ANOTHER board member for Qantas
VC9 - Boards of Banks (for example) generally have people with banking experience on them. I guess that would be why you don't see many Primary School Teachers or Nurses on the boards of Westpac or even BHP. As in any industry you can think of, some understanding of that industry is at the very least desired, if not absolutely required.
Airlines are a VERY specific industry - and HIGHLY technical. There are NO technical people at any serious level in Qantas to advise on anything. There is no one with any technical understanding, or even service knowledge. When you have people like Clifford coming out and saying he 'knew little of airline operation other than First Class Lounges before Qantas' you realise how out of their depth they are.
Qantas Management has little idea of what is involved in operating an airline. They need all the help they can get, but they consistently fail to even attempt to remedy the situation. They are so out of their depth in Aviation that they are deliberately choosing 'overseers' who cannot oversee.
Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't (or maybe they did?) try to get Steam Shovel and Mr Squiggle out of retirement - they may have been interested....
Marketing obviously has a place, but marketing CAN only work once EVERYTHING ELSE is in place. This bunch of clowns seriously believe that a Chairmans Club Lounge is more important than correct aircraft choices. And why wouldn't they? That is the limit of their experience....
Airlines are a VERY specific industry - and HIGHLY technical. There are NO technical people at any serious level in Qantas to advise on anything. There is no one with any technical understanding, or even service knowledge. When you have people like Clifford coming out and saying he 'knew little of airline operation other than First Class Lounges before Qantas' you realise how out of their depth they are.
Qantas Management has little idea of what is involved in operating an airline. They need all the help they can get, but they consistently fail to even attempt to remedy the situation. They are so out of their depth in Aviation that they are deliberately choosing 'overseers' who cannot oversee.
Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't (or maybe they did?) try to get Steam Shovel and Mr Squiggle out of retirement - they may have been interested....
Marketing obviously has a place, but marketing CAN only work once EVERYTHING ELSE is in place. This bunch of clowns seriously believe that a Chairmans Club Lounge is more important than correct aircraft choices. And why wouldn't they? That is the limit of their experience....
Advertising at this point is putting the cart before the horse I think Smash. QF are quickly running out of product worthy of advertising. Sampson may be a real wizard in his field, but we need an airline right now, not a fantasy.
Good luck to him, I will humbly retract my comments if I am proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.
Good luck to him, I will humbly retract my comments if I am proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For most of you on this thread.....
Do you think a company board acts in a vacuum?
Do you really think they come to a company board meeting with nothing but their own thoughts and experiences on which to base any decisions?
If so then you really should get out more or change your reading material. Quite frankly an airline board made up of nothing but pilots would be disastrous. In fact, any company made up of nothing but its own specialists would be disastrous. As an example have a look at Rolls Royce when it was dominated by engineers. They spent it into bankruptcy over issues with the RB-211 from which the Germans picked up the spoils. Oh what irony.
And before any here think of quoting airlines that have prospered with pilots at the head then the vast majority were in the days of complete regulation when running an airline was akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
Do you think a company board acts in a vacuum?
Do you really think they come to a company board meeting with nothing but their own thoughts and experiences on which to base any decisions?
If so then you really should get out more or change your reading material. Quite frankly an airline board made up of nothing but pilots would be disastrous. In fact, any company made up of nothing but its own specialists would be disastrous. As an example have a look at Rolls Royce when it was dominated by engineers. They spent it into bankruptcy over issues with the RB-211 from which the Germans picked up the spoils. Oh what irony.
And before any here think of quoting airlines that have prospered with pilots at the head then the vast majority were in the days of complete regulation when running an airline was akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
And I agree entirely.
Your words were 'nothing but'.
In Qf's case we have a plethora of experience in various fields but NO-ONE HAS ANY TECHNICAL OR AIRLINE EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER!!!!
10 board members and NONE understand or have any training in the business they are paid to oversee.
And let's put this in perspective. These guys are using their expertise to ensure the safety of how many millions of passengers each year??
I do NOT (nor would any employee) want a board filled with Pilots, Engineers or Canin Crew. But I would expect at least ONE to have some background in the field. I would like a board of -say- 10 to have 1 Cabin Crew, 1 Engineer and 1 Pilot.
It's insane there is ZERO expertise at Board level (and Management being frank) in what Qantas actually does!!
Total madness!
Your words were 'nothing but'.
In Qf's case we have a plethora of experience in various fields but NO-ONE HAS ANY TECHNICAL OR AIRLINE EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER!!!!
10 board members and NONE understand or have any training in the business they are paid to oversee.
And let's put this in perspective. These guys are using their expertise to ensure the safety of how many millions of passengers each year??
I do NOT (nor would any employee) want a board filled with Pilots, Engineers or Canin Crew. But I would expect at least ONE to have some background in the field. I would like a board of -say- 10 to have 1 Cabin Crew, 1 Engineer and 1 Pilot.
It's insane there is ZERO expertise at Board level (and Management being frank) in what Qantas actually does!!
Total madness!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-Jet, QANTAS is a company that happens to be an airline. The expertise to run a company should be at the board and CEO and senior management level. The expertise to safely transport people by jet aircraft lies further down the food chain.
It can be argued that serious mistakes have been made at the company management level (think the failure to or delay in aircraft replacement, the on-going cannibalisation of QANTAS due to JetStar, the disposal of profitable routes to an alliance competitor). It can even be argued that some of those mistakes MAY have compromised the safe operation of their aircraft (I am thinking of the sacking of in-house engineers) but I would be very doubtful if that has been done without a full analysis of the safety aspects of the change.
However, the company has announced a return to profitability which is more than most full-service carriers can do. You say,
, at the Board level. They don't have to, the advice they will take from the various management levels of QANTAS (which is where that expertise should be) is what is required. What the board has to bring to the table is their own perceptions of what is required for a successful business, apply that to the advice they will be given by management and provide an overall direction for senior management.
From what I have seen of Todd Sampson (albeit only on television) he is someone who can bring a unique set of skills, other than just marketing, to the QANTAS board and that is to be encouraged.
It can be argued that serious mistakes have been made at the company management level (think the failure to or delay in aircraft replacement, the on-going cannibalisation of QANTAS due to JetStar, the disposal of profitable routes to an alliance competitor). It can even be argued that some of those mistakes MAY have compromised the safe operation of their aircraft (I am thinking of the sacking of in-house engineers) but I would be very doubtful if that has been done without a full analysis of the safety aspects of the change.
However, the company has announced a return to profitability which is more than most full-service carriers can do. You say,
NO-ONE HAS ANY TECHNICAL OR AIRLINE EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER
From what I have seen of Todd Sampson (albeit only on television) he is someone who can bring a unique set of skills, other than just marketing, to the QANTAS board and that is to be encouraged.
Again I agree with you.
With one tiny difference.
THERE ARE TOO MANY UNIQUE SKILL SETS AT QANTAS!!!
All these skill sets are totally irrelevant if the primary reason they are there loses relevence...
No one has a clue about what it is that sends them their (very/outrageously generous) paycheques.
The world is mad!!
PS: The announced 'Profitability' is a myth and purely created for remuneration purposes. Even if you accept it (and I have a BigFoot park for you to enjoy for $1000ph if you do) then just imagine how good it would have been if they hadn't thrown away the best part of $2B!! on lunatic ideas!
With one tiny difference.
THERE ARE TOO MANY UNIQUE SKILL SETS AT QANTAS!!!
All these skill sets are totally irrelevant if the primary reason they are there loses relevence...
No one has a clue about what it is that sends them their (very/outrageously generous) paycheques.
The world is mad!!
PS: The announced 'Profitability' is a myth and purely created for remuneration purposes. Even if you accept it (and I have a BigFoot park for you to enjoy for $1000ph if you do) then just imagine how good it would have been if they hadn't thrown away the best part of $2B!! on lunatic ideas!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-Jet, I think we are screaming our agreement at each other.
I am certainly not saying QANTAS hasn't made mistakes (in fact many mistakes) these past years through more than one CEO nor am I saying the board is blameless in those mistakes. Far from it, in fact I believe a lot of the troubles has stemmed from one particular senior board member who has a long history of a certain approach to industrial relations.
I also think a lot of problems has been caused or exacerbated by having a board that was too much of a like kind. By that I mean I don't think they showed the independence that was required of them but tended to rubber-stamp the decisions of the CEO and that certain senior board member. The appointment of Todd Sampson would, I believe, ginger up the board to make that less likely in the future.
The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO. That may have been compromised but I don't think it has ever lost relevance. It is to make money for the shareholders and it is set down in law. Failure to act in accordance is a big no-no. If the "profitability" is a myth then watch out for fireworks later. Spruking up the share price carries serious penal provisions, especially as QANTAS's single largest shareholder sold down their holding at a profit on the basis of that announcement.
I am certainly not saying QANTAS hasn't made mistakes (in fact many mistakes) these past years through more than one CEO nor am I saying the board is blameless in those mistakes. Far from it, in fact I believe a lot of the troubles has stemmed from one particular senior board member who has a long history of a certain approach to industrial relations.
I also think a lot of problems has been caused or exacerbated by having a board that was too much of a like kind. By that I mean I don't think they showed the independence that was required of them but tended to rubber-stamp the decisions of the CEO and that certain senior board member. The appointment of Todd Sampson would, I believe, ginger up the board to make that less likely in the future.
The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO. That may have been compromised but I don't think it has ever lost relevance. It is to make money for the shareholders and it is set down in law. Failure to act in accordance is a big no-no. If the "profitability" is a myth then watch out for fireworks later. Spruking up the share price carries serious penal provisions, especially as QANTAS's single largest shareholder sold down their holding at a profit on the basis of that announcement.
They've been 'spruking' mythical profits for years.
My main concern is they simply have no competency, talent or abilities in the one area they are paid monstrous salaries to be competent in.
'Spruking' mythical profits to the market has been going on so long as to be a non issue. Madoff got away with it for decades - as did ENRON and an enormous number of others. And I doubt a single Employee at Qf would give a tinkers cuss about that - IF the company was being run in anything approaching a sensible manner.
But it isn't. It is being systemically dismantled, destroyed and raped. And now yet another 'overseer' has been appointed to 'oversee' without a single relevent credential to bring to the table.
And people wonder why employees have all but given up???
Is Mr Squiggle or Steam Shovel available??? They would be just as useful....
My main concern is they simply have no competency, talent or abilities in the one area they are paid monstrous salaries to be competent in.
'Spruking' mythical profits to the market has been going on so long as to be a non issue. Madoff got away with it for decades - as did ENRON and an enormous number of others. And I doubt a single Employee at Qf would give a tinkers cuss about that - IF the company was being run in anything approaching a sensible manner.
But it isn't. It is being systemically dismantled, destroyed and raped. And now yet another 'overseer' has been appointed to 'oversee' without a single relevent credential to bring to the table.
And people wonder why employees have all but given up???
Is Mr Squiggle or Steam Shovel available??? They would be just as useful....
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't think of a single ASX 20 company that doesn't have a significant amount of technical experience in the company's core business on its board. Qantas isn't in the top 20, obviously, but the point remains relevant.
Gail Kelly, the current CEO of Westpac used to be a high school teacher 
That said, she had a quite lengthy banking career after she left teaching.
Ralph Norris kicked off a $600m core banking platform upgrade whilst CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, which put that bank in a position where its competitors will spend several years playing catchup, because of the payment systems and other services that sort of technology uplift enables.
Norris happened to be a career banker with his roots in IT, I can't help but
think that actual experience in the business helped him a lot there.
Originally Posted by V-Jet
I guess that would be why you don't see many Primary School Teachers or Nurses on the boards of Westpac or even BHP.
That said, she had a quite lengthy banking career after she left teaching.
Ralph Norris kicked off a $600m core banking platform upgrade whilst CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, which put that bank in a position where its competitors will spend several years playing catchup, because of the payment systems and other services that sort of technology uplift enables.
Norris happened to be a career banker with his roots in IT, I can't help but
think that actual experience in the business helped him a lot there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLovett, this is the problem today, things like this being said....
"The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO. That may have been compromised but I don't think it has ever lost relevance. It is to make money for the shareholders and it is set down in law."
To make money for the shareholders is not the primary reason for the boards existence. The board is there to run the company well so it performs to its best, turns a profit and THEN, makes money for the shareholders.
Too many boards today are making decisions based on what the shareholders want, NOT what is good for the company.
It's a bloody stupid way to do business really, I mean, without the business, shareholders have nothing don't they?
"The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO. That may have been compromised but I don't think it has ever lost relevance. It is to make money for the shareholders and it is set down in law."
To make money for the shareholders is not the primary reason for the boards existence. The board is there to run the company well so it performs to its best, turns a profit and THEN, makes money for the shareholders.
Too many boards today are making decisions based on what the shareholders want, NOT what is good for the company.
It's a bloody stupid way to do business really, I mean, without the business, shareholders have nothing don't they?
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After teaching Kelly started at the bottom as a teller and her hard work got her the breaks into the upper echelons, it wasn't meteoric.
Norris was the right man at the right time for the job. CBA was still using Windoze 3.11 when WinXp was the norm, the previous management had backed themselves into an IT sh!thole and Norris was chosen to get them out of it.
I wouldn't even compare Samson with the calibre of the above two.
In fact Samson's skills are in spinning bullsh!t - you can make the connection for yourself as to why he's needed by Qantas.
But that's ok, because this board has an unlimited stockpile of lift fairies and thrust pixies to keep Qantas planes flying well into the future as it seems.
Norris was the right man at the right time for the job. CBA was still using Windoze 3.11 when WinXp was the norm, the previous management had backed themselves into an IT sh!thole and Norris was chosen to get them out of it.
I wouldn't even compare Samson with the calibre of the above two.
In fact Samson's skills are in spinning bullsh!t - you can make the connection for yourself as to why he's needed by Qantas.
But that's ok, because this board has an unlimited stockpile of lift fairies and thrust pixies to keep Qantas planes flying well into the future as it seems.
PLovett:
No.
The only reason for a Boards existence is to protect the assets of the shareholders.
They do this by operating a system of corporate Governance which basically boils down to risk management. That will of necessity involve questioning the CEO as to how he plans to manage risks that are within his control. The Boards ultimate job is to hire and fire the CEO and that depends on whether his continued presence is seen as a risk commensurate with expected return or not.
In my opinion as a former and very minor CEO, the problem with the current Board not containing experienced airline professionals is that there is no one who can question, let alone assess, the technical airline risks associated with the corporate strategy. They rely totally on management and suppliers like Airbus, Boeing, Rolls Royce, GE, etc. for that, and that is the source of your technical troubles vis a vis A380 vs. B777, etc.
To put that another way; the Board thinks that technical risks associated with running an airline are minor second order issues compared with the risk of damage to the Qantas brand - hence the focus on marketing and PR and the lack of focus on engineering and operations.
In my opinion this problem - the lack of any serious technical and operational experience in senior management is very common across a lot of industries, all you need today is an MBA.....
The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO.
The only reason for a Boards existence is to protect the assets of the shareholders.
They do this by operating a system of corporate Governance which basically boils down to risk management. That will of necessity involve questioning the CEO as to how he plans to manage risks that are within his control. The Boards ultimate job is to hire and fire the CEO and that depends on whether his continued presence is seen as a risk commensurate with expected return or not.
In my opinion as a former and very minor CEO, the problem with the current Board not containing experienced airline professionals is that there is no one who can question, let alone assess, the technical airline risks associated with the corporate strategy. They rely totally on management and suppliers like Airbus, Boeing, Rolls Royce, GE, etc. for that, and that is the source of your technical troubles vis a vis A380 vs. B777, etc.
To put that another way; the Board thinks that technical risks associated with running an airline are minor second order issues compared with the risk of damage to the Qantas brand - hence the focus on marketing and PR and the lack of focus on engineering and operations.
In my opinion this problem - the lack of any serious technical and operational experience in senior management is very common across a lot of industries, all you need today is an MBA.....
As usual, a very good and non-hysterical summation from Sunfish.
The problem is exacerbated in airlines because things can go wrong very fast - and you will be a headline around the world.
I will NEVER forgive that idiot Wirth immediately blaming RR for the QF32, and then even worse, saying it was one of her best performances and 'she likes a good crisis'. Then she gets SUPPORTED, praised and promoted by the CEO (and I would assume the board) for such a stupid act.
And how is a board to understand the dangers of such behaviour if they have zero understanding of the issues?
And that is but one example....
PS: 30/30 - I toyed with the idea of a new handle so the next post after yours would be by 'Eight Green Lights' - but I refrained
In my opinion this problem - the lack of any serious technical and operational experience in senior management is very common across a lot of industries, all you need today is an MBA.....
I will NEVER forgive that idiot Wirth immediately blaming RR for the QF32, and then even worse, saying it was one of her best performances and 'she likes a good crisis'. Then she gets SUPPORTED, praised and promoted by the CEO (and I would assume the board) for such a stupid act.
And how is a board to understand the dangers of such behaviour if they have zero understanding of the issues?
And that is but one example....
PS: 30/30 - I toyed with the idea of a new handle so the next post after yours would be by 'Eight Green Lights' - but I refrained
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well summed up , Sunfish.
Additionally, it can be said that Sampsom's inclusion to the board, while providing no real value to the shareholders, will provide some badly needed spin talent in the event of a catastrophic event whatever form it takes e.g. Grounding, global events, etc.
Joyce has surrounded himself with like minded individuals experienced in their respective fields, but excluded those that might question his decision making process. Sampson has good corporate experience, but the marketing "string to his bow" may be just what is needed by Joyce.
Additionally, it can be said that Sampsom's inclusion to the board, while providing no real value to the shareholders, will provide some badly needed spin talent in the event of a catastrophic event whatever form it takes e.g. Grounding, global events, etc.
Joyce has surrounded himself with like minded individuals experienced in their respective fields, but excluded those that might question his decision making process. Sampson has good corporate experience, but the marketing "string to his bow" may be just what is needed by Joyce.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In line with Sunny and MSTR CAution, there is a desperate need for some technically competent senior management.
This may not need to be at board level, although you need a few who work with and can understand (not just listen) what that next layer of technical folk are doing/advising.
The board desperately needs more visionary people like Todd Sampson. They need less of Leigh Clifford (specifically).
I am over QF and their BSing to their staff, and their customers. That starts from the Board level. The make up of the board is all wrong, and dare I say it this might actually be one of the few times there has been an appointment of somebody who actually can contribute something useful. The down side is the others are likely to not recognise it and it goes to waste.
This may not need to be at board level, although you need a few who work with and can understand (not just listen) what that next layer of technical folk are doing/advising.
The board desperately needs more visionary people like Todd Sampson. They need less of Leigh Clifford (specifically).
I am over QF and their BSing to their staff, and their customers. That starts from the Board level. The make up of the board is all wrong, and dare I say it this might actually be one of the few times there has been an appointment of somebody who actually can contribute something useful. The down side is the others are likely to not recognise it and it goes to waste.
Nunc est bibendum
Perhaps Qantas feel that William Meaney is enough aviation experience on the board.
Though his background as VP in SAA isn't exactly an operational role!
An interesting comparison with VOz.
1. David Baxby
A little aviation background there.
2. Josh Bayliss
3. The other airline experience on the VOz board is the three CEOs of Air NZ, Singair and Etihad.
Certainly a fair bit more aviation experience than then on the QF board. That said, is it making a difference?
I'm with Jaba on this one. I'd prefer a brand and marketing person (who at least understands the important of 'the product') than a mergers and acquisition person who just sees the $$$$.
William Meaney was appointed to the Qantas Board in February 2012.
He is a Member of the Safety, Health, Environment and Security Committee and the Remuneration Committee
Mr Meaney is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Iron Mountain Inc. He is a Member of the Asia Business Council and also serves as Trustee of Carnegie Mellon University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Mr Meaney was formerly the Chief Executive Officer of The Zuellig Group and a Director of moksha8 Pharmaceuticals Inc. He was also the Managing Director and Chief Commercial Officer of Swiss International Airlines and Executive Vice President of South African Airways responsible for sales, alliances and network management.
Prior to these roles, Mr Meaney spent 11 years providing strategic advisory services at Genhro Management Consultancy as the Founder and Managing Director, and as a Principal with Strategic Planning Associates.
Mr Meaney holds United States, Swiss and Irish citizenships.
Age: 54
He is a Member of the Safety, Health, Environment and Security Committee and the Remuneration Committee
Mr Meaney is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Iron Mountain Inc. He is a Member of the Asia Business Council and also serves as Trustee of Carnegie Mellon University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Mr Meaney was formerly the Chief Executive Officer of The Zuellig Group and a Director of moksha8 Pharmaceuticals Inc. He was also the Managing Director and Chief Commercial Officer of Swiss International Airlines and Executive Vice President of South African Airways responsible for sales, alliances and network management.
Prior to these roles, Mr Meaney spent 11 years providing strategic advisory services at Genhro Management Consultancy as the Founder and Managing Director, and as a Principal with Strategic Planning Associates.
Mr Meaney holds United States, Swiss and Irish citizenships.
Age: 54
An interesting comparison with VOz.
1. David Baxby
David Baxby was appointed to the Virgin Australia Board on 30 September 2004. He is also a Director of Tiger Airways Australia Pty Ltd.
David is the CEO of Global Blue SA. David was previously the Co-CEO of the Virgin Group until 30 June 2013 and his past directorships include Virgin Atlantic Ltd, Virgin Holidays Ltd, Virgin America Inc and Air Asia X. David was also an investment banker for ten years with Goldman Sachs.
David is the CEO of Global Blue SA. David was previously the Co-CEO of the Virgin Group until 30 June 2013 and his past directorships include Virgin Atlantic Ltd, Virgin Holidays Ltd, Virgin America Inc and Air Asia X. David was also an investment banker for ten years with Goldman Sachs.
2. Josh Bayliss
osh has extensive experience as both an executive and non-executive director of a large number of companies across the Virgin Group globally in all of Virgin’s industry sectors including aviation, financial services, telecoms and media, health and wellness and entertainment.
He has been with the Virgin Group since 2005, previously serving as the Group’s General Counsel before taking on the CEO role in 2011.
He has been with the Virgin Group since 2005, previously serving as the Group’s General Counsel before taking on the CEO role in 2011.
Certainly a fair bit more aviation experience than then on the QF board. That said, is it making a difference?
I'm with Jaba on this one. I'd prefer a brand and marketing person (who at least understands the important of 'the product') than a mergers and acquisition person who just sees the $$$$.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joyce clearly doesn't want anyone with sound airline operational knowledge on his board as they may point out his and other board members lack of knowledge.
I also have no problem with Sampsons inclusion, I just have a problem with the entire makeup of the board. I don't expect a pilot or an engineer on the board, just at least one (preferably more) credible person(s) from a successful aviation background with significant operational knowledge.
I would also expect persons with significant accounting/banking & law experience, however we seem a little top heavy in these fields.
Mostly however, ditch the kool aid.
Independant, knowledgeable & passionate persons with Qantas' best interests at heart (not personal wealth).
Is this too much to ask?
Hopefully Sampson can prove to be this.
I also have no problem with Sampsons inclusion, I just have a problem with the entire makeup of the board. I don't expect a pilot or an engineer on the board, just at least one (preferably more) credible person(s) from a successful aviation background with significant operational knowledge.
I would also expect persons with significant accounting/banking & law experience, however we seem a little top heavy in these fields.
Mostly however, ditch the kool aid.
Independant, knowledgeable & passionate persons with Qantas' best interests at heart (not personal wealth).
Is this too much to ask?
Hopefully Sampson can prove to be this.
Hang on Keg, the examples you have quoted are executive roles, next year you will be able to quote the man in question as well. Doesn't mean they have any more operational experience. If you as an employee and pilot are happy with that, then there is really nothing more to say.
Nunc est bibendum
G'day Arnold E. I didn't make a comment one way or another as to whether I was happy. These things are so far above my ability to influence that I don't invest any emotion in them.
I was simply doing a comparison between the two majors in Australia. One has more aviation experience on the board than the other. Whether others see value in the 'experience' of the VOz board is for them to determine. I'm not commenting on it at all.
Other fish to fry for me at the moment! 
I was simply doing a comparison between the two majors in Australia. One has more aviation experience on the board than the other. Whether others see value in the 'experience' of the VOz board is for them to determine. I'm not commenting on it at all.
Other fish to fry for me at the moment!