Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses The Almighty Buck IT Technology

British Airways CEO Won't Resign, Says Outsourcing Not To Blame For IT Failure (bbc.com) 275

British Airways CEO Alex Cruz insisted he would not resign on Monday as he sought to draw a line under three days of chaos at the UK flag carrier after IT problems left tens of thousands of passenger stranded. In an interview -- the first since a global computer outage all but shut the airline down -- Cruz said he doesn't think "it would make much of use for me to resign." Separately, he also denied an outsourcing deal was to blame for the IT problems that hit on Saturday, causing the airline to cancel almost all its services over the weekend. From a report: A leaked staff email revealed Mr Cruz had told staff not to comment on the system failure. When asked about the email he told the BBC the tone was clear: "Stop moaning and come and help us." The airline is now close to full operational capacity after the problems resulted in mass flight cancellations at Heathrow and Gatwick over the bank holiday weekend. Questions remain about how a power problem could have had such impact, said the BBC's technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones. One theory was that returning systems were unusable as the data had become unsynchronised. [...] Cruz told the BBC a power surge, had "only lasted a few minutes," but the back-up system had not worked properly. He said the IT failure was not due to technical staff being outsourced from the UK to India.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Airways CEO Won't Resign, Says Outsourcing Not To Blame For IT Failure

Comments Filter:
  • We need communism now!

    • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:13AM (#54505491)
      Venezuela's really working out well! As is North Korea
      • by prefec2 ( 875483 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @12:11PM (#54505821)

        Both do not have a communist economy. However, Venezuela is struggling today under a leader who has problems with democracy and North Korea is owned by Kim Jon Un and his useless clan. Communism is an economic model where in essence everything is owned by everyone, money does not exist and people are sharing things. While this concept is totally utopian it has also nothing to do with any country which claimed to be communist. However, countries like the the German Democratic Republic or the Democratic Republic of Kongo were/are both named democratic, but they were both dictatorships.

        Also "communism now" was mentioned as a joke.

      • Hey, you didn't see this happen to Air Koryo, did you [wikipedia.org]? That's what I thought.
      • Venezuela is an example of a single point of failure.
        It doesn't matter what system of government they have, so long as they rely on oil the consequences of a price war with Saudis who can get oil out of the ground at less than one third of the price are kind of obvious.
        Russia didn't cope well either so an oligarchy is not the answer either.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The same communism that failed everywhere it's been tried? Good idea.

      I'd rather the Spanish Inquisition return.

    • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:32AM (#54505623)

      If you use the "A is bad, hence B must be good" fallacy to make your point for A, you look about as stupid as someone who tries to use it as a point for B.

      • by DeBaas ( 470886 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @12:45PM (#54505973) Homepage

        I still think it was BA who was bad here

        • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @12:58PM (#54506035)

          Power failures happen. Hacks happen. It is the way you handle them that matters. BA's behavior was horrible. They should have had a fall-back paper based system. It would have been slow, error prone, and required them to rush-hire a lot of temps, but they could have muddled through without stranding tens of thousands of people. Also, it would have saved them money. The cost of the paper-pushing temps would have been far less than the cost of all the refunds for cancelled flights.

          • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @01:22PM (#54506177) Homepage

            Um, no. This is an interesting fallacy that I see all of the time - 'go back to paper'. Let's face it - the ONLY way you can run a modern airline, hospital, utility or whatnot is with a computerized system. When it goes tits up, you go tits up until you can get backups on line. Just finding the requisite paper products (and manual credit card imprinters - I'm going to bet that half the BA employees have never even seen one) could take days.

            Can you imagine trying to hire and train 5000 temps to fill out complicated forms while the rest of the staff has complete meltdowns?

            Fat chance.

            Now, BA should have been able to handle anything short of force majour with backups and redundant systems. The power supply theory is laughable. But paper isn't going to solve the problems on any sort of reasonable time scale.

            • by rl117 ( 110595 ) <{ten.erbiledoc} {ta} {hgielr}> on Monday May 29, 2017 @01:53PM (#54506303) Homepage
              Businesses can and do have contingency plans to work without computers. It's absolutely possible with a little foresight and planning. I used to work in an industrial complex which was highly automated. But for every bit of process, there was an accompanying card with all the details filled out in ink. The card would be physically passed around the plant to hand over responsibility and document every part of the process. For each place the card passed through, local log books would record every addition to the card, and they details would also be entered into the computer. You might think this redundant, but it provided three important things: (1) audit - we could check that the computer details matched the card and that the local logs matched the card and the computer, to trace any discrepancies in the case of entry errors (2) physical accountability and traceability and (3) the ability to run the entire plant without any network connectivity; the details of the processes could be entered retrospectively. An airline can certainly mitigate a lot of what went wrong. Physically print out the passenger lists to permit check in and boarding. Most people book the flights well in advance; you can cope with most passengers with ease, even moving them between flights, if you have a backup paper system in place. Physically cross them off with the date and time you did it, then add them to a list that the gate staff can use. Card payment isn't an issue--most people already paid in advance; for those that didn't you can probably take the payment, physically document it and enter it into the system at a later time. It's absolutely doable, and any company who cares about surviving should have a system in place. The plant I worked at did this for legal and financial reasons. If a computer outage costs millions of pounds an hour, then you make sure it's covered. BA's outage likely cost much more than that.
              • by aix tom ( 902140 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @02:46PM (#54506565)

                Businesses can and do have contingency plans to work without computers. It's absolutely possible with a little foresight and planning.

                Foresight, planning *and* training. I work for a Retailer with about 20 branches. What we do, we disconnect every branch from central IT once a year for a day (granted, on one of the slower days), so that they know how to handle the backup procedures.

                • by rl117 ( 110595 )
                  Agreed, training is definitely a key part! At least where I used to work, because the two systems ran in parallel everyone was trained daily; any service outage would be a non-event other than having to do some data entry once the outage was fixed. For systems where you explicitly switch then training for that disruption is going to be even more important.
            • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @02:11PM (#54506367) Journal

              This is an interesting fallacy that I see all of the time - 'go back to paper'. Let's face it - the ONLY way you can run a modern airline, hospital, utility or whatnot is with a computerized system.

              There is a modern airline - Air France I think, that does just this. Their systems fail often, but they have a robust paper system to keep people from being stranded.

              Thing is, you don't to allow people to buy new tickets in order to function. Lots of what a modern airline does can just be ignored. You need to verify tickets and boarding passes - which can be done by straining the phone network back to a central office with lots of temp workers, and you need to keep aircraft inspection/maintenance logs current, but that's still mostly paper anyhow.

              You can make very complex systems work without computers if you care enough to do so. You can also make disaster recovery systems that actually work when you need them - though you do need to follow the expensive advice of professionals, so maybe some corporations are culturally incapable.

              • You actually don't even need to verify tickets. In an emergency like this just ask people and believe them, most will be honest. It is not that difficult to calculate fuel by hand. Weather is available. Rosters are worked out in advance, so people just turn up. It should all muddle along without computers for at least a few days.

                The trouble is that the systems were made very complex *because* of computers, and then nobody understands them any more.

            • the ONLY way you can run a modern airline, hospital, utility or whatnot is with a computerized system.

              If you have people at the gate with boarding passes, and a plane ready to fly, it is idiotic to refuse to board them because your computer is down. You get a sheet of paper, you manually write a manifest, and you send them on their way. It was done that way for decades.

              • How much fuel do you put on the plane and in which tanks? Is it due for any inspections? Did it throw a code last flight? 'Ready to fly' is an assumption.

                You could print it all at the start of a shift, but you know they didn't. It wouldn't be 100% anyhow, gates change, shit happens.

            • by dbIII ( 701233 )
              You fall back to drastically dumbed down procedures as seen in disaster management systems everywhere else - especially including hospitals.
              When a hospital gets 100+ people in one hit do you really think they do complex paperwork instead of falling back to a very simple (and necessarily brutal) system?
  • They pissed me off more than a decade ago, and I swore never to use their services again. Since then I flew all across the world, for scientific conferences, cooperation, or just fun. This includes even many flights to the US.

    I'm not surprised BA sucks this bad, with a CEO like Alex Cruz.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They seem to be generally quite incompetent. Endless staff walk-outs over conditions, indicating poor labour relations. The food on their flights is terrible even by airline standards. Even the staff uniforms are just terrible, especially the women's which don't seem to have changed since the 60s and require that garish red lipstick.

      In any case, Cruz is to blame for this. Ultimately, there should have been regular tests of the backup systems and a plan to quickly recover if it did fail, and it was his respo

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:33AM (#54505625)

        "The food on their flights is terrible even by airline standards"

        They are just trying to give an authentic British food experience!

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Actually, you can get some really nice food there these days. Of course, the Brexit may roll that back... :-/

      • by tysonedwards ( 969693 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:37AM (#54505651)
        Slightly reduced bonus? He confirmed the issue was not his fault, and not that of the new guys maintaining the system... It was obviously an issue of the old people who didn't properly train or leave adequate documentation of the intricacies of the system when they left 5 months ago. If anything, an extra large bonus should be coming for getting rid of that level of incompetence.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by unixisc ( 2429386 )

          Were those 'old people' people who were expected to train someone from Infy or TCS how to do their job, before getting their own employment terminated? I can see why 'proper training' of their replacements might have been low on their priority list

          It's amazing: in the 60s, the BOAC used to be the state of the art in airlines. Sad to see where it has fallen, while airlines from Arab countries flaunt superior service

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by jeff4747 ( 256583 )

          He confirmed the issue was not his fault, and not that of the new guys maintaining the system... It was obviously an issue of the old people

          And who decided to replace "the old people" with an outsourcing firm featuring inadequately-trained personnel?

          He's the CEO. The buck stops on his desk, no matter what.

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            He's the CEO. The buck stops on his desk, no matter what.

            Not these days. The CEO not taking responsibility for anything except successes (that he usually had no part in creating) is pretty much in the job description.

        • It would be delightful Karma if this is a result of the "training staff" conveniently forgetting to tell them of a devilish bug that they weren't allowed fix because there was a rather simple work around.

          A work around that is documented somewhere. Now if they could just remember.

      • The food on their flights is terrible even by airline standards.

        They're British. What do you expect?

    • with a CEO like Alex Cruz

      Ted's evil twin, separated at birth?

    • I have a colleague who raves about them. He only flies with them, tells other people that they'reâ daft not to fly with them. Yet, almost every time he comes back from holiday there's a story about something that went wrong. I bet he's glad he didn't go abroad for the long weekend...

      • Stockholm syndrome, irrationality... or plain stupidity. If you have constant problems with an airline, yet you only fly with them, the problem is your decision making.

  • by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:09AM (#54505457)
    I remember when people would say that "X happened in Y with outcome Z", but here we don't get to know anything of what went wrong?

    Not telling me in detail means I am highly unlikely to fly with them as they are seen as untrustworthy with something to hide.
    • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:39AM (#54505659)
      Well, first, Something Bad happened. Then, everybody tried to figure out What Went Wrong, but nobody could, because anybody who could find their ass with both hands had been laid off and their jobs outsourced to a faraway land where everything has to be microscopically explained, perhaps starting with "Well, hydrogen is one proton and one electron" and build from there. Then, The Suits started screaming for blood, but nobody they were screaming at was even competent enough to come up with a cogent response beyond "We're looking into it". Then, the Uber-PHB said "It's not because we shipped all our jobs to the lowest bidder, and It's Not My Fault".

      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- or a combination of stupidity and greed.
      • "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

        I still insist that everybody has that backwards [cia.gov]

      • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @02:53PM (#54506613) Homepage Journal

        Oh, there's incompetence here, but it's not the India that's the problem.

        In my experience India has an incredible number of talented, capable people, but like talented capable people everywhere they cost more than ignoramuses. But even a country of a billion people has a finite pool of top-notch talent. On the other hand India does have an almost limitless supply of subpar talent, and Indian businessmen are enterprising to a fault. If a Western CEO jis willing to shell out good money for sub-par people, there's a killing to be made.

        So who, exactly, is the fool in this scenario?

        The British Airways debacle was an instance of a catastrophic failure being brought on by an unusually but statistically predictable event. Therefore, the new vendor the CEO brought in wasn't up to the job he hired them for. That's the CEO's fault, end of story.

        The real problem is that people who are good at IT operations make their job look too easy. A fool looking at the lack of drama in a well-run data center is apt to mistake that for the job being easy.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:11AM (#54505481)

    Having a foreign IT staff isn't the issue, having an incompetent IT staff that is not able to manage the system and deal with issues like this is. If you are firing people who are able to do this and bringing in people who are barely able to hold stuff together because it lowers the salaries you pay then it is your own fault.

    • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:35AM (#54505637)

      “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When
      you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay
      too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
      bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The
      common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
      lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well
      to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will
      have enough to pay for something better.”

        John Ruskin

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Nice quote! Assumes a competent buyer of course, and with this joke of a CEO right here under discussion, that one is nowhere in sight.

    • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @12:33PM (#54505911)

      Its not so much about incompetent staff, its about the loss of institutional knowledge when you outsource.

      The company built up a large internal IT team for a reason - the IT problems of an airline are complex and convoluted (airlines often cant actually predict what price your ticket is going to be because of the complexity in the ticketing and fare based systems... and that complexity has snuck in over the 60 years of the boom in commercial aviation).

      When you then get rid of that internal IT team, a huge sea of knowledge walks out with it. Yes, you can have them document the system, but no level of documentation makes up for practical experience that allows you to give a gut reaction in a given circumstance.

      And thats what happened here. The root cause might not be anyones fault - but the recovery time might have been minutes to hours if the company still had that internal institutional knowledge to run with. They didn't, and the outsourced IT team had to troubleshoot the system from first principles - which can take forever.

      Now watch BA switch outsourcing contractors again, citing their failure - and watch the knowledge gained via this incident once again take a walk out of the door.

      • by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @02:41PM (#54506535)

        Spot on. While it is usually a good idea to outsource non-core functions, IT has become a core function for almost all large businesses. If you do not have control over your IT with an organic (n.b. not the health food organic) workforce, you do not have control over your business.

        I would assert that outsourcing IT only makes sense for a small business (e.g. a doctor's office, family restaurant).

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Indeed. And given that the root cause was both minor and expected ("power outage" is a very standard IT disaster scenario that a competent organization is well prepared for), but had such a devastating effect, a major outage will probably kill them.

    • Outsourcing may not have caused the issue, but I'd like to ask: How much more difficult is it to return your systems to normal, using that outsourced staff?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      And that is just the point. Competent Indian IT staff is _not_ any cheaper, because they can get jobs all over the world at local salaries. And outsources always adds to the cost.

  • "He said the IT failure was not due to technical staff being outsourced from the UK to India."

    So is this tacitly blaming the staff they still have?

    You know what will fix your IT problems! More staffing cuts and outsourcing!

    • by AC5398 ( 651967 )

      He's just admitted that rabid cost-cutting measures were responsible for the outage, and said cost-cutting measures were his fault, it just wasn't outsourcing that was to blame.

      Either BA didn't update mission-critical infrastructure that is long past its expiry date, or they ignored the needs of mission-critical infrastructure (which includes having well-trained operators who know what to do when 'things get out of sync'. So it is still his *&^% fault.

    • Re:So in house? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @12:34PM (#54505923)

      The *failure* wasnt a fault of the outsourcing - the problematic *recovery* almost certainly is a fault of the outsourcing. His statement doesnt cover both of those...

  • by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:23AM (#54505551) Journal

    I don't think that it would make much of use for me, to resign.

    There, fixed that for you. Commas are important.

  • by minstrelmike ( 1602771 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:24AM (#54505557)
    The backup didn't work. Wow. Who woulda thunk? I suspect some IT person complained about the backup procedures being inadequate and he was probably fired. Someone else asked if they could actually test the backup and they were given a demotion.

    And now that the backup failed to actually be a backup, we're all shocked and surprised (and it's definitiley not management's fault).

    I tested my backups daily by importing the data into a different database. (Of couse, I'm an Oracle admin and am used to having failed backups).
    • Re:Bad Backup? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DarthVain ( 724186 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @12:08PM (#54505813)

      I think generally backups are badly managed. I don't think most management sees them as all that critical. I suspect admins likely get tired of trying and just go with the flow after awhile.

      In all my years professionally I've only ever really needed enterprise backup (i.e. not my desktop etc...) twice (Oracle DB). Both times it was useless. The first was a scheduling issue where the last backup that was done was 9 months old which is really unacceptable. In that case we had to use some complicated data harvesting from log tables (which fortunately we had in this instance), though some data was lots due to format differences. The second time apparently the backup process was broken, and it was under maintenance to fix it, for a month, but no one decided that it might be a good idea to tell anyone, so when we deployed a new version of an application into production which caused a number of data issues, the last good backup was 3 weeks old, meaning we had to get creative with the existing data and live with the rest putting it on users to manual confirm a couple weeks worth of possible changes.

      Anyway from my own experience whenever it's been needed, it's not there. Personally I think I am way more fastidious about my backups, but there seems to be a thing about corporate culture, and perhaps the idea of risk management and passing blame and responsibility off on somebody else..

      • by Strider- ( 39683 )

        I think generally backups are badly managed. I don't think most management sees them as all that critical. I suspect admins likely get tired of trying and just go with the flow after awhile.

        This is why I always try to build/design my systems with active/active fail-over type mechanisms, doing my best to avoid the single point of failure. During normal operations, both systems are in operation and responding to needs. They are being constantly updated, constantly tested, and constantly monitored. The tricky thing is to ensure that should one of them fail, the other can take the full load.

      • We had a fire. Burnt the whole place down. Fortunately, we had backups on tape, and we'd tested the backups using the tape drive, to make sure that they extracted correctly.

        Trouble was, the only tape drive that seemed to be able to extract the tapes, was melted in the fire. Other tape drives appeared unable to do so, due to some subtle misalignment of the tape drive itself. Luckily, the data turned out to be available in other places, and our (frankly, pretty great) IT guys had us back up in a couple of day

    • by bongey ( 974911 )

      Common practice now is to do forced failover testing during none peak hours. Google create DiRT tool for testing fail overs. Amazon does testing also.
      Hate it when PHB's are cheapasses or they just know better than you. Worst one I ran into was that we were trying to explain it would be better to have site redundancy vs one big machine at one location.The government side just wanted it running on big data center no matter what.

      Earthquake hit 1 week after setup, all hard disks were destroyed/ data unrecovera

      • by mspohr ( 589790 )

        As a naive observer, I'm just wondering why there is a single point of failure in this system. It seems to be that such a mission critical application should have distributed data and functionality to provide resilience... kind of like this new fangled Internet thingy.
        (But what do I know?)

    • Which is why this is the CEO's fault. When the CEO pushes for cost cutting, every manager scrambles to push out important work, so they can make the quarterly bonus; it is silly to criticize manager for doing what they are literally paid extra and patted on the back to do. But there are certain business critical systems that the CEOs must take responsibility for making sure that they are checked thrice on a regular basis. No manager can stand up to a CEO directly or indirectly, because that manager alway

  • by gestalt_n_pepper ( 991155 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:30AM (#54505597)

    Dear British Airways Upper Management,

    This is your fault. To avoid another incident, you will bring in the operations IT managers, who are quite frankly, much smarter than you. Then sit down and shut the fuck up and listen to the solutions that these managers already know about, and which will easily fix the problem.

    It would be best if all fools, MBAs, accountants and other technical illiterates were excluded from that meeting. A lawyer or too, on the other hand, may be quite helpful.

    Hint. The solutions cost money. Guess why they were never implemented. Bonus question! Guess how expensive an unplanned failure is going to be.

    Cheers!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward


      Guess how expensive an unplanned failure is going to be.

      They no longer need to guess.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        On the plus side, by statistics, they are not going to have another of these for quite a while now, so all is well! Oh, wait...

    • Guess how expensive an unplanned failure is going to be.

      Early estimates peg this at a fraction of a percent of yearly net profit. Combined with the rarity of the event I would say that this incident will come and go without any change.

      Mind you these costs are also offset by not having planes in the air. British airways in one year had their fuel bill change by more than the IAG 2016 net profit. There's far more expensive things that can and do happen to airlines regularly than stranding all their customers for a day.

    • A while ago I worked in a large bank. The staff there consisted of large numbers of imported Indians, and larger numbers of non-imported Indians. The management staff consisted of South Africans - I was one of the few odd ones out. (I apologize for seemingly racist descriptions, but it was in fact true. Of the developer staff, there were about 5 non-Indians).
      The results were pretty horrible. The code was made up of collections of frameworks-de-jour, whatever was trendy that month, layered. Maintenance was n

  • Pull The Other One (Score:4, Insightful)

    by segedunum ( 883035 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:43AM (#54505675)
    Cruz thinks he can get people to pay BA prices while slashing costs back beyond budget airline levels. He had form on this with Iberia. Meals cut, added extras cut on long haul flights, crew on zero hour contracts who aren't being paid with cancelled flights and all the IT staff within Britain being fired. No staff give a shit, and why should they?

    Fuck you Alex. I hope this kills BA off.
  • Outsource the CEO position and fire Cruz; see how he likes it.

  • Bet you anything that some more IT people get fired, though. Just keep firing IT people until all of your IT problems go away, BA!

    • Bad IT people tend to get promoted into management and then worm they way into middle management. The only cure then is to get rid of middle management. When I worked at Cisco and a layoff got announced in October 2013, the Indian engineers were shocked that their middle management got targeted for layoffs. Three layers of middle management got eliminated, all paper pushers and no decision makers.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Please do the needful and let me put my point.

    Time to resign.

    Oh, and insource. Your data is your most precious resource.

  • by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @01:00PM (#54506045) Journal

    He is right that "Outsourcing Not To Blame".

    Power might of well have been the trigger, but the scale of the outage indicates much bigger problems afoot. The root cause of this turning out to be poor IT Governance, those big picture processes that prove the resilience is designed in, tested and proven. That is a failure of IT management.

    IT treated as a cost centre, everything is outsourced on a lowest cost basis. Those suppliers are further whipped into line by crude metrics by managers that got a leg up by doing things quickly or cheaply, not properly. I see this kind of lack of concern for proper governance every day, address this lack of proper governance is by far the most difficult challenger I face as a consultant working in QA.

    The NHS failure was exactly the same thing, the attack was the trigger, the root cause of the collapse of IT was governance failure by very senior management failure to ensure resilience was built in and proven.

  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @01:03PM (#54506063)
    IT is hard and how it works is invisible to those who don't understand it. BA might be screwed. Not only have they outsourced IT but it looks like they don't have the expertise anymore to even evaluate the quality of their IT or even prioritize and fund what their IT should be doing. So now not only is BA not good at IT they are doubly handicapped in that at least from their CEOs statements they can't even evaluate IT.
  • by Dr_Ish ( 639005 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @03:30PM (#54506829) Homepage
    In the 1980s, I interviewed for an entry level graduate position with BA, to work with their IT systems. Their people were arrogant and ignorant. When I asked them what languages their systems were written in, the HR droids had no clue. I never got a call back and I am very glad about that. Although the corporate culture has probably changed many times since then, it seems that their attitudes have not improved any. The fact that the head honcho will not take responsibility now is no surprise. I bet he will keep on taking his over-inflated salary and bonuses though.
  • It seemed weak but produced a strong G3-class geomagnetic storm, several other outages occurred as well...but you don't see even a hint of it in any MSM.

  • it had better be related to me not receiving my fucking bag!

    FIGURE IT OUT, Fuck head! It's a bag! I need it! I'm in fucking Ghana for fuck's sake!
  • The company I worked for is outsourcing... They replaced 10 people with 40, the 10 people were highly educated and experienced local staff. The 40 people are two grades below the original staff and inexperienced with moderate education. This is how the outsourcing company intends to make money, by reducing employment costs. Now the new staff are utterly clueless on several subjects, notably what actually happens on the data center floor, how things are plugged together and how they should be plugged toget

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...