I was simply running your metrics for what determines success over the current case.
And let's be clear, in support of my perspective I provided objective and verifiable examples. You may not agree with the perspective but the facts of the matter are easy to check.
But why run the metric? My comment has no relationship with VA. It is a generalist opinion. You'd only 'run the metric' on the basis that I implied Paul and his team were 'good' and 'smart' people i.e. to counter my view and show 'objective and verifiable examples' that this what not the case. I'm not sure why?
Maybe you need to re-read my original post.
For some reason, you tried to navigate around your original comment by expanding its boundaries to soften its accuracy. Paul has airline experience. You said he 'virtually had zero'. That is defined as 'nearly or almost no quantity or number'.
As you can plainly see I did not say that Paul Scurrah 'did not have 'airline experience''. I'll happily concede the point that semantically 'virtually zero airline experience' and seven years experience, mostly at or below manager-level nearly 20 years ago may not be the same thing.
In any event, you seem to be dwelling on just the first part of the sentence. I also said that he had failed to get anything meaningfully positive accomplished once he was in the job. Have I missed something?
I've explained above. Not dwelling - just calling out where an argument lacks accuracy and balance of facts. He also (eventually) operated at 'GM' level - relatively senior in those days/structures. Notwithstanding his extensive senior commercial experience within the travel industry and subsequent running of transport, and port and supply chain business'.
With regards to his performance that you allude to in your second part; that isn't being debated, or at least not by me in any of my posts.