My commiserations to the two senior managers of BA, Gareth Kirkwood, director of operations at BA, and David Noyes, head of customer relations, who were fired yesterday by BA.
Seemingly they are being blamed for the T5 fiasco.
This is somewhat ironic given that Willie Walsh publicly said that he took full responsibility for the worst corporate pr, customer relations and logistics disaster in living memory.
What is particularly disturbing is that both men had each spent over 20 years in BA. Long service does not in itself mean that someone is particularly skilled at their job. However, it indicates that they should at least be reasonably competent at the internal politics.
Given this, is it really the case that they could have been solely responsible for this cock up of gargantuan proportions?
Surely other members of the board had some "mild interest" in the plans for the opening of T5?
Wouldn't Walsh, and the other members of the board, have gone through the plans with them?
Does BA, by sacking these two men, mean to imply that they formulated the T5 plans alone, off their own bat without any form of discussion or scrutiny from the board?
What an unusual way to run a company!
The other interesting point to emerge from the sacking is that their two roles will be merged into one "Chief Operating Officer". Customer Relations and Operations are normally two entirely separate functions in large organisations, is this combining of roles entirely wise?
Whilst the new incumbent is head hunted, Willie Walsh will take on the role.
Does this mean that everything is now fine at T5?
The reaction from the insurance companies would indicate not, they are refusing to insure baggage passing through T5.
BA are staring into the abyss, one more foul up and others will go.