you that we needed under Greenfield as the company was going to go bankrupt were wrong. We now need more due to me continuing to employ a bunch of deadwood middle managers that are on cast iron contracts that I cannot rescind.

I can also report that the 139 surplus pilots that we advised the Minister and threatened to sack during Greenfield was actually madey uppey. Although 70 have taken voluntary severance with another 40 (and counting) leaving due to better prospects elsewhere I am afraid that we are not still overcrewed to the tune of 29 pilots. No in fact we bare faced lied and now we don't have enough pilots for the busy summer ahead across all of our bases. But rest assured that we will gladly use the significant cash reserves of the company and employ the services of Titan and other ad hoc ACMI carriers to hire in on a daily basis in Dublin to fly our schedule.

Please rest assured that the 32.5m paid to the Revenue in relation to leave and return employees was a once off error. Also the 8m lost as a result of attempting to break the cabin crew union was a mere oversight. As was the need to take our management bonuses even though we failed to hit our targets.

Your future is in safe hands and we can look forward to a vibrant future once I have ensured that the company is sold off and taken my 900k in bonuses as stipulated in my contract and shifted my family back to my home country which isn't broke.

Yours sincerely,
Christy Mueller
xxth CEO of Aer Lingus in the past 10 years

PS: I do hope you come to the big birthday bash in May, its going to be a real cracker.

Bearcat

Basil, you have it in one.:D Their trading statement would'nt be half as bad had they not jaxed 31m to the revenue and like the banks nailing the tax payers to bail them out, AL management will nail front line staff again....watch this space.......sure arent yez lucky yous have jobs will be the mantra.

LOccitane

Bearcat wrote: »

Their trading statement would'nt be half as bad had they not jaxed 31m to the revenue and like the banks nailing the tax payers to bail them out, AL management will nail front line staff again....watch this space.......sure arent yez lucky yous have jobs will be the mantra.

The cost of the Revenue disaster was included in Q4, 2010 according to the Full Year Report.

I wonder what the next cost consolidation plan will be called?

''**** the frontline over 3.0''?

MoeJay

Yep it's all bad news folks - taken from the Stock Market release:

Short haul yield per Available Seat Kilometre ("ASK") increased by 9.7% in the quarter.

Long haul yield per ASK increased by 5.1%.

Cargo Revenue increased by 18.9%

Aer Lingus' gross cash balance of €925.1 million as at 31 March 2011 represents a €40.1 million increase in the three months since December 2010.

Based on current visibility to September 2011, yields are ahead of prior year in the low single digit range and booking factors for the period are broadly in line with prior year.

Management still expects that Aer Lingus will generate an operating profit before exceptional items in 2011

So how does this translate into a need for Greenfield II.....? Oh right, got to pay management bonuses somehow!

And as a direct result of managment's HR blunder:

The increase in other operating costs compared to prior year reflects €7.3 million of aircraft and crew hire-in costs. We estimate that the total cost of the dispute on the operating result was approximately €15 million reflecting lost passenger and ancillary revenues as well as increased lease and other costs.

€53.7m loss - €15m spent on cabin crew dispute = underlying €38m operating loss. Had the CCM strategy not been followed, it's entirely likely Q1 11 would have traded at least the same as Q1 10.

FlutterinBantam

They are starting to dig the trenches!

Dacian

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

They are starting to dig the trenches!

The deadwood middle managers I assume?


Spot on Basil, however I would say your estimate of 8M spent trying to break the cabin crew is an understatement. Over 150 cancellations with over 360 sectors hired in over the 3 weeks. (Not 1 hire-in due to crew action in the 15 week period before then) Not to mention lost bookings due to uncertainty. I would guess 12-15M.

This is a overly pessimistic take on a 3 month period. Why even mention the cuts so far based on a less than stellar quarter when the Greenfield plan is still ongoing? EI have yet to tackle their back office staff yet. All the cuts last year were aimed at frontline staff.

As Moejay quite rightly points out the overall outlook so far is for a break even of profit for 2011. So no FlutterinBantam, EI are not 'losing money'. They are painting a poor picture of an admittedly bad 3 months which was impacted by the Irish economic situation, home market financial uncertainty, company led industrial action and the main holiday/travel period of Q1 actually being in Q2 of 2011. (Easter)

LXFlyer

This is no different to any other company at the moment.

Every company is having to constantly review its costs in the current environment - it is a moving feast. We are not in a stable economic situation and as such I'd expect EI to continue to look for cost savings on an ongoing basis from every aspect of the business.

Dacian

lxflyer wrote: »

This is no different to any other company at the moment.

Every company is having to constantly review its costs in the current environment - it is a moving feast. We are not in a stable economic situation and as such I'd expect EI to continue to look for cost savings on an ongoing basis from every aspect of the business.

I have no problem with a company constantly reviewing its cost and revenue streams. I would call that proactive mgmt.
This is why EI mgmt meet their union reps each month to address the ongoing plan and the impact it is having.

But announcing the need for more cuts halfway through a 2 year plan based solely on a single bad quarter (with mitigating factors) is needlessly alarmist. So far staff reps have said no mention has been made of this up till yesterday even though they meet the CEO each month.

What is not being mentioned is that Q1 is traditionally the worse time of the year for airlines, Easter travel helps to keep the revenue stream more upbeat. Look back at other airline full year results, they usually make a small loss in H1, then a profit in H2 to end up with an overall profit for the year,


Lufthansa group have just announced an overall E391M loss for Q1.......I don't see them calling for sacrifices from their staff............(LH alone made a loss of E234M)
Vueling made a Q1 loss of E35M.
Bmi -E63M.
GermanWings -E44M.
Austrian Airlines -E64M.

FlutterinBantam

Dacian wrote: »

The deadwood middle managers I assume?


Spot on Basil, however I would say your estimate of 8M spent trying to break the cabin crew is an understatement. Over 150 cancellations with over 360 sectors hired in over the 3 weeks. (Not 1 hire-in due to crew action in the 15 week period before then) Not to mention lost bookings due to uncertainty. I would guess 12-15M.

This is a overly pessimistic take on a 3 month period. Why even mention the cuts so far based on a less than stellar quarter when the Greenfield plan is still ongoing? EI have yet to tackle their back office staff yet. All the cuts last year were aimed at frontline staff.

As Moejay quite rightly points out the overall outlook so far is for a break even of profit for 2011. So no FlutterinBantam, EI are not 'losing money'. They are painting a poor picture of an admittedly bad 3 months which was impacted by the Irish economic situation, home market financial uncertainty, company led industrial action and the main holiday/travel period of Q1 actually being in Q2 of 2011. (Easter)

Hmmm.. detect a whiff of rebuke there.

Middle management seem to be taking a fair degree of bile?

Who are these people?

Lifers with no qualifications, who were promoted above their level of competence and who try to make up for their lack of education with bluff and bluster ?

I thought all those types had been flushed out.

Dacian

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Hmmm.. detect a whiff of rebuke there.
................
I thought all those types had been flushed out.

Well yes it is a rebuke. The mgmt statement isn't that EI is 'losing money' it is that costs out of their control are impacting on their profitability. Thus Q1 2011 is down on Q1 2010. The statement goes on to say that estimates for Q2 and Q3 are positive. They are 'on track' for a small profit in 2011.

Thus the question is posed if estimates are looking good and you are still in the process of the 2 year Greenfield plan why go out of your way to annoy your workers by hinting at further cuts?


The bile is aimed at middle mgmt as the staff reps warned them about staffing problems that would arise out the the changes under Greenfield. These concerns were not heeded. As Basil points out, EI are now short of pilots because they neglected to recruit new ones to replace the older (more expensive ones) who were allowed early retirement.

Phase 1 of Greenfield implemented cuts among the frontline staff. (note 'staff', not their immediate mgmt) This has been completed. Phase 2 of Greenfield aimed to reduce 'back office staff' by 40%. Phase 2 hasn't yet been implemented and the CEO warns of further cuts?

To finish: All 40 top mgmt in EI got bonuses last month, it wasn't just the CEO. Does 40 seem like a large number for a company with less than 4000 employees? (Considering that over 2000 of that number consists of flight crew, uniformed ground staff and cabin crew, with maybe 10 top managers to cover all of them)

FlutterinBantam

Dacian wrote: »

Well yes it is a rebuke. The mgmt statement isn't that EI is 'losing money' it is that costs out of their control are impacting on their profitability. Thus Q1 2011 is down on Q1 2010. The statement goes on to say that estimates for Q2 and Q3 are positive. They are 'on track' for a small profit in 2011.

Thus the question is posed if estimates are looking good and you are still in the process of the 2 year Greenfield plan why go out of your way to annoy your workers by hinting at further cuts?


The bile is aimed at middle mgmt as the staff reps warned them about staffing problems that would arise out the the changes under Greenfield. These concerns were not heeded. As Basil points out, EI are now short of pilots because they neglected to recruit new ones to replace the older (more expensive ones) who were allowed early retirement.

Phase 1 of Greenfield implemented cuts among the frontline staff. (note 'staff', not their immediate mgmt) This has been completed. Phase 2 of Greenfield aimed to reduce 'back office staff' by 40%. Phase 2 hasn't yet been implemented and the CEO warns of further cuts?

To finish: All 40 top mgmt in EI got bonuses last month, it wasn't just the CEO. Does 40 seem like a large number for a company with less than 4000 employees? (Considering that over 2000 of that number consists of flight crew, uniformed ground staff and cabin crew, with maybe 10 top managers to cover all of them)

Good. Thought my antennae might be getting a little blunt.:D


You are perfectly right, if I read your post correctly, now it's time that 'middle management' stood up and was counted.

Now,as a management consultant , and wearing my consultants hat, 40 does seem like a large number.

However... there's always a 'however', most companies I deal with don't have the layers of consultation and beaurocracy rampant in EI.

Mick Leary copped on quite early that costs could be saved by ensuring that people actually PRODUCED instead of talking for hours on end.

There are people in Aer Lingus whom,it's in their interest to spin out 'consultations' for months, whilst their job description is 'baggage handler' 'clerical' 'cabin crew' but they handle as much baggage, check in as much passengers and fly enough flights as i do:D

That's why there are 40 top mgmnt dudes in EI


Until all that hierarchy is dismantled it won't change;)

Goldenegg

Maybe if mr mueller and all the makey uppy management handed back their "nice" bonuses, the company might not be in the state it's supposedly in again.

Aerlingus always reminds me of fianna fail...the cronyism!!!

roundymac

Listening to Mueller on the news last night he said that any further cuts cannot come from staff as they have given enough already. He said fuel prices and airport charges are going to be the target of their next savings. He critised the prices of Dublin Airport and the fact that the regulator set's the prices, and he (Mueller) cannot talk to Declan Collier and visa-versa about prices. Also a senior manager was sidelined latley, this was the guy who was dealing with cabin crew management, he's been moved to the safety board, in what's seen as a demotion. I think given time Mueller will get his way and get rid of the driftwood.

FlutterinBantam

roundymac wrote: »

Listening to Mueller on the news last night he said that any further cuts cannot come from staff as they have given enough already. He said fuel prices and airport charges are going to be the target of their next savings. He critised the prices of Dublin Airport and the fact that the regulator set's the prices, and he (Mueller) cannot talk to Declan Collier and visa-versa about prices. Also a senior manager was sidelined latley, this was the guy who was dealing with cabin crew management, he's been moved to the safety board, in what's seen as a demotion. I think given time Mueller will get his way and get rid of the driftwood.

Yeah ,think he will too, certainly the gimp who cost the Company €32 m for the so called leave and return fiasco.


Leary would never make that mistake.

Harbour was rattling the sabres on RTE recently, surely that guy is a beaten docket, given the hash they made of the cabin crew issue?

LOccitane

roundymac wrote: »

Listening to Mueller on the news last night he said that any further cuts cannot come from staff as they have given enough already. He said fuel prices and airport charges are going to be the target of their next savings. He critised the prices of Dublin Airport and the fact that the regulator set's the prices, and he (Mueller) cannot talk to Declan Collier and visa-versa about prices. Also a senior manager was sidelined latley, this was the guy who was dealing with cabin crew management, he's been moved to the safety board, in what's seen as a demotion. I think given time Mueller will get his way and get rid of the driftwood.

Did he specifically state that staff had given enough already?

My understanding from what he said yesterday, and listening to him speak to Will Goodbody was that the pecking order of further sought reductions would first target Airport costs and other such related costs and that there would be no imposition of further cuts upon staff until 2012.

The COO was sidelined lately. But how long did that take? - It was a considerable time after the orchestration of the Cabin Crew dispute. And has it been confirmed that his remuneration has been ratably reduced corresponding with his movement to a special advisor role to a committee that sits on average four times during the financial year?

Management announced the intention of the company some eight weeks ago to clearly roll-back on ~ EUR 30 million of the initially proposed and agreed Greenfield cost reductions. Instead of reducing the headcount in various back-office and HOB functions, we are in fact seeing an increase in the headcount in such functions. Moreover, we have seen several delays in the implementation of the IT overhaul program.

If Mr. Mueller is wholeheartedly committed to the removal of the protected middle management layer, then why has he not engaged in such to date?

FlutterinBantam

LOccitane wrote: »

Did he specifically state that staff had given enough already?

My understanding from what he said yesterday, and listening to him speak to Will Goodbody was that the pecking order of further sought reductions would first target Airport costs and other such related costs and that there would be no imposition of further cuts upon staff until 2012.

The COO was sidelined lately. But how long did that take? - It was a considerable time after the orchestration of the Cabin Crew dispute. And has it been confirmed that his remuneration has been ratably reduced corresponding with his movement to a special advisor role to a committee that sits on average four times during the financial year?

Management announced the intention of the company some eight weeks ago to clearly roll-back on ~ EUR 30 million of the initially proposed and agreed Greenfield cost reductions. Instead of reducing the headcount in various back-office and HOB functions, we are in fact seeing an increase in the headcount in such functions. Moreover, we have seen several delays in the implementation of the IT overhaul program.

If Mr. Mueller is wholeheartedly committed to the removal of the protected middle management layer, then why has he not engaged in such to date?

The problem ,my friend, is that to achieve anything in EI one has to cleave thru sever layers of Union beaurocracy

basill

I seem to remember Phase 2 of Greenfield being the cull (40% was a number that rings in my mind from Mueller) of the admin and back office functions. Its now getting on 2 years since Greenfield and as previous posters have said they have been recruiting like mad. The various IT projects just seem to suck up resources/cash/create more jobs and run over time.

Nothing has changed in AL. Still layers and layers of faceless civil servant "lifers" justifying their jobs. Let me give you but a few examples of what we face on a daily basis:-

- if I need to visit employee services then I must turn up at a counter that is manned a few hours each day.
- if I lose a company ID pass then the ID office is open for a few hours on a Friday only
- if I need a tie then I have to visit in person crew admin which I understand now reside in Hangar 6 somewhere. They could never post them out to me, nor could they put a box of them in the crew room as we surely couldn't be trusted to steal their cheap polyester ties
- uniform stores are open for business 2 days of the week only, usually the days you are working.
- if I end up doing an unscheduled overnight then crew control will authorise my allowances but I must present myself in person to the counter at employee services to receive them in petty cash. For some inexplicable reason they can't be deposited into my bank account along with my salary. More job creation.
- to book tickets to go on holiday I must take my staff travel paper book which details my entitlements and queue in person. Its ironic that for AL services they will issue an E-ticket but we have to turn up in person to book them. For all other ID travel its paper tickets which most airlines dropped years ago. Lose your book and you have to wait until the travel year is over to order a new one as the company assumes you are untrustworthy and lost it on purpose so that you could try getting more entitlements than your due. The queues are out the door most days as you not only up against serving employees but retirees as well as DAA and SRT.

Bear in mind that for frontline staff that we work a roster pattern that generally doesn't fit into the civil service hours that the admin functions highlighted above so it inevitably takes weeks to get things sorted from purely a logistical point of view.

Mueller runs the risk of following in Mannion's footsteps. The latter relied on the lifer middle managers who quickly got his measure and eventually forced him out. As far as I can see Mueller has brought in only a few German "change" experts. As far as I know the COO was Barringtons pick as was Coyle. He should have had a complete clearout from the get go.

Whilst many of my colleagues think that the sun shines out of Mueller I am far from impressed and the gloss will soon wear off when 2012 rolls around and another round of cuts come our way to cover the management bonuses and whatever cockups have yet to be made.

FlutterinBantam

The Unionised nature of EI is the main reason why layers of 'management 'exist.

Consider the issues.

Staff member A is confronted and disciplined by a supervisor on a serious issue..

What's the first thing staff member A will do?


Correct, contact the Union.

Now the problem which should have been handled by the parties involved is kicked up to a higher court.

Now we have representativesof both Staff member A and the Supervisor parsing and analysing the issues.

The supervisor was probably not either trained or empowered to conclude the issue.


That's why in over Unionised industries ,like the airline industry, countless hours are wasted, defending wasters who want to do as little as possible for the maximum return.

Instead of telling them to get on their bike and get the fcuk out of the place if they didn't want to work.

Might be a little crude, and apologies for that, but it's the truth:cool:

LOccitane

basill wrote: »

I seem to remember Phase 2 of Greenfield being the cull (40% was a number that rings in my mind from Mueller) of the admin and back office functions. Its now getting on 2 years since Greenfield and as previous posters have said they have been recruiting like mad. The various IT projects just seem to suck up resources/cash/create more jobs and run over time.

Basill, thank you very much for taking the time to post - to get a first hand account of the inefficiencies really serves to crystallise all of the issues.

I'd very much agree with you with regard to C Mueller. If he were to leave inside 12-18 months, would he really care anyway?

He's already received well above the originally stated annual remuneration. His assertions that this can be attributed in large part to his share of the staff gain sharing scheme doesn't really add up either. There was ~ EUR 6 million to share amongst over 3,500 staff...

Unfortunately, the 40% reduction in HOB staff headcount is not going to happen now. The Preliminary Results Text Presentation has been pulled from the website, however the slides on Slide (16) and Slide (25) indicate the company's intention to clearly rollback on EUR 32 million of initially planned savings.

http://www.aerlingus.com/media/aerlinguscom/content/pdfs/corporate/2010_preliminary_results_presentation.pdf

And why? Because, according to EI Management - these HOB functions and back office areas have been instrumental in driving the success of the company to date... No matter how bad things are economically, a statement such as that is always one to bring a smile to the most gloomy of commentators.

The Unionised nature of EI is the main reason why layers of 'management 'exist.

I agree with you in large part. However, C Mueller had no problem in utilising other key members of Executive Management to ''deal'' with Cabin Crew unions - namely IMPACT and drive through a series of compounded cuts. Now, why are we not seeing the same pursued in terms of the HOB/Back-office functions?

I know that C Mueller has gained much acclaim in many quarters for his oversight of the turnaround performance at EI. Dermot Mannion almost succeeded in having a EUR 1 million golden parachute in place, only for it were vetoed by FR - in many respects his policies were erroneous but overt. C Mueller, on the other hand has already consolidated his financial safety net.

FlutterinBantam

LOccitane wrote: »

Basill, thank you very much for taking the time to post - to get a first hand account of the inefficiencies really serves to crystallise all of the issues.

I'd very much agree with you with regard to C Mueller. If he were to leave inside 12-18 months, would he really care anyway?

He's already received well above the originally stated annual remuneration. His assertions that this can be attributed in large part to his share of the staff gain sharing scheme doesn't really add up either. There was ~ EUR 6 million to share amongst over 3,500 staff...

Unfortunately, the 40% reduction in HOB staff headcount is not going to happen now. The Preliminary Results Text Presentation has been pulled from the website, however the slides on Slide (16) and Slide (25) indicate the company's intention to clearly rollback on EUR 32 million of initially planned savings.

http://www.aerlingus.com/media/aerlinguscom/content/pdfs/corporate/2010_preliminary_results_presentation.pdf

And why? Because, according to EI Management - these HOB functions and back office areas have been instrumental in driving the success of the company to date... No matter how bad things are economically, a statement such as that is always one to bring a smile to the most gloomy of commentators.

I agree with you in large part. However, C Mueller had no problem in utilising other key members of Executive Management to ''deal'' with Cabin Crew unions - namely IMPACT and drive through a series of compounded cuts. Now, why are we not seeing the same pursued in terms of the HOB/Back-office functions?

I know that C Mueller has gained much acclaim in many quarters for his oversight of the turnaround performance at EI. Dermot Mannion almost succeeded in having a EUR 1 million golden parachute in place, only for it were vetoed by FR - in many respects his policies were erroneous but overt. C Mueller, on the other hand has already consolidated his financial safety net.

I would have to say that the attitude which seems to emanate from EI staff would not fill me with hope for that company.

Not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any group, but it seems that the whole company is fragmented against each other, and management's perceived rights and wrongs,payscales and perks.

Any company in my experience with that kind of bitter division and lack of cohesion and trust, usually only goes one way - out of business as an independent entity.


That's how it usually rolls unfortunately.

cson

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd imagine the reason they aren't pursuing management cost reductions is that they are likely locked into serious contracts which would cost more than it would save in the medium term and EI in the medium term is very unsteady.

It's hard to know what direction to take with it; it can't do low cost, legacy carriers are a thing of the past and as you've said flutter, it's probably got the most fragmented and divided workforce of any ISEQ company. Really the only thing it has going for it at present is massive goodwill and landing slots.

FlutterinBantam

cson wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd imagine the reason they aren't pursuing management cost reductions is that they are likely locked into serious contracts which would cost more than it would save in the medium term and EI in the medium term is very unsteady.

It's hard to know what direction to take with it; it can't do low cost, legacy carriers are a thing of the past and as you've said flutter, it's probably got the most fragmented and divided workforce of any ISEQ company. Really the only thing it has going for it at present is massive goodwill and landing slots.

I would agree with your points there .

Unfortunately the massive goodwill will dissipate if there is more unrest and doubt, and landing slots are like family silver, not much left if you sell them off.

Need to have the books balanced before you do that.

roundymac

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I would agree with your points there .

Unfortunately the massive goodwill will dissipate if there is more unrest and doubt, and landing slots are like family silver, not much left if you sell them off.

Need to have the books balanced before you do that.

I think if Ryanair were'nt so rude and arrogant and not flying to hubs,i/e heathrow and Paris (CDG) for connectivity AL might have gone out of business. Ml O'Leary would'nt had have to try and buy it, the Gov would probely have given it to him to try and keep it going.

FlutterinBantam

roundymac wrote: »

I think if Ryanair were'nt so rude and arrogant and not flying to hubs,i/e heathrow and Paris (CDG) for connectivity AL might have gone out of business. Ml O'Leary would'nt had have to try and buy it, the Gov would probely have given it to him to try and keep it going.

There is some merit in that view.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the EI staff.

There is a certain amount of 'residue' from the past still washing around in there,especially in the flying corps and frontline staff, and it hasn't fully 'washed through' yet.

Let's face it their jobs and status and pay have been attacked constantly for the last 11 or twelve years, more than any other industry ,I would suggest.

When the employees who looked on Aviation as a secure ,well paid, well conditioned job are 'washed through' and the punters who thought they could 'bed in' to EI and work the system under Union protection are eliminated, I would expect that things would fly more smoothly , to coin a phrase.

Fair share of 'lifers' in lower middle management also need to be purged and then Herr Mueller needs to get in people who are accountable and not just filling in time, or concentrating on outside activities ,whilst 'turning up, for EI.


Interesting times ahead.


Fasten seat belts:cool:

Fulton Crown

All in all Aer Lingus is an excellent Airline and deserves to succeed and thrive.

As someone who travels widely on company business they would be my airline of choice all things being equal.

They strike me as being far too top heavy around the mid management tier and as the other poster opines I suspect that due to legacy issues they may be over subscribed with time servers and drones in that particular area.

This needs radical surgery and needs it now.....the one thing the travelling and business public will not tolerate is uncertainty,,the staff and unions would do well to recognise that.

Who was responsible for the monstrous cock up with Revenue over the redundancy and re-hiring program which cost the company close on 31 million....did any heads roll......???

Bessarion

Fulton Crown wrote: »

........They strike me as being far too top heavy around the mid management tier and as the other poster opines I suspect that due to legacy issues they may be over subscribed with time servers and drones in that particular area.

...............Who was responsible for the monstrous cock up with Revenue over the redundancy and re-hiring program which cost the company close on 31 million....did any heads roll......???

Haven't heard of any rolling yet. At the AGM the Chairman declined to confirm whether the investigation would be made public or not. Sounds to me like some mgmt individual either accepted dodgy advice or perhaps neglected to get proper advice on the matter. EI should be able to name and shame the legal advisor if there is one.

roundymac

Bessarion wrote: »

Haven't heard of any rolling yet. At the AGM the Chairman declined to confirm whether the investigation would be made public or not. Sounds to me like some mgmt individual either accepted dodgy advice or perhaps neglected to get proper advice on the matter. EI should be able to name and shame the legal advisor if there is one.

EI claim to have received legal advice at the time.The joke is that all my mates who would be blue collar workers were saying it could not be done, so how much thought went into that decision. It also gives an indication of the "brains" that are running EI.

pclancy

Basill it sounds just like the way the hospital i work in is run and obviously countless other public or semi-public enterprises around the world. Nothing changes no matter where you are. I see daily the same kind of IT projects that waft on forever draining so many resources and there's another useless manager installed in some cubbyhole somewhere protecting their job for life.

How come Ryanair don't have more of an influence on things with their shareholding?

FlutterinBantam

pclancy wrote: »

Basill it sounds just like the way the hospital i work in is run and obviously countless other public or semi-public enterprises around the world. Nothing changes no matter where you are. I see daily the same kind of IT projects that waft on forever draining so many resources and there's another useless manager installed in some cubbyhole somewhere protecting their job for life.

How come Ryanair don't have more of an influence on things with their shareholding?

A lot more than that P.

It's 'culture' which is the problem and like the giant oil tanker cannot be changed easily.

There is a culture amongst some in EI,getting smaller thankfully, that the company is there for their support and convenience rather than a commercial concern which has to make money to survive.

They cannot make the simple equation that to earn their wage the have to put an equal amount on the bottom line.

There was a historical culture of working against the company as if the employer was the 'enemy'and under no circumstances would the company 'get the better of them'.

Of course all this has washed down to the present situation, where if the 'culture ' is not changed the many many sensible employees will sink with the drones.

Time to make a stand I would suggest for those interested in saving a company well worth saving and telling the malcontents and wasters to take a hike.;)