Controversial Etihad Chief Commercial Officer Arik De Abruptly Departs

Arik de may be gone, but the rot he left behind has not been addressed.
I have been reading the comments surrounding Arik De’s departure, and as an Etihad employee, it is painful to see how much frustration and disappointment have accumulated. I am fortunate not to work within REVC or the departments directly affected by his management style. I work in a division where good leadership and fair practices still exist, and I want to make it clear that not every department within Etihad is in the same state. There are still exceptional leaders and talented employees who continue to do outstanding work and care deeply about the airline.
Having worked closely with the Product, Brand and Hospitality teams over many years on numerous projects and events, I have witnessed firsthand what these departments once represented. They were thriving divisions, driven by remarkable talent across Product, Service Delivery, Culinary, Ground Services and several other functions. Under Turky’s leadership, supported by an exceptionally talented team, these departments delivered outstanding work. Their achievements were celebrated, their expertise was valued, and the people responsible for their success were recognised as the stars they were.
Then Arik De’s management approach began to take its toll.
In my view, what followed was a textbook example of how a thriving division can be dismantled, not because it lacked talent, but because the wrong leadership decisions were allowed to take root. A department that had been built through years of hard work, experience and professional expertise was turned into an environment of confusion, demoralisation and declining confidence.
With Arik’s backing, appointments and transfers involving people such as Jyotsna and Rori raised serious concerns about leadership capability and the direction of the division. What followed was, quite frankly, a circus — and one in which Jyotsna appeared to be at the centre of the chaos.
Experienced leaders who had delivered results, including Turky and his team, were sidelined and reduced to figures with little meaningful influence. Employees who had led teams and contributed significantly to the department were publicly shamed in meetings, in a management style that bore an uncomfortable resemblance to Arik’s own. Instead of creating an environment where people could learn, grow and perform, the leadership culture increasingly appeared to rely on humiliation, intimidation and the undermining of established professionals.
Consider the message sent to employees who had dedicated five, ten or more years to Etihad: reapply for your positions, accept that this is a “new Etihad”, and understand that your experience and loyalty may no longer make you suitable for promotion. Meanwhile, the message that seemed to emerge was that senior positions would increasingly go to external hires rather than existing employees who had already demonstrated their capabilities.
What kind of organisation treats the people who helped build its success as though they are no longer worth investing in?
Institutional knowledge is not baggage. Experience is not a weakness. Loyalty should not become a liability. Yet this is precisely the perception that such management practices risk creating. The damage goes far beyond job titles or organisational charts. It destroys confidence, strips people of their professional dignity and makes talented employees question whether their contributions have any value.
People who were once confident, capable and respected began to see their expertise questioned and their achievements dismissed. Work that had helped establish Etihad’s standards was disparaged, at times through comparisons to Air India standards, rather than being constructively evaluated and improved. Subject-matter experts were publicly undermined, and the very experience the organisation should have been drawing upon was treated as something to replace.
When leadership lacks the ability to recognise the value of existing expertise, the easiest option is often to discredit it. And when that approach becomes the norm, the organisation loses the benefit of the very people who know its product best.
The situation became even more concerning as additional directors and senior positions were introduced in the division. Rather than resolving the underlying problems, these appointments appeared to add further layers of leadership without necessarily addressing the department’s fundamental needs and further denting the confidence of long serving employees of the division.
And this is where I will be blunt: some of these new appointments looked less like a serious effort to rebuild a department and more like the recruitment of a cast of clowns to protect the imcompitence of the leader. When experienced professionals who had delivered real results were being sidelined and shamed by VPs, the arrival of people who, in the eyes of those observing the department, appeared ill-equipped to lead only made the situation more absurd. Senior titles mean very little when they are not matched by competence, sound judgement, accountability and the ability to inspire a team.
The question is not how many directors a department has. It is whether those directors can actually lead, whether they understand the business, and whether they add value to the product and the people responsible for delivering it.
Much of this raises a broader question about the culture Arik fostered and the people empowered under his leadership. Jyotsna, Ruaraidh, Dani, Rori and Javi are names that should not simply disappear from the conversation because Arik has left. Their respective leadership decisions, conduct and impact on employees deserve proper scrutiny. If the management behaviours associated with Arik’s tenure continue through these leaders, then his departure will have changed very little.
It is not enough to remove the person at the top while leaving the same leadership mindset in place beneath them. A toxic culture does not disappear when its most visible figure exits; it survives through the people who continue to practise, defend or enable it.
This is why the responsibility now falls on Etihad’s senior leadership and HR to look beyond one departure. There must be an honest assessment of how the Product, Brand and Hospitality division was allowed to deteriorate, how experienced employees were treated, how leadership appointments were made depriving the right of people to be promoted, and why the people responsible for the department’s earlier success were pushed aside.
HR must do more than facilitate restructures and process recruitment. It must protect fair treatment, investigate credible concerns, ensure that leadership capability is properly assessed and give affected employees a genuine opportunity to rebuild their confidence and careers. Where leadership has demonstrably failed, there must be meaningful consequences. Where people have been unfairly sidelined, their contributions and future prospects deserve serious reconsideration.
The employees affected deserve more than another restructure, another set of promises or another change of reporting lines. They deserve accountability, respect, restored confidence and the chance to work in an environment where talent is valued rather than threatened.

The Global Sales and Distribution department has been in need of a serious turnaround for far too long. The current leadership under Javier is lacking the essential sales skills, market relationships, and commercial capabilities for such a critical function, the department’s culture and effectiveness have suffered considerably

It is now time to rebuild, restore trust, and repair the damage through strong Emirati leadership. There are highly experienced and capable Emirati professionals within the department who understand the culture, the people, and the realities and requirements of the markets. They have the knowledge, experience, and commercial understanding needed to restore the department’s credibility, rebuild its culture, and put Global Sales back on the right track

A toxic Chief leaving has opened up a can of worms. Let’s not forget that the culprits and enablers of this toxic environment are still lurking around. A Chief of HR with no HR background has ruined the entire organization. She and her right hand Fatma Sahlawi hs officially threatened employees with dire consequences when they have chosen to speak up. Not to forget the other mafias that are run by other chiefs. Recruitment and Promotions of the last two years should undergo a thorough audit. Most of the Senior Leadership would be gone then. Such a shame that they have turned an international airline to an extremely poor standards due to mismanagement. Someone please bring this to the attention of Board. Every touch point that Arik had is filled with his people who are not qualified and are equally toxic- be it HR, Finance or IT. Every single promotion given this year should be scrutinized. Also the Managers who have been promoted to Heads of , Directors and Vice Presidents with in a span of few months. The list is endless.

At the end of the day, Etihad needs to invest in its people and appoint managers who reflect the UAE’s values of kindness, respect, and fairness.
Since Antonaldo took the lead, the culture has increasingly felt like a caste system, with benefits determined by grade rather than loyalty and years of service. Long-serving employees 10+ have lost travel privileges and staff have felt publicly humiliated for raising legitimate concerns. CEO and Arik repeatedly encouraging experienced employees to seek opportunities elsewhere sends a clear message that their dedication is no longer valued.
Etihad’s loyal employees helped build this airline into a world-class brand. The owners must take these concerns seriously and hold leadership accountable. A great airline deserves great leadership, leadership that values its people rather than pushes them away.