If you can find one, have a read of a USA based part 121 carrier COM. Notice the CP role is refined to typically dovetail with a Vice President Airline Operations/ a Director Flight Operations and a Chief Executive Officer. The controls and responsibilities are divided so that the CP can perform 'essential design function', tight focus on maintaining flight operations in the green band. Very few, if any CP selected from the 'ranks' really and truly understand pure 'management functions'. They can and do run flight departments very well (mostly) indeed, but the corporate 'fluff' is as alien to a 'pilot mind' as 'operating' is to a corporate wizard. That's where a good DFO is invaluable – the bridge over troubled waters – flight line to board room essential translation.
For example "[to] ensure that the Company has appropriate systems to enable it to conduct its activities both lawfully and ethically; etc...
To a driver – that means the Navigation Act, CAR, CAO, AFM, SOP etc. and possibly the 'union' rules of engagement. A 'management' type would, by natural reflex, translate the statement into a whole different paradigm. By loading the CP description list with many other, open ended, subjective responsibilities distraction is a highly probable result. It's a fair bet that 'by knowing' how flight crew usually operate, it would be an easy matter to take an eye off the 'flying side' ball and focus on the mysteries of the 'corporate' side. Especially where the 'crews' are trusted, experienced, competent folk. But it's the flying operation, generating the revenue, which demands protection. Loose that, game over. Someone has to be minding the shop.
The way I read the 'signs' is that CP's are being lured ever deeper into the mire of 'corporate' responsibility and enmeshed within the regulator paranoia around 'liability' and abrogation of responsibility. In short, the 'modern' CP is becoming a Piņata and the requirements of CAO 82, which are legally binding, are bundled onto the back burner in line behind the corporate 'add ons'.
Without knowing 'all' the story it's tough to make a call on the Tiger ethos; but as a general observation I have noted that these days 'management' involvement in flight crew matters is greater than in the past. Back in the day, a healthy respect for the 'power' of a CP was drummed in, conversely 'management' had to get by the CP before they could lay a glove on 'aircrew'. It seems these days everyone is looking over their shoulder, uncertain where the bullet may come from and uncertain of where their protection my be found. The CASA induced fear of loosing the AOC is another unneeded element, cunningly it is unquantifiable, but it creates a 'backdrop' setting the mood and prompting knee jerk reaction, rather than considered, balanced action.
I'll go with CJ here, subliminal distractions, the elements of uncertainty, fear and clandestine 'dislike' and distrust of 'the company' don't make for a healthy work environment. The undermining of moral on a flight line translates into one hole in the cheese which a CP should plug up.
There is a world of difference between the normal healthy, everyday 'bitching and grumbling' of flight crew (be worried if they weren't) to something slightly more 'sinister' in the form of layered passive resistance. This is not good, not in a business which occasionally requires the crew to go the extra mile, for the good of the company and the brakes are firmly applied, in self defence.
There - Sunday ramble – complete....