Isn't it time to lock it anyway?

It's neither rumour nor news and has certainly outlived its usefulness.

Latest update
 

Evening standard has been running a Poll on whether Wee Willie should resign. The results are in, 97% say yes! Right in tune with my own and most of fellow PPRUNEr's. \you can see the link at;http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...sh/poll.doThis thread is alive well and very current in the present climate. All those calling for it to be shut are only pandering to the 'censorship' that keeps the lid on the incompetance.

Arrogance example
 

Now, just having a look at the BA investor site and saw the following reference to 'respecting OUR world', like it belongs to BA!!! That just shows the arrogance. SHould state respecting the world (or environment etc) see for yourself at http://www.britishairways.com/travel...y/public/en_gb

@Willie Walsh your posts are not entertaining.
There is a balanced view and just plain ranting. You are bordering on obsessive ranting.

Unfortunately for some,one way to partly restore the BA image in the eyes of the general public is to terminate the contract(s) of those held responsible for the debacle.
The fuel surcharge mistake is a case where this took place.
Tough management must cut both ways.
ATB to the BA staff struggling with T5 trying to make it work.

Mr Capron your point is a perfectly valid one and is now one of the issues causing BA enormous damage. No one has taken personal responsibility and resigned. Willie Walsh is now clinging to office like a disgraced politician and really should go. Weasel and worthless apologies just antagonise his ex-customers and inflict yet more damage on the brand. Just like a disgraced politician in the end he will have to go and in his heart of hearts I believe he probably knows it. The game is up and he and many of his senior managers have been rumbled as incompetent fools. He was the man at the top taking the big salary and perks. No problem when the company is successful but when you mess up on this scale you need to take responsibility and go. Had Terminal 5 been a wonderful success he would now be basking in all the glory and taking all the credit. Now that it’s a disaster he avoids all responsibility. Doubtless at the end of the year it will still be big financial bonuses all round as BA heads towards its nemeses. At that point they will all head for the lifeboats with their big payoffs and pensions leaving the likes of Michael O’ Leary and others to pick over the remains at the great BA end of the line fire sale. Think it wouldn’t happen? Well just look at the story of another spectacular British disaster GEC/Marconi. Another management team led by NuLabour friend Lord Simpson trashed in 5 years what had been build up over decades into one of Britain’s biggest and most successful companies. Lord Simpson of course later walked out the door with a fortune and for the rest it was redundancies all round. Willie Walsh and Co need to go so BA can make a fresh start and so BA’s customers can see those responsible have been punished. I can’t help wondering that had this disaster happened in Japan to an airline like JAL all of the senior executives would by now have been reassigned to terminal lavatory cleaning duties and picking up litter in the car parks.

N. B. As regards the earlier posts re immigration detainees this situation was in no way the fault of BA. This is a national carrier carrying out the lawful requirements of its own Government in this case the Immigration and Borders Agency. Anyone with a problem really needs to take this up with the Home Office as this is a matter of Government policy. Presumably the people who object to this have no problem with visa overstayers, Illegal entrants, foreign parasites and cheaters remaining in the UK at the taxpayer’s expense. Are would they perhaps rather the Government flew them home in their own personal Learjet courtesy of the public purse? Come on people get real.

Willie Walsh sucks up to Kate Moss, - stuff the rest.
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1773

Miss Moss is just one of the thousands of BA customers who have been let down over the last two weeks and who in many cases are still waiting for their belongings.
Unlike most affected by this shambolic launch of Terminal 5, she has the money and the staff to sort this out and can sue BA later. If it is true that Walsh has authorised an instant payment of £10,000 to this one customer when he cannot even be bothered to write and apologise to the rest, he really should be kicked out on his arse. If as described in other articles, Broughton was responsible for fixing this, then I suppose it at least confirms at last that the man is still alive. The arrogance of this company and its so called leadership team is staggering.

For those who are still percevering with the Baggage “helpline,” you will probably have realised by now that even if they think they have sent your bags out from London (they aren’t really sure), thanks to all the work put in by Mr Walsh and his predecessors slashing the BA operation in the regions, the bags then fall out of the BA system once again as they are handed over to external agencies. They are not logged in on arrival, they just vanish and all the staff can do is admit that they are lost again, with the vague hope that fingers crossed; they may get delivered by a courier. Mr Walsh, why don’t you assign the two senior managers that you put on the Moss case to spend time at the warehouses re-matching bags to names thus allowing your punch drunk call centre staff the chance to offer at least a glimmer of hope.

Then resign.

Major shareholders to meet Martin Broughton
 

Today's CityAM newspaper, which circulates in the City of London and has all the key contacts, has as its headline story that Standard Life investments, a significant shareholder in BA, has demanded a crunch meeting with Chairman Martin Broughton "in the light of the T5 fiasco". Key on the agenda is to question "whether Martin Broughton really is in control of his board".

Things really are coming to a head when one of your main shareholders sends their heavy squad in to ask the chairman what value, if any, they themself are adding to the process. If Broughton is not careful it looks like he will be joining Willie lining up at the HR department window for their P45s.

The question is though who else will hire Willie when his only previous major attraction was that despite being totally uncharismatic and uninspiring as an individual his ruthless determination to impose his will and push through ruthless cost slashing actually worked in terms of turning the business around.

Now that his press on regardless methods have blown up in his face exactly what skill sets can he now claim to offer. However one has a feeling that there may still be a place for him at Ryanair where charm with staff and/or passengers is not required and ruthless cost slashing has been virtually turned in to an art form. There again I suppose Willie may find it difficult to work for a CEO even more ruthless and lacking in good manners than himself (i.e. Michael O' Leary)

Walsh resigning might be good tokenism but BA would be even worse off. The test of who should go is easy. Who were the most senior people who were aware of problems but didnt pass it up the chain,- however uncomfortable it may have been? Those to whom the bad news wasnt passed up to should also ask themselves why. There is something seriously wrong with the upper levels culture at BA and they have to sort that -and quickly. However if you remove the top 3 layers what have you in the way of successors left over from the various culls going back years plus many of the bright younger people who left of their own accord? The answer is a gaping void in succession. As an outsider coming into BA , Willie probably assumed he had several layers of real battle hardened talent below him and has only now learned that he hasnt and he has a real problem.

It is not only the management though who have to get a grip on the realities of year 2008. Other staff have got to give up the belief that nothing should change, that BA can afford less efficient working practices than its competitors. The unions have to give up clinging to the past and believing that they can do best by always ensuring that there are " issues" and threats of industrial action to sour the atmosphere and ensure the management/staff and inter sectional divides, real or imagined, continue.

Right now BA appears to be unloved by many of its staff and a lot of its customers. Customers do not like a sour climate and are simply walking away. They don't care who may or may not be responsible. They want a high quality, reliable and friendly product they can relate to.

The signs are that the airline is coming to a major crunch. If managing it isnt a pleasant experience then staff can't expect good managers to stick around. If good people dont stick around the whirlpool of decline will continue. If that happens the staff will become even more miserable and the customers more hacked off at experiencing the misery.

It is time that management at all levels, the staff and the unions all called a halt to the war. Most are in some ways, by acts or omissions culpable. It is time to design and agree the future ,constructively and away from emotion, threats of industrial action etc. If this isnt done , there will come a day when everyone is standing in a hanger being told that the airline has ceased trading. As many others have found before , it is too late then to say they will work for 6 months without pay and start again from first principles.

It's time to get a grip BA,- and that means EVERYONE in it. Love it or leave it.

Actually there's a lot in what you say. My preferred action would be a night of the long knives, in which the top three layers of management are summarily dismissed.

The greasy pole that is BA is characterised by syncophantic narcissists who feather their own nests on the hard work of others. Three layers of management would get down to the green shoots of comparatively competent experienced managers, who would no longer have to please the mandarin above, and would compete with his peers to get some fresh growth and inspiration back where it's so desparately needed.

I'm sure those of us in BA can identify the individuals who would feel the axe blow right across the adminisphere.

I think we should promote this idea to all who would listen. Hear, hear Skylion:ok:

Airbus - Unless there is empirical proof that lopping off the top three tiers of management will improve things, you may not like the results of what you do. There may be some really good managers in the levels you would love to get rid of, and some really bad apples. I guess it's a question of knowing which apples are good and which are bad.

In cases like this it's choosing between the devil you know and the devil you don't. I'm not sure which is worse TBH.

S.

I also think that part of the problem is that there is a sizeable minority working for BA that would love to see the company go under. As a BA employee myself, i do find myself wondering if maybe they are right?
Sometimes it is best to start with a clean sheet of paper.

The conventional wisdom in BA was that Gareth Kirkwood was a really good manager. 'Good' is most definitely a relative term in this organisation. The talented left a long time ago for greener pastures.

I'm sorry Ladies and Gentlemen, unless the Board is changed, starting with the Chairman, they will hire another CEO exactly like Mr. Walsh.

Don't you understand the irony of a "people oriented" business being chaired by the former Chairman of a Tobacco company?

What does that tell you about the mindset of the Board?

What does that tell you about the people they will approve of in senior management roles?

I'm sorry, but it is not rocket science.

Come off it - it is totally ridiculous to suggest that as you don't know any decent managers, that there aren't any.

There are whole swathes of the organisation that are vital, but that those at the front line never meet (whether they should know about them and meet them is a different matter however...cohesion of the organisation would suggest you should know them).

Who for example manages GDS relationships & infrastructure? Outstation safety audits? Lease financing?

Last time I heard, those areas were all working very well and were essential to the operation. Chopping 3 layers of management out totally is simply living in cloud cuckoo land.

None of which rules out the benefit of the blank sheet of paper option...aside from the fact that running an airline is not simply processing passengers, loading the aircraft and flying it from A to B with customer-facing staff (which some people on here seem to believe IS the sum total of what an airline does).

Nothing. He is also a Chartered Accountant, and has a great deal of other business experience. Being involved in an airline is no qualification for running it...

... as WW is increasingly proving.

I constantly argue against this line. It's like saying that The Pope does not need to be a Catholic ........

Just to qualify my point on the good managers... a good manager is not the one who makes his/her decisions that are popular today or tomorrow or the day after. They make their decisions based on the greater good of their sphere of influence, regardless of whether the decision is popular at the time or not. What makes a great manager is a good manager who manages to convince those in their sphere of influence that what their decision is based on/to achieve is a good thing, and gets them on board.

Of course, the limitation is either undue influence of higher-ups who see a threat, or the inability to effect that decision, and losing the confidence of those below them.

So undoubtedly you will have good managers even if they are not immediately visible. Those who command the respect of their subordinates and their peers, and occasionally even their superiors, tend to be excellent managers. Those are the people you want to keep.

S.

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.

Mr Broughton
 

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.

Kirkwood Falls on his Sword (BA/BAA T5 fiasco)
 

Ba Sack Operations Director
 

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.

Ops director sacked
 

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.

BA Sack Ops Directors
 

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
 

Doughnuts all round