In the century since its inception, commercial aviation has soared into modern life, becoming an indispensable mode of travel. Each day, more than 45,000 flights arrive to and depart from U.S. airports.

The 2.9 million passengers who fly daily within the U.S. entrust their safety to airlines. That’s why a catastrophe like the one on January 5, when a door plug detached mid-flight from a Boeing plane operated by Alaska Airlines, reverberates beyond the mechanical malfunction itself. This incident not only tested the physical integrity of the aircraft, it tested the bond between airlines and their passengers.

Adding another layer of complexity, on January 6, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered the grounding of the 737-9 MAX fleet of planes in the U.S. on January 6.

In the aftermath of the January 5 incident, one thing became clear: Boeing and Alaska Airlines must restore confidence in their brands. This process began with crisis communications. Below, we evaluate Alaska Airlines’ and Boeing’s initial responses.

Alaska Airlines’ Response

Following the event, Alaska Airlines acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and issued public statements through various communication channels. This included a video from their CEO, emails to customers, a page on their website, and comments in the media.

Alaska Airlines’ communications had two important components:

1. An apology: After a horrific event, Alaska Airlines apologized to its passengers, acknowledging the gravity of the incident. This is important because acknowledging a mistake is the first step towards rebuilding trust and credibility. By openly expressing remorse, Alaska Airlines demonstrated humility and accountability, laying the groundwork for transparent communication and constructive action moving forward.
2. Safety information: In addition to expressing remorse, Alaska Airlines took proactive steps to address safety concerns. They detailed information about specific measures and protocols they were implementing to mitigate similar issues. This included explanations of enhanced maintenance procedures, rigorous safety inspections, and collaborative efforts with regulatory authorities and industry partners. By transparently sharing this information, Alaska Airlines reassured passengers of its commitment to safety and to instill confidence in the airline’s ability to keep passengers safe.

Boeing’s Response

In contrast to Alaska Airlines’ response, Boeing took a more passive approach. Although the company released timely statements, Boeing did not offer much information or include details about actions to avoid similar issues.

For instance, Boeing released a statement on January 8 that read, “As operators conduct the required inspections, we are staying in close contact with them and will help address any and all findings. We are committed to ensuring every Boeing airplane meets design specifications and the highest safety and quality standards. We regret the impact this has had on our customers and their passengers.”

This statement lacks an apology and attempts to distance Boeing from those affected by the incident. In the last sentence, Boeing merely acknowledges the impact on customers and passengers without expressing empathy or taking responsibility. By failing to offer an apology, Boeing missed an opportunity to convey empathy. Furthermore, the statement lacks transparency regarding Boeing’s plans to prevent similar issues in the future, leaving passengers and stakeholders with unanswered questions and concerns about the manufacturer’s commitment to safety and quality assurance.

Unlike Alaska Airlines’ proactive approach, Boeing’s response appeared detached and insufficient, potentially exacerbating distrust and dissatisfaction among passengers and the aviation community.

Alaska Airlines’ vs. Boeing’s Responses

When comparing the two approaches, there is one important factor to consider: Boeing is a B2B company, manufacturing aircraft for airlines, and Alaska is a B2C company, serving passengers.

This is significant because Alaska Airlines was more proactive in crisis communications and engaging with the public—their target audience. Boeing, by contrast, took a more reactive role. Ultimately, Alaska Airlines is Boeing’s customer; this implies that Boeing must be careful not to break ties with Alaska Airlines. Furthermore, other airlines were likely evaluating Boeing’s responses and considering their own relationships with the aircraft manufacturer.

Boeing’s primary audience is the airlines themselves. While this may explain their less direct approach to communication, it doesn’t absolve them from the responsibility to communicate effectively with the public, especially about safety concerns.

From an outsider’s perspective, Boeing had an opportunity to thread this needle better, balancing the B2B communication concerns with public perception. One way the company could have done better is by aligning with Alaska Airlines on a communication approach and releasing joint statements to the public.

Scrutiny of Alaska Airlines over Boeing

Although both Alaska Airlines and Boeing continue to face scrutiny, Alaska Airlines seems to bear the brunt of it. For example, SNL did a parody making fun of Alaska’s response to the incident. The parody stated, “You know those bolts that like hold the plane together? We’re gonna go ahead and tighten some of those.”

This high-profile mockery highlights the intense scrutiny that Alaska Airlines faced in the aftermath of the incident. While Boeing’s role as the aircraft manufacturer is certainly a focal point of investigation, Alaska Airlines, as the operator of the flight, faced more direct criticism. As the public face of the incident, the airline was under pressure to provide reassurance and transparency to passengers and stakeholders. Yet the parody suggests that its efforts may have been perceived as inadequate, even comically so.

This demonstrates the importance of effective crisis management not only for preserving reputations but also navigating the complex interplay of media scrutiny and public opinion in the digital age. Although Alaska Airlines did many things right in its crisis response, there’s always room for scrutiny and improvement.

Key Takeaways

• Transparency and Timeliness Matter: Alaska Airlines’ swift acknowledgment of the incident and transparent communication with passengers and stakeholders set a positive tone for crisis management. Immediate action and open communication help mitigate speculation and build trust during uncertain times.
• Proactive Engagement is Essential: Alaska Airlines’ proactive engagement with passengers through CEO videos, emails, and media comments demonstrated a commitment to addressing concerns and reassuring customers. Proactive communication fosters a sense of accountability and shows dedication to passenger safety and satisfaction.
• Consider Your Audience: Understanding the differences between B2B and B2C communications is essential. Boeing’s audience primarily consists of airlines and industry professionals, whereas Alaska Airlines communicates directly with passengers. Tailoring communication strategies to suit the target audience is vital for effective crisis management.

Alaska’s and Boeing’s responses illustrate the critical importance of effective crisis communication in maintaining trust, credibility, and public perception. Alaska demonstrated a proactive approach, acknowledging the incident, offering an apology, and providing transparent safety information to reassure passengers.

In contrast, Boeing’s response appeared reactive and lacking in empathy and transparency, potentially exacerbating distrust among passengers and stakeholders. By prioritizing open communication, addressing concerns promptly, and demonstrating a commitment to safety, both companies can rebuild trust and rebuild their reputations.