I can only think of two of those in all my time in BA Flight Ops. One returned to line flying because he was tired of the politics. The other went to a competitor because he was tired of the politics. Bonus point for any BA pilot who can identify the latter (penalty points if you say the Sz word).

You might, but the reality is that if the airline world lived in a closed world with experience never deriving from elsewhere, then progress elsewhere would never be translated into the aviation world.

Which certainly seems to be what has happened to BA!

Re Heat:

I'm sorry Sir, but that's not the point. The Chairman's business experience is irrelevant, because he has no say in anything to do with accounting, and it would be totally wrong for him to get involved anyway.

The function of the Chairman and the Board is to hire the Chief Executive and perform the corporate governance and risk management functions necessary to monitor what the Chief Executive is doing with the business. It's up to the Chief Executive to do the rest. The Board does not originate anything. The CEO does. The Board pokes and prods the CEO's plans and looks for weaknesses, and they had better not find any. That is the required expertise of the Board, corporate governance and risk management skills. A business background in an airline would in my opinion help inform this process. I speak from experience as a CEO (not of an airline!).

If the Board don't like what is being done, then they may give the CEO a chance to correct matters, but usually it means finding a new CEO.

The issue to me is that I cannot think of any less "people oriented" business than the purveying of tobacco. It is therefore a risk in my opinion that in the corporate governance role, the Board hasn't (doesn't /won't) given much consideration to corporate governance and risk management issues surrounding the hapless passengers consigned to T5, or anywhere else in the BA system.....or much thought to "people issues" surrounding the staff.

To put it another way, what sort of person would want to have anything to do with a Tobacco company? What attitudes to their fellow humans might such an appointment demonstrate? How would those attitudes translate into an airline?

Business experience be buggered, we are talking character and attitudes here. If WW went he would be replaced with more of the same.

Hand solo I'll have a go,

TB
BB

.

Correct for number two. Don't think I know number one but wasn't who I was thinking of.

Futher to Sunfish's latest erudite submission , a brief profile of Mr Broughton's career as laid out in the "Daily Torygraph"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...-mostviewedbox

Typical of articles from this august tome there is a fair degree of sycophancy, otherwise access to the "great and good" and associated lunches would be denied, but reading between the lines we can learn a little:

Mr Broughton was academically weak, did not get a degree so became an accountant ie knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Despite this unimpressive beginning he managed to climb up the greasy pole of British American Tobacco, a company with zero interest in the wellbeing of it's customers but quite willing to kill them by the millions, presumably by getting an "MNBH" (Masters in Brown Nosing and Headkicking)

In recent times he was effectively told by St Tone to "get a grip and focus on the big picture", not exactly complementary to a guy purporting to be Chairman of a major company and boss of the CBI. Perhaps Mr Broughton rose to his level of incompetence years ago?

In another article from the "Torygraph", pilots concerns are quoted as being limited to "Sex, Seniority and Salary in that order". Sounds perfectly healthy to me!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...13/ccba113.xml

I think we can safely assume that Mr Broughtons concerns are "Mr Broughton, Mr Broughton's Seniority, and Mr Broughtons continuance on the gravy train. He did not get where he is today by showing the slightest concern for others. So Willie beware, any vote of confidence will certainly mean you will be due for the high jump, if for no other reason than to save that most dear to Mr Broughton,himself.

Sunfish - as you say, the Chairman's business experience - as in the direct industry in which he has worked - is indeed irrelevant. It is his entire business experience as a whole that is important - it is irrelevant if "the issue to me is that I cannot think of any less "people oriented" business than the purveying of tobacco."...he is, as you say, not running the company, and the bread and butter of a Chartered Accountant is risk management and corporate governance.

Whether he is any good at it is a totally different matter, but I hardly see it as relevant whether his past experience was in tobacco, or indeed environmental activism...if he has the skills.

BOTH - Can we just kill posts that sully accountants with the "knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing" brush. It is simply an ignorant generalisation that I am tired of rebutting.

BRITISH AIRWAYS STATEMENT: TWO SENIOR MANAGERS LEAVE BRITISH AIRWAYS
British Airways has announced today that Gareth Kirkwood, director of operations, and David Noyes, director of customer services, will be leaving the company.
The airline is looking to appoint a Chief Operations Officer to combine both roles.
The departures follow the airline's move to Terminal 5.
====

anybody surprised?

BA have sacked two of their most senior managers as a result of the T5 Fiasco.

In addition insurance companies are now refusing to insure your baggage if you travel with British Airways.

I think it is high time Walsh should hand in his resignation.

BRITISH AIRWAYS ARE AN EMBARRESMENT TO BRITAIN.

Well the sacking has begun. Two senior managers today have been told to walk. Not before time in my opinion.

BA are embarrassing Britain.

What good news!

Surely it's time the British Government should step in and tell BA to get their act together. In my opinion this will have a major effect on the overall economy especially in the run up to 2012.

This is all a result of those psychometric tests BA put everyone through. They have employed a certain type of person, everybody thinks the same and acts the same. Not a good policy to run a company.

Blaming junior staff for incompetent management is a well 'Round-ed' principle in BA philosophy, practised in many areas.

Not surprised, just exasperated.

These two individuals, despite their crass underperformance, one of them in a VERY public display, are merely symptoms of a malaise that permeates the direction of this once great company.

How can they be blamed for running BA the way Walsh and Broughton want it?

This:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7348401.stm

Goodbye and good riddance Burkwood.

I pity the next company who gets saddled with this incompetent, characterless fool.

And that's being generous to him.

Typical, Operations get the thick end of the stick, who fired the Project and Implementation Managers? Who carried out the acceptance tests and how rigorous was the testing regime?

Hudson Bay, it is not the government's job to look after BA.

S.

Link to BBC article

BBC News

Doughnuts all round