Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
It didn't come across as egotistical in the way he presented it
Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
[...] but basically his stance was that he managed via IAG to turn around the profitability of two airlines that were basket cases at the time he started, he greatly improved the performance of a third airline, he has, however, unfinished business with his home airline. At the first attempt before IAG he was restricted in what he could do, now those restrictions (presumably access to loads of cash and reduced state interference) no longer apply.
Actually, his sounds like absolutely archetypical megalomaniac argument to me. People who want to stick to power never say "it's because I like power" or "it's because I am the best and others are rubbish" even if they think it, and instead, they always phrase exactly the same sort of argument that politicians unwilling to leave the place or fellow CEOs doing the same say every time:
1) I am not doing it for myself
2) but I did a good job
3) for reasons beyond my control, I wasn't able to do everything I wanted/was capable of and now it would be possible if I get a few more years.
The elephant in the room is the claim, in between the lines, that he believes that he would effectively do this unfinished business better than a successor because otherwise, even if 1+2+3 were true, which is usually dubious, there would be no reason for a person to stay as they could just as well pass on that much better/more manoeuverable organisation to the next guy who could easily continue to improve the country/city/company.