Difference between revisions of "Tony Douglas"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(stub)
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Tony Douglas is the former UK chief executive officer for [[Defence Equipment and Support]], the [[Ministry of Defence]]'s procurement organisation.
+
Tony Douglas is the former UK chief executive officer for [[Defence Equipment and Support]], the British [[Ministry of Defence]]'s procurement organisation for the armed forces.
  
In January 2018 Douglas took up a new role in the private sector as chief executive of [[Etihad Aviation]].
+
He took up a new role in the private sector as chief executive of [[Etihad Aviation]] in October 2017.  
  
The MOD had announced his role in October 2017, it emerged without following the correct Business Appointment Rules by informing the [[Advisory Committee on Business Appointments]] first. Consequently, the committee refused to rule on the case retrospectively.
+
The MOD had previously announced that Douglas was leaving his DES role in October 2017. It later emerged that the department had not followed the correct Business Appointment Rules by seeking the advice of the [[Advisory Committee on Business Appointments]] first. Consequently, the committee refused to rule on the case retrospectively.
 
+
==Notes==
[[Category: ACOBA|Douglas, Tony]], [[Category: Revolving Door|Douglas, Tony]],
+
<references/>
 +
[[Category: ACOBA|Douglas, Tony]], [[Category: Revolving Door|Douglas, Tony]], [[Category: MOD|Douglas, Tony]]

Latest revision as of 07:27, 21 March 2018

Tony Douglas is the former UK chief executive officer for Defence Equipment and Support, the British Ministry of Defence's procurement organisation for the armed forces.

He took up a new role in the private sector as chief executive of Etihad Aviation in October 2017.

The MOD had previously announced that Douglas was leaving his DES role in October 2017. It later emerged that the department had not followed the correct Business Appointment Rules by seeking the advice of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments first. Consequently, the committee refused to rule on the case retrospectively.

Notes

,,