The 737 Crisis Communication Case
This news story peaked my interest for many reasons. I remember during the school year getting into a debate with my media ethics professor on if Boeing would eventually apologize for the crisis. He maintained the position that they would not due to the legal implications it could create for them - leaving room for potential lawsuits and tarnishing reputation. I argued that they were only hurting their reputation more by waiting until it blew up in their face to apologize.
A few months later, Boeing has officially apologized and is now giving 100 million dollars to local nonprofits that will assist victims families. Although Boeing is still facing accusations of being ingenuine and unempathetic throughout the entire process, they’re now fighting the battle of saving the company’s reputation. The PR stumbles along the way are excellent topics of study and serve as lessons for companies working in transportation and software alike. Briefly covering the unique issues of this case and offering alternative suggestions and possible future outcomes it’s clear to see Boeing’s mistakes throughout the crisis.
Two plane crashes in less than 6 months time left 346 people dead. Both Indonesian and Ethiopian accidents took place shortly after take off due to an automatic MCAS ( Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) intended to stabilize the aircraft by pushing the plane’s nose down. Originally holding the stance that the crashes were caused by essentially coincidental issues and denying any responsibility. From missed communication to mixed messages, Boeing took its time to make any statements and to correct the issue. Complaints have also been raised on the FAA’s handling of the crisis. One day standing behind Boeing and its historic safety to the next day calling for mandatory grounding of the jets. From internal and external communication issues, this has blemished Boeing’s aviation reputation and will for years to come.
The 737 Crisis has a slew of issues to cover but let’s start with the MCAS system itself. Not only did Boeing fail to educate pilots of the new system but also removed the alert system that notified pilots of sensor issues - which lead to MCAS issues or failures. Aware of the alert being gone and the MCAS system affecting the maneuvering and aerodynamics of the plane - there is a clear internal communications issue. Pilots should have been informed and trained on the new system and although this may have been a cost cutting method it has since burnt a hole in Boeing’s wallet. Additionally any inkling of a safety issue should’ve been released to the public sooner as opposed to the delay in all information that Boeing displayed. Boeing is now working on MCAS software and possible hardware updates and is requiring pilots to train on the new systems but this is not a speedy fix. It will take months to receive approval and require strenuous testing. Boeing is now forced to work harder to save their reputation due to the crisis being considered an intentional problem - action could have been done to prevent so many deaths but was not. Since the fault of the accidents entirely falls onto Boeing and these software failures, it is difficult to recover and explain why they waited so long to take ownership of the issue.
A CEO spokesperson during a time of crisis is a common and effective option but it requires accountability and honesty. Another important aspect of addressing a crisis is the timeliness. It took Boeing 19 days to issue a statement through the CEO Dennis Muilenburg and it relied heavily on highlighting the company’s history of safety while glossing over the software updates and iPad pilot training coming “soon.” The statement only came after the FAA required all 737s to be grounded. Boeing released a formal statement and accompanying video - an excellent tactic to help spread the message via social media but this message lacked some human touch and compassion. Causing their message to overall fall on mostly deaf ears. An alternative form of delivery could’ve been a press conference with an audience present to ask questions as opposed to the prerecorded format chosen. While Boeing maintained a sympathetic tone throughout the statement focus was heavily on other Boeing aircrafts and insisting that there was nothing inherently unsafe in the aircraft.
Another issue in Boeing’s response was their overall defensiveness. In an interview a few weeks after the second crash Boeing maintained a denial tone. "The 737 is a safe airplane," Sinnett said. "The 737 family is a safe airplane family, and the 737 Max builds on that history of safety that we have seen for almost 50 years," Said Boeing Vice President Mike Sinnett. Again relying on the history of safety in the company not even focusing on the clear trend in the crashes. Almost a month later Boeing carried on this tone in a shareholder meeting. Muilenburg said a software fix would make Boeing’s 737 Max jets “one of the safest airplanes ever to fly,” but insisted the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes were caused by a “chain of events,” not “any single item.”
The, “This is a tragedy but our planes are safe” & the less said the better approach only hurt Boeing’s reputation more. Throughout the entirety of the 737 crisis Boeing lacked a cohesive message for its publics. The jets have now been grounded worldwide and have seen a decline in trust in the public and its customers. A survey by the Barclays investment bank earlier in May showed that 21% of travelers didn’t think they’d ever feel safe on the jet again. Boeing now has to win back the trust of customers and airlines and this is already costing them. Boeing’s lack of transparency and one cohesive message led to confusion and has ultimately damaged their reputation. Taking weeks to respond is unacceptable in today's 24 hour news cycle and companies must get ahead of issues before every media outlet has picked up the story.. Sugar coating and delaying messages only hurt a brand more.
The Aftermath
Boeing has since issued an apology saying: "We at Boeing are sorry for the tragic loss of lives in both of these accidents and these lives lost will continue to weigh heavily on our hearts and on our minds for years to come. The families and loved ones of those on board have our deepest sympathies, and we hope this initial outreach can help bring them comfort," said CEO Dennis Muilenburg. Not only is Boeing having to compensate airlines for the grounding of the jets but it is also offering compensation to families in the form of scholarships and education funding. Boeing is additionally being sued by a number of families. Despite these massive payouts, financially Boeing is doing well. Shares are up 13% this year in the company and it generally has billions of cash on hand. Boeing’s monetary safety has kept the company afloat in the face of crisis and better off than most.
The final effects of this case will not be seen for a number of months or years. Litigation and bureaucracy take time but we can expect to see Boeing continually attempting to repair their reputation and relationship with airlines and customers. Future efforts can assumably be focused on convincing the public that Boeing has cared about this issue since day one. However it is a difficult message to craft after months of defense and avoiding blame
In a case as unfortunate as this, it’s hard to watch leadership scramble to put together an appropriate and effective response. Lives were lost and a lack of genuine understanding and compassion will hurt their reputation for years to come. It is clear however that transparent and timely communication in times of undeniable blame ease tensions. Additionally in times of loss, apologetic and restorative justice are the most appropriate responses.