WHBM - You said you were expecting comments for calling BSAA "a shambolic operation from beginning to end". Well, I've only just come across this thread, so I'm sorry for the rather tardy reply, but I hate to disappoint.
It's become very fashionable to mock BSAA and sadly there are many myths perpetuated about the airline by people who should know better. For instance when I read Jay Rayner's book 'Star Dust Falling' about the loss of G-AGWH in the Andes, I started to note down all the factual inaccuracies, but gave up when my list became so long I needed a new sheet of A4! It's unfortunate that I have since read many statements from people trying to rubbish BSAA which I recognise as direct quotes from that book. It clearly makes for more dramatic reading and sells more books to assert that BSAA pilots flew their airliners the same as they did their Lancasters on bombing missions, that engineering standards were poor, that Don Bennett ran the airline like a bomber squadron, that they lost an aircraft every month etc. Sadly, such mis-information gets widely repeated, and the lines between fact and fiction become all too easily blurred.
Many facts get conveniently overlooked, such as the fact that BSAA made a profit while BOAC and BEA recorded losses, that BOAC didn't want the South American routes until they realised BSAA had established the necessary infrastructure and could operate them profitably, that the very same BSAA engineers and pilots so widely criticised now went on to long careers in BOAC and BA, that BOAC and BEA lost far more aircraft than BSAA in the same period, that BSAA was the most successful civilian operator on the Berlin Airlift, that there is compelling evidence of a BOAC "dirty tricks" campaign against BSAA long before the Virgin Atlantic and BA fiasco ..... I could go on. Incidentally, I'm well aware of the statistics regarding BSAA losses. I know that although BOAC and BEA suffered more aircraft losses during the period of BSAA's existence, they operated far more flights, carrying more passengers. But look a little deeper into the BSAA losses to put things slightly more in perspective. You'll find the cause of the first major accident, to Avro York 'Star Leader', was never conclusively determined. A Lancastrian accident on take-off at Bathurst was due to the PSP 'runway' being laid on unstable sand. No passengers were injured. The two Tudors were lost without any cause being determined, as no trace of wreckage was ever found. In another accident a Lancastrian reached Bermuda to find the airport in the middle of a thunderstorm (contrary to the earlier weather forecast) and had to circle for ninety minutes before being forced to attempt a landing in atrocious conditions. The skill of the pilot resulted in no passengers being injured. The Lancaster loss at Heathrow was a groundloop after landing from a training flight. There were no injuries to the four crew on board. These accidents alone account for over half of the total number of BSAA aircraft lost. But again, it would not be fashionable to admit that as well as making some mistakes BSAA also suffered more than their share of bad luck.
I must admit to having an interest in defending the airline, its employees and the way it was run. My late father worked for BSAA, before a long career in BOAC and BA. In addition, my sister and I spent many years researching the airline and its history, during which time we unearthed thousands of pages of interesting documents and were lucky enough to meet dozens of ex-BSAA staff, the majority of whom shared their fond memories of BSAA with us and their almost universal respect for Don Bennett and his management style.
So yes, BSAA was not without flaws, but it does a dis-service to the pioneering spirit of its surviving employees to repeat the familiar "shambolic operation" quotes without delving into the detail to gain a fuller picture.
There. You wanted a comment, and got a rather longer one than intended. But at least I can get down from my soap box now.