The Impact of Crisis History and Media Framing on Customers Perception in Business Management: A Study of Boeing

Abstract

In our globally connected era, organizational crises can unfold rapidly, demanding swift and effective communication strategies. Crisis communication, a critical aspect of public relations, can significantly influence an organization’s ability to navigate difficult times and maintain its reputation. This case study examines Boeing’s crisis communication and the company’s reputation management following the January 2024 incident where a door panel blew off an Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX aircraft mid-flight. This article analyses two historical crises in comparison with Boeing’s initial communication failures, including delayed and inadequate responses that lacked transparency and empathy. It evaluates media coverage across traditional and social media platforms, revealing predominantly negative framing that highlighted safety concerns and eroded public trust in Boeing. The analysis applies crisis communication theories, particularly situational crisis communication and image restoration theory (IRT) to assess Boeing’s actions. Key findings include the amplification of the crisis through media coverage, and the lasting impact on Boeing’s reputation and financial performance. This article concludes with recommendations for Boeing to overhaul its management, re-evaluate supplier relationships, and prioritize transparent communication to rebuild stakeholder trust.

Introduction

The United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has estimated that a fatality caused by an aviation disaster takes place once every 16.3 million flight hours. The occurrence of such a disaster involving the same type of aircraft can generate backlash (Cioroianu et al., 2021) from stakeholders depending on media framing. Crisis has become pervasive in the business environment, as companies encounter varied issues and risks that have impacted their reputation. Crises can take many forms and often occur due to inadequate preparation by organizations (Imad et al., 2021). According to Jong and Broekman (2021), this lack of preparedness frequently results in organizations being held accountable and blamed for the crises. This makes it important to examine blame attribution in order to understand how organizations are perceived and held accountable for crises.

One valuable framework in crisis communication literature is the attribution theory developed by Weiner (1985), which posits that individuals seek to explain the causes of negative events and crises. This highlights how people attribute blame during crises as they attempt to understand the underlying causes and assign accountability to the relevant organizations (Coombs, 2010). Based on Weiner’s research, Coombs formulated the situational crisis communication (SCCT) theory. Coombs’ theory investigates how various attributions require tailored crisis communication response strategies in the field of business and crisis management. This becomes especially relevant when discussing organizations with a history of similar crises, as past incidents significantly influence stakeholders’ perception of responsibility and trust.

Boeing’s history of crises, particularly its involvement in widely known aviation disasters, provides a critical context to explore these dynamics. Since 2018, Boeing has faced a series of crises that have impacted its reputation and operation, starting with the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, which led to a global grounding of its fleet. The company has also faced subsequent incidents such as safety concerns and supplier defects, delayed fleet deliveries due to quality issues, and a crash in Australia in 2023 by a Boeing 737-300 owned by Coulson Aviation (Moore, 2023). This was followed by the Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 door panel failure in January 2024, which reignited concerns about Boeing’s production and safety protocols. According to Coombs (2010), crisis history plays a crucial role in determining how responsibility is perceived and the potential damage to existing reputations. When organizations experience multiple incidents of a similar nature, it further impacts how the audience perceives and assigns blame (Jong & Broekman, 2021). Given Boeing’s complex crisis history, the need for strategic crisis communication makes it a timely case study for understanding how organizations can effectively manage the fallout from consecutive crises.

Description of the Case

Founded in 1916 by William Edward Boeing, the Boeing Company, originally named the Pacific Aeroplane Company, began as a pioneer in the aerospace industry. Over the years, it has grown to become one of the world’s largest manufacturers of commercial aeroplanes, satellites, and missiles (Bernal, 2022). Its reputation was once encapsulated by the slogan, “If it ain’t Boeing, we’re not going”, a testament to the trust in its aircraft’s safety and quality (Mark, 2019b). United, American, Southwest, and Alaska Airlines have heavily relied on Boeing’s 737 MAX model, a staple in global aviation fleets (Bridges, 2024).

However, the company’s image began to crack in the wake of two devastating crashes involving its 737 MAX aircraft in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which claimed the lives of over 400 people. Investigations revealed faulty sensors and maintenance errors, prompting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ground the aircraft for 20 months (Keane & German, 2019). This marked the beginning of a series of challenges for Boeing, as subsequent incidents exposed systemic flaws within its operations.

In December 2023, new concerns surfaced when a routine inspection revealed loose bolts in the rudder controls of some 737 MAX planes. Although Boeing assured the public that these planes remained safe to fly, the FAA announced stricter oversight of inspections to address lingering doubts (Joseph, 2023). Just weeks later, in January 2024, the crisis escalated dramatically when an Alaska Airlines flight experienced a midair emergency. Shortly after take-off, passengers heard a loud bang, followed by the release of oxygen masks as a door panel detached from the aircraft at 16,000 feet. The resulting pressure change caused minor injuries and the loss of personal belongings, with the flight making an emergency landing within 20 minutes (Bridges, 2024; Zhou, 2024).

The incident triggered a wave of investigations. The FAA and the NTSB found that missing bolts in the door plug caused the blowout. Alarmingly, these concerns had been raised by technicians prior to the flight but were slated for inspection later that evening (Blackman & Helsel, 2024). The fallout was swift: the FAA grounded 171 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft for inspection and maintenance and ordered the company to comply with stricter safety and quality standards. Weeks later, 94% of the grounded planes were cleared to fly, but Boeing’s credibility had already suffered significant damage (Nazzaro, 2021).

The FAA’s subsequent audit of Boeing’s production processes uncovered 33 failures, totalling 93 points of noncompliance with manufacturing quality standards (Revell, 2024). Additionally, Boeing’s supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, was found to have failed in seven aspects of compliance. As part of the corrective measures, Boeing was instructed to integrate its safety system programme with a quality management system, ensuring greater oversight of suppliers and manufacturing processes. Meanwhile, the NTSB announced an investigative hearing to determine the cause of the January midair blowout (NTSB, 2024). These developments, combined with ongoing scrutiny from whistleblowers, US Senate hearings, and class-action lawsuits, have kept the spotlight on Boeing. Among the whistleblowers, Sam Salehpour alleged that Boeing produced defective aeroplanes with fuselage issues due to manufacturing shortcuts (Koenig, 2024a). Additionally, passengers from the Alaska Airlines incident filed a class-action lawsuit against Boeing for the terror they experienced during the flight, while shareholders accused the company of prioritizing profits over safety and misleading investors about its commitment to quality control (Deliso, 2024; Stempel, 2024).

The repercussions of the crisis rippled through Boeing’s operations, finances, and reputation. Financially, Boeing reported a $355 million loss in the first quarter of 2024, and its stock price fell 18.9% after the FAA halted 737 MAX production expansion, dropping from $260 in January to $167.22 by April (Bloomberg, 2024; Gregg, 2024). The company also paid $160 million to Alaska Airlines to offset losses incurred during the January incident (Koenig, 2024b). Operational disruptions have further strained Boeing’s relationships with airlines, while leadership uncertainty looms with the announced departures of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) David Calhoun and board members Larry Kellner and Stan Deal by the end of 2024 (Isidore, 2024).

The damage to Boeing’s reputation has been equally profound. Social media users have ridiculed its former slogan, altering it from “If it ain’t Boeing, we’re not going” to “If it’s Boeing, I’m not going”. The FAA categorized the January incident as preventable, citing that proactive measures addressing the loose bolt issue reported in December 2023 might have averted the crisis (Thorbecke, 2024). The company now faces an uphill battle in rebuilding trust and restoring its reputation.

Boeing’s crisis has involved multiple stakeholders. Customers, including airlines such as Alaska, Delta, United, and Southwest, and private jet owners, have been directly affected. Internally, the company’s board of directors, employees, and whistleblowers have played significant roles in shaping public discourse. Regulatory bodies such as the FAA and NTSB, alongside Congress, have been instrumental in investigating and holding Boeing accountable. Shareholders, including Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Co. and Capital Research and Management Co., have also been vocal, filing lawsuits to demand accountability. Meanwhile, the media has amplified discussions on aviation safety and corporate governance (Fan, 2021).

As the company grapples with these challenges, it must address the root causes of its crisis. According to Coombs (2007), this case constitutes a crisis due to its severe financial, operational, and reputational consequences. Boeing’s decision to acknowledge responsibility aligns with Coombs’ (2010) deal strategy, which involves accepting accountability and taking corrective actions. However, for Boeing to regain its standing, it must demonstrate a renewed commitment to stringent safety protocols, quality assurance, and ethical corporate practices. The ongoing scrutiny from stakeholders highlights the importance of transparency and proactive measures in restoring public trust.

Theoretical Framework and Method

To analyse Boeing’s crisis communication strategies during the Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX incident, this study employs a theoretical and methodological approach grounded in crisis communication principles. SCCT provides a robust framework for understanding how organizations tailor their responses based on the nature of the crisis and stakeholder attributions of responsibility. This is complemented by image restoration theory (IRT), which offers insights into the strategies used to repair organizational reputation. Together, these frameworks guide a qualitative content analysis of Boeing’s communication strategies, systematically examining public statements, regulatory reports, media coverage, and social media reactions. This integrated approach enables a comprehensive evaluation of Boeing’s efforts to address stakeholder concerns, mitigate reputational damage, and restore public trust in the aftermath of the crisis.

Situational Crisis Communication Theory and Image Restoration Theory

This study draws upon two theoretical frameworks, which are SCCT and IRT, to analyse Boeing’s crisis communication strategies following the Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX incident in January 2024. These theories complement one another in providing a comprehensive lens for evaluating crisis response and reputational management.

SCCT, developed by Coombs (2007), is instrumental in understanding how organizations can tailor their crisis responses based on the type of crisis and attributions of responsibility. It categorizes crises into three clusters: victim, accidental, and preventable. Boeing’s crisis falls into the preventable category, where negligence and inadequate preparedness led to heightened public scrutiny. SCCT emphasizes the necessity of employing response strategies such as acknowledgement of responsibility, corrective actions, and rebuilding trust, all of which are particularly relevant to Boeing’s case.

IRT, proposed by Benoit (1997), focuses on how organizations attempt to repair their image following a crisis. It outlines five strategies: denial, evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification. This study uses IRT to assess the efficacy of Boeing’s public statements and actions, particularly their eventual adoption of corrective measures and delayed mortification efforts. The integration of SCCT and IRT provides a double lens for examining Boeing’s crisis communication, allowing the analysis to address both strategic responses to stakeholder perceptions and broader reputational implications.

Method

The study employed a qualitative content analysis to systematically examine Boeing’s communication strategies during and after the Alaska Airlines incident. This method is well-suited for analysing textual and visual data to identify patterns, themes, and implications, particularly in the context of crisis communication. The data sources included public statements from Boeing, regulatory reports from the FAA and NTSB, media articles, interview transcripts, and social media posts. This combination ensured a comprehensive dataset capturing both organizational messaging and public perceptions. Secondary sources, such as academic articles and case studies on Boeing’s prior crises, were also referenced to contextualize the analysis and provide comparative insights. To situate the content analysis with SCCT and IRT, a coding framework was developed based on the principles of these theories. The analysis was divided into four categories corresponding to SCCT’s crisis clusters and IRT’s response strategies.

The first category, crisis classification and attribution, applied SCCT to classify the Alaska Airlines incident within the preventable crisis cluster. Preventable crises are characterized by high levels of organizational responsibility, where negligence or oversight contributes to the event. Boeing’s case reflected this categorization, as the incident highlighted safety concerns and organizational failures. The analysis identified themes such as stakeholder blame, safety lapses, and negligence through keywords such as “responsibility”, “failure”, and “negligence”. These elements underscored the need for Boeing to address stakeholder expectations of accountability and transparency.

The second category, initial crisis communication failures, examines Boeing’s way of communication in the critical early days following the crisis. This section highlights how the company’s lack of urgency and transparency, along with a failure to take responsibility, worsened the situation. Themes such as “delayed apology”, “reactive communication”, and “insufficient empathy” guide the analysis, focusing on how Boeing’s initial statements failed to address the gravity of the incident. Phrases such as “impact”, and “commitment” are used to explore how Boeing’s messaging fell short in conveying genuine concern for passengers’ safety.

The third category, response strategy analysis, utilized IRT to evaluate Boeing’s strategic response efforts. This framework focuses on the tactics organizations employ to repair their image after a crisis. Boeing’s response was analysed through themes of denial, corrective action, and delayed mortification. Keywords and phrases such as “regret”, “action plan”, and “ensuring safety” were central to understanding how the company framed its efforts to mitigate reputational damage. The analysis revealed gaps in Boeing’s immediate responses, including the delayed acknowledgement of responsibility and failure to express genuine remorse in the initial stages of the crisis.

The final category, which is reputational impact assessment, examined the broader implications of Boeing’s communication strategies on public trust and stakeholder confidence. This stage leveraged insights from media framing and social media sentiment to evaluate the effectiveness of Boeing’s efforts to restore its reputation. Public discourse, shaped by media coverage and social media narratives, amplified the perception of Boeing’s negligence, emphasizing the challenges the company faced in regaining credibility.

Analysis of the Case Using SCCT and IRT

The analysis of Boeing’s crisis communication strategies during the Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX incident is grounded in the principles of SCCT and IRT. Using the coding framework described earlier, the incident was examined through four key categories: crisis classification and attribution, initial crisis communication failures, response strategy analysis, and reputational impact assessment.

Crisis Classification and Attribution

Coombs’ (2017) SCCT serves as a key framework to analyse the crisis classification and attribution for the Boeing-Alaska Airline case. Coombs’ categorizes three clusters of crisis responsibility, which are victim, accidental, and preventable. The preventable cluster is particularly critical, as stakeholders attribute a high degree of responsibility to the organization for negligence or inadequate safety measures. In applying the framework in this context, the January 2024 Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-MAX incident aligns with the preventable crisis cluster, and this categorization stems from stakeholders’ perceptions that Boeing prioritized other considerations over robust safety protocols and due diligence (Xu & Li, 2013).

While the manufacturing flaw leading to the door plug failure could initially suggest an accidental crisis, Boeing’s failure to implement stringent quality control measures shifts the attribution of responsibility firmly to the preventable crisis category (Josephs, 2024a). SCCT further highlights that a company’s crisis history significantly shapes stakeholder reactions to subsequent crises. Boeing’s history of mishandled crises, particularly the 737-MAX crashes, amplified public scrutiny during this event, exacerbating reputational damage (Matutyte, 2024).

Initial Crisis Communication Failures

Boeing’s crisis communication approach in the immediate aftermath of the incident was severely flawed and served to significantly exacerbate the crisis compared to Alaska Airlines’ prompt and transparent response, which included expressing genuine remorse and rendering sincere apologies, clear safety information, and direct public engagement, as in the discussion of the two historical crises (i.e., Indonesia Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crash). Boeing’s initial response to Alaska Airlines’ crisis was characterized by a lack of urgency, reactive measures, and insufficient transparency during the critical early stages.

Alaska Airlines took swift and decisive action immediately following the 5 January incident by grounding its entire fleet of 65 737 MAX 9 aircraft as a precautionary measure (Jacobo, 2024). After conducting inspections on over a quarter of the planes, Alaska Airlines returned the fleet to service later the same day, demonstrating a proactive approach to ensuring passenger safety. The company again removed 18 aircraft from operation on 7 January, pending further maintenance checks with the FAA. Alaska’s CEO, Ben Minicucci, quickly issued a video apology explaining how the airline would address any subsequent flight disruptions (Jacobo, 2024). This rapid response demonstrated Alaska’s prioritization of passenger safety first while keeping communication channels wide open.

Conversely, initial statements released by Boeing between 5 January and 8 January failed to convey authentic concern for passenger safety or demonstrate accountability for the manufacturing defect that led to this terrifying mid-air incident. For instance, one of their released statements on 8 January, 3 days after the incident, 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. (Boeing, 2024)

This statement omits an apology or expression of genuine remorse for the terrifying situation passengers endured. Rather than conveying empathy, Boeing appeared to distance itself from those directly affected by casually stating it “regrets the impact”. The failure to outright apologize represents a missed opportunity for Boeing to start rebuilding trust through acknowledging responsibility, as suggested by Coombs et al. (2020). It was not until 9 January, 4 days after the incident, that Boeing finally issued an apology and acknowledgement of the situation (Tanyos, 2024). While Boeing’s CEO, Dave Calhoun, did eventually meet with lawmakers later in January, the delay and lack of proactive communication in those critical first days allowed public criticism and speculation about the company’s commitment to safety to proliferate.

Response Strategy

The disruptive situation Boeing faced in this terrifying incident has been a severe test for the company since it is still recovering from the devastating 737 MAX crashes a few years ago, which shattered public confidence (Matutyte, 2024). Therefore, the study employed Benoit’s (1997) five image repair strategies, which are denial, evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification, as a lens to analyse the crisis communication strategies used by Alaska Airlines and, most notably, Boeing used, revealing the different approaches used to manage the incident.

Alaska Airlines primarily employed corrective action and mortification in its response. Immediately following the incident, the airline took decisive steps to prioritize passenger safety by grounding its fleet of 737 MAX 9 aircraft. This action demonstrated a commitment to resolving the safety concerns swiftly and thoroughly. The airline’s collaboration with the FAA to inspect and later remove additional aircraft for maintenance checks reinforced its dedication to corrective measures. These actions directly addressed the crisis while reassuring stakeholders of Alaska Airlines’ commitment to safety and accountability. In addition to corrective measures, Alaska Airlines demonstrated mortification through its communication strategy. The airline’s CEO, Ben Minicucci, issued a video apology, expressing genuine remorse for the disruptions passengers experienced and outlined steps to prevent future issues (Jacobo, 2024). This approach, which involved a sincere acknowledgement of the incident’s impact, conveyed empathy and responsibility. By combining decisive action with heartfelt communication, Alaska Airlines successfully mitigated reputational damage and strengthened public trust.

On the other hand, Boeing leaned heavily on evasion of responsibility and reducing offensiveness. In its initial statements, the company avoided directly acknowledging fault, instead attributing the issue to inspections and technical factors. This approach suggested that the situation was beyond Boeing’s control, which is central to the evasion of responsibility strategy. While this approach can sometimes minimize blame, Boeing’s lack of clarity and accountability failed to resonate with a public seeking reassurance and transparency. Boeing also attempted to reduce the offensiveness of the incident by emphasizing its broader commitment to safety and quality standards. In its statements, the company highlighted its adherence to design specifications and its willingness to assist operators (Boeing, 2024). However, this effort to shift attention to Boeing’s technical expertise lacked the emotional connection necessary during a crisis of this nature. Crucially, Boeing’s delayed apology, which was issued 4 days after the incident, represented a missed opportunity to employ mortification effectively (Tanyos, 2024). By failing to promptly acknowledge the passengers’ terrifying experience or express genuine remorse, Boeing allowed criticism to mount and trust in the company to erode.

Alaska Airlines’ reliance on corrective action and mortification highlights its prioritization of passenger safety and transparent communication, enabling the company to navigate the crisis effectively. In contrast, Boeing’s use of evasion of responsibility and reducing offensiveness, combined with its delayed and impersonal apology, reflected a reactive approach that ultimately worsened public criticism and impacted its reputation. This comparison highlights the critical role of timely and empathetic communication in repairing an organization image during a crisis.

In summary, while Boeing employed several of Benoit’s image repair strategies, including reducing offensiveness, corrective action, mortification, and evasion of responsibility, it notably avoided the use of denial in its responses. This choice signalled an implicit acknowledgement of responsibility, aligning with stakeholder expectations for accountability. However, the absence of denial alone was not enough to offset the delays and inconsistencies in applying other strategies effectively.

Reputational Impact Assessment

This latest crisis has exposed concerns about Boeing’s engineering culture, quality control processes, and commitment to safety, further eroding public and industry trust and confidence in the already tarnished 737-9 MAX brand because of prior incidents (Buckley, 2024). Major airline customers like Alaska and United have voiced outrage and actively leveraged public channels to exert pressure on Boeing to enact real accountability and reform (Costello & Wile, 2024). Furthermore, the iconic slogan, “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going”, once a source of immense brand pride for the company, has undergone a tragic transformation in the wake of the 737-9 MAX crises (Banel, 2024). Prior to the 737-MAX crashes, the slogan carried assured confidence among pilots and passengers alike. It reflected Boeing’s hard-earned status as a manufacturer who had good quality and meticulous safety standards. The public inherently trusted boarding Boeing jets like the 727, 747, and indeed the 737-MAX model (Mark, 2019a). However, these continuous disasters have caused a reputational shift that has turned the company’s marketing phrase on its head. The slogan is no longer an endorsement, but rather a critique of how Boeing ruined a reputation that took more than 100 years to create (Mark, 2019a). Mark (2019a) further states in his editorial that consumer confidence has plummeted to such depths that some travellers now vocalize active aversion, jokingly declaring “If it’s Boeing, I’m not going” when booking flights.

Regarding reputation management, Boeing enacted a series of public relations strategies aimed at salvaging its severely tarnished reputation. These efforts broadly aligned with recommendations from Coombs et al.’s (2020) SCCT for addressing crises. A core tenet of SCCT for crises is the need for organizations to accept full crisis responsibility through increased transparency and accountability. Boeing did this by having its CEO, Dave Calhoun, adopt a more forthright approach. The CEO directly acknowledged Boeing’s mistakes and pledged complete cooperation with regulators, which was a shift from the company’s previous reactive and emotionally detached stance (Josephs, 2024c). By personally apologizing and validating concerns, he demonstrated organizational accountability as recommended by Coombs et al. (2020) to begin rebuilding public trust. Additionally, Calhoun demonstrated a willingness to engage directly with key stakeholders like US senators (Josephs, 2024b). SCCT emphasizes the importance of consulting with impacted stakeholders through open dialogue during crises. These meetings allowed Boeing to listen to criticism and convey its corrective intentions firsthand rather than through statements. With reference to operations, Boeing’s temporary production pause on the 737 MAX aligned with SCCT guidance that organizations must provide instructing information by detailing corrective actions (Carpenter & Scott, 2024). By prioritizing quality re-checks and employee training over continued production, Boeing sent a signal of addressing underlying safety issues that contributed to the crisis.

Boeing’s Approach to Previous Crises

Given Boeing’s history with the 737 MAX disasters just a few years prior, there was heightened scrutiny and expectations on the company to ensure the utmost safety and rigour around the manufacturing and maintenance of these aircraft (Collings et al., 2022). The door plug issue points to potential lapses in Boeing’s quality control and safety oversight processes that should have detected and prevented such a manufacturing defect before the aircraft entered service (Costello & Wile, 2024). This section analyses Boeing’s crisis response during Indonesia’s Lion Air and Ethiopian Airline crashes, providing a broader context for evaluating their current approach and decision-making processes.

Boeing’s Response After Indonesia Lion Air Crash

In Boeing’s first statement on 29 October 2018, the company shared that it is deeply saddened by the loss of Lion Air flight JT 610 (Jong & Broekman, 2021). Boeing provided technical assistance at the request and under the direction of government authorities investigating the crisis (Boeing, 2018). Edward Sirait, Lion Air’s president director, responded that the plane “experienced an unspecified technical problem during a flight the day before, but the issue had been resolved according to procedure” (Goldman, 2018). Since the aircraft had been in service for only 3 months, the company was deeply concerned about the incident. Shortly after the crisis event, the deputy chief of Indonesia’s National Transport Safety Committee remarked that Boeing’s manual was “incomplete” in providing guidance for pilots on how to manage situations where false data is input into the automatic anti-stall system (Jong & Broekman, 2021).

In response to concerns about providing an incomplete manual, Boeing issued an Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) on 7 November 2018, instructing operators on how to address situations involving erroneous input (Boeing, 2018). Just days later, the FAA endorsed Boeing’s bulletin, signalling its agreement with the company’s approach. Initially, the FAA’s support bolstered Boeing’s claims about the aeroplane’s safety. However, this stance quickly faced backlash as pilots voiced their concerns and expressed distrust in the aircraft. The growing discontent among pilots highlighted deeper issues and intensified public scrutiny, leading to a significant decline in Boeing’s brand reputation, despite the FAA’s earlier support (Jong & Broekman, 2021).

To assess whether Boeing had provided adequate guidance for pilots to handle complex situations arising from false data input in the automatic anti-stall system, Soerjanto Tjahjono, the head of the Indonesian Transportation Safety Committee, confirmed that the flight manual supplied by Boeing lacked instructions for addressing such scenarios (Karmini, 2019). In response to this critique, Boeing issued a statement on 16 November 2018, reaffirming its confidence in the safety of the Boeing 737 MAX. Subsequently, on 27 November 2018, Boeing emphasized that appropriate responses were already included in flight manuals and contained in existing procedures. Despite these assurances, the issue remained contentious. However, an investigator from the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee later noted that the FAA certification for the new Boeing 737 MAX had restored their confidence in the aircraft (Jong & Broekman, 2021).

Boeing’s Response After Ethiopian Airline Crash

In the aftermath of the Ethiopian Airlines crash on 10 March 2019, Boeing expressed deep sorrow over the loss of passengers and crew, issuing a statement similar to the one made following the Lion Air crash. In both cases, the company conveyed heartfelt sympathies and pledged technical assistance (Jong & Broekman, 2021). Reflecting on the situation, aviation expert Robert Stengel, a professor of engineering and applied sciences at Princeton University, pointed out the striking similarities between the two crashes involving Indonesia’s Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines. He observed that such parallels inevitably impacted public confidence, noting, “If you’re simply looking at circumstantial evidence, this gives you a pause, doesn’t it?” (The EastAfrican, 2019).

As concerns grew, China and Indonesia took swift action by grounding Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, followed shortly by Ethiopian Airlines. In contrast, the FAA urged caution, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations before drawing conclusions. Speaking to the New York Times, the FAA confirmed that it had initiated an investigation into the matter. Meanwhile, amid mounting doubts from both passengers and pilots, Boeing reiterated its assurances, emphasizing that pilots could maintain control of the aircraft even if the sensors provided erroneous data (Jong & Broekman, 2021).

On 12 March 2019, the European Union joined China and Indonesia in suspending all flight operations of the Boeing 737 MAX model (Jong & Broekman, 2021). Despite these actions, the FAA initially maintained that, based on the information available, there were no safety concerns warranting the grounding of Boeing aircraft. The agency emphasized that the aeroplanes were airworthy and should continue operations (Jong & Broekman, 2021). However, the following day, the FAA reversed its stance, grounding the 737 MAX as a precautionary measure—a decision Boeing publicly supported.

The close relationship between the FAA and Boeing drew criticism from aviation expert Richard Aboulafia, who argued that excessive collaboration between the two organizations could compromise safety standards. He pointed to the Boeing 737 MAX crisis as a prime example, in which questions arose about the FAA’s oversight of Boeing’s design and certification processes, ultimately contributing to pilot distrust in the aircraft (Alan & Johnsson, 2020; Jong & Broekman, 2021). Further intensifying the criticism, Dennis Tajer, a spokesperson for the Allied Pilots Association, accused Boeing of implementing a controversial anti-stall software system (MCAS) on the 737 MAX. According to Tajer, this system forced the aircraft into aggressive nosedives, leaving pilots unable to regain control (Helmore, 2019).

On 4 April 2019, Boeing released a statement addressing the preliminary report on the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 investigation by the Ethiopian Accident Investigation Bureau (AIB). In its response, Boeing emphasized that flight crew members would always have the ability to override the 737 MAX control system (Boeing, 2019). However, this assurance did little to restore confidence. Ethiopian Airlines subsequently announced that it was considering cancelling its order for additional 737 MAX 8 aeroplanes due to a significant loss of consumer trust in the jetliner (Haslett, 2019).

At the same time, US Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao, declared that all Boeing 737 MAX models would remain grounded until federal officials confirmed that the company had successfully addressed the flaws in its flight control system (Jong & Broekman, 2021). Against this backdrop of scrutiny and distrust, Boeing’s performance in the aviation market came under greater examination. The data shown in Figure B8 illustrates Boeing’s delivery trends by year, with particular attention to the 2018 and 2019 crises involving Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines (Fleck, 2024).

Media Involvement

The media amplified the immense scrutiny and pressures faced by Boeing in the aftermath of the Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 incident. From the moment the terrifying cellphone footage of the mid-air decompression began circulating on social media, Boeing was in the spotlight, leaving little room to manoeuvre amid increasing demands for accountability (Zhou, 2024). Traditional news outlets like the New York Times and ABC News, among others, wasted no time jumping on the high-profile event, with the instant visibility afforded by millions of eyewitnesses with smartphones. This real-time documentation and viral dissemination compelled Boeing and regulators to promptly address the crisis rather than risk appearing indifferent or opaque during the public relations issues (Jacobo, 2024).

As public concern over the incident persisted, major news outlets like Vox provided in-depth critical analysis. Their articles closely examined the potential causes and wider implications of the event (Zhou, 2024). These reports portrayed Boeing in an unfavourable light, suggesting the company still lacked a strong safety culture despite the previous 737 Max crashes. This media scrutiny ensured Boeing could not simply remain silent and wait for the controversy to pass. The constant spotlight forced the company to respond (Josephs, 2024). They played a significant role in amplifying the criticism and outrage directed at Boeing, particularly from its own stakeholders and industry partners. News outlets, including NBC News, provided a platform for industry leaders such as Ben Minicucci, CEO of Alaska Airlines, to publicly denounce Boeing’s actions. These strong condemnations highlighted the growing dissatisfaction and eroded trust within the aviation industry, further intensifying public scrutiny of the company (Costello & Wile, 2024). This reinforced the public’s view that Boeing still prioritized cost over engineering quality and safety. The media’s amplification of stakeholder outrage demonstrated the severity of Boeing’s reputational damage. Although regaining public trust will be a battle for Boeing, the media’s watchdog role has ensured that Boeing’s mistakes and promises to improve are permanently imprinted in the public’s mind.

Traditional Media Coverage

Media framing refers to the use of written, spoken, graphical, or visual messages to provide context for a specific topic. It can involve individuals, events, episodes, or issues and is communicated to recipients through various forms of media (D’Angelo, 2017). Societies often face disruptive organizational crises that can significantly impact the behaviours of individuals within them. These crises are typically marked by a rapid sequence of emotional and stressful events and widespread media coverage (Weick, 1988). In a society where media is everywhere, we must not ignore the importance of media coverage in times of crisis (Cornelissen et al., 2009).

The crisis that Boeing faced concerning the incident with Alaska Airlines also garnered attention within traditional media. Crisis in this environment naturally leads to increased media coverage, both in traditional and social media (Butler, 2021). Media framing of this incident could damage the reputation of the airline manufacturing company. Jong and Broekman (2021) assert that this development can intensify threats on Boeing’s reputation.

CNN business news projected Boeing in a negative light when its headline featured, “Boeing is in big trouble” (see Figures A1 & A2).

In the media coverage of the incident, CNN’s headline sensationalized the news story by recounting the negative experience passengers on Alaska Airlines 737 Max encountered. The incident’s coverage included a video showing bruises of injured Alaska Airlines passengers in midair. This is done to trigger emotions and attract public condemnation of Boeing’s negligence to prioritize passengers’ safety. Individuals’ emotions and selective responses to media events are inspired by the media content (Krcmar, 2009; Oliver & Krakowiak, 2009). Figure A3 shows the excerpt of the headline and the video used in the news coverage.

Furthermore, the framing implies that the event holds great significance and will potentially result in legal repercussions, as federal officers are investigating the matter to identify any criminal activities. These developments showed the negative impact on Boeing’s stock value, as evident in CNN’s news coverage shown in Figures A4 and A5:

The company’s nonstop streak of bad news began the first weekend of the year, when part of an Alaska Airlines 737 Max blew off the side of the plane just after takeoff. That incident resulted in a temporary nationwide grounding of certain 737 Max jets, followed by congressional hearings, production and delivery delays, multiple federal investigations including a criminal probe and a stock that has lost a quarter of its value. (Goldman, 2024, para. 3–4)

The Associated Press (AP) also reported on the incident, highlighting the challenges employees face when raising concerns about the aircraft fuselages produced by various companies (see Figure A6). According to the report, employees who speak up against issues with the assembly of these fuselages often face retaliation, such as being transferred to work on a different jet line (Hamilton, 2024).

This framing presumes that Boeing does not listen to its internal publics, especially when concerns about passengers’ safety are raised. Pandolfo et al. (2024) argue that an organizations failure to listen to employees’ concerns could implicate organizations in future incidents. Adding to this, one of Boeing’s employees, Salehpour, shared experiences in an interview with AP. He said:

The company was taking manufacturing shortcuts, and this led to excessive force in the assembly process creating deformations in the composite materials used in the aircraft’s outer skin and when concerns are raised not only does Boeing take my concerns seriously, they silenced and transferred me to work on a different jetliner.

The framing of the above statement in a Vox news report highlights the criticisms directed at Boeing for occasionally prioritizing cost-saving measures and cutting corners despite the safety concerns raised about aircraft. (refer to Figure A7) In other words, Boeing has been accused of placing financial considerations ahead of safety concerns, disregarding warnings or concerns voiced by its employees in the pursuit of reducing costs. This prioritization of cost-efficiency over safety has led to scrutiny and criticism of the company’s practices.

The framing of the Fox News headline below implies that Boeing is experiencing a pattern of concerning incidents, causing growing anxiety and apprehension. These recurring alarming safety issues have heightened concerns among various stakeholders, including regulators, customers, and the public, about the safety standards of Boeing’s aeroplanes (Figure A8).

News publications by CNN and Anchorage below highlight customers’ distrust of Boeing’s aeroplanes due to their safety concerns (Figures A9 & A10).

CNN’s reporting also highlighted the declining public perception and growing concerns regarding the safety and reliability of Boeing’s planes. This suggests a potential risk of boycotts against airlines operating the Boeing 737-9 MAX aircraft models (Figure A11).

Traditional media framing of the incident was generally negative, as evident in headlines and news coverage. Traditional media coverage highlighted the major safety issues that Boeing continues to deal with on a recurring basis, portraying them as “big trouble” for the company in the aviation sector. Media reports extensively covered the declining public perception regarding the safety and reliability of Boeing’s aircraft, featuring stories about potential boycotts and passengers voicing concerns. As this case continues to unfold, media coverage has shifted focus towards whistleblowers who have testified against Boeing’s manufacturing flaws.

Social Media Coverage

Many of the reactions to the incident across major social media platforms like X and TikTok were negative, with people blaming the airline for not doing a thorough maintenance check and putting the lives of their passengers at risk. Emotions were high across the country, and people did not hold back on expressing their opinions. Using a social media analytics tool to check the general impressions and sentiments across X and TikTok, the results indicate that the crisis still has more negative reactions months after the incident (Figure B1).

Having established that the general social media reaction to this crisis is negative in terms of anger and concerns about safety, below are some tweets indicating general displeasure about this incident, which turned out to be one of the biggest crises to hit Boeing (Figures B2 and B3).

Boeing responded to this incident on their social media pages by posting an apology claiming accountability for the incident. They also made another post apologizing to their customers and indulging their patience for the inconvenience of the grounding of their MAX 737 flights caused (Figure B4).

This apology came with the announcement that the CEO, Dave Calhoun, will be stepping down at the end of the year, but this action did not seem to calm down irate users on social media. These were some of their reactions to the news of his imminent resignation across TikTok and X (formerly known as Twitter) (Figure B5).

Overall, this incident has marked a big dent in Boeing’s reputation, which did not have a previous good record. The company is now a subject of ridicule, and this threatens the credibility and quality of its aeroplanes and services, which may have severe implications for their business in the long run (Figure B6).

The brouhaha around the door plug removal does not seem to have come to a halt, as Boeing is still receiving backlash for the incident amidst the company’s recorded massive $335 million loss for the first quarter, which is $1.13 a share in the stock market. Attached below is a trend of the company’ s performance in the New York Stock Exchange, indicating how its shares keep on plummeting following the door plug incident up until the most recent month (Figure B7).

Evaluation of the Case

Boeing’s initial communication and crisis response approach lacked transparency, empathy, and accountability, which further exacerbated the whole situation. Ulmer et al. (2010) explained that during a crisis, maintaining transparency through timely communication is essential for businesses to keep stakeholders properly informed about the corrective actions being taken. Failure to prioritize open and prompt disclosure allows misinformation to proliferate and decreases stakeholder confidence in the organization’s ability to effectively manage the situation. Boeing’s lack of urgency and transparency allowed the narrative to spiral out of control. While Alaska Airlines swiftly grounded planes and directly addressed passengers, Boeing focused on communicating with airlines and regulators behind the scenes but failed to properly address the public concerns about safety until 4 days later (Tanyos, 2024). This delayed reaction indicated a lack of prioritization for customer safety that only intensified public condemnation. It also demonstrated that the company was more concerned about limiting legal liability than about being ethical corporate citizens. For an organization that is largely dependent on consumer confidence, they should have prioritized proactive and transparent communication.

Further, Boeing needs an overhaul of its management to prove to shareholders and publics that it is ready for change as an organization. The restructuring efforts cannot be limited to just replacing the CEO, as Boeing’s management has repeatedly failed to effectively handle previous crises. If a crisis larger than this one were to arise, serious doubts would emerge about the company’s ability to survive under its current leadership. In addition to restructuring management, Boeing must also reevaluate its supplier relationships, as previous incidents have been linked back to faulty or substandard materials provided by certain suppliers. Taking these two actions will rebrand the organization and reduce crisis levels; therefore, showing the public that the business cares about passengers’ safety.

Theoretical Implications

The integration of SCCT and IRT combines stakeholder-focused and strategy-driven approaches, providing a comprehensive perspective on crisis management. Both theories help assess the severity of a crisis and guide communication professionals in crafting tailored responses for various stakeholder groups during organizational crises. Additionally, this combination enhances the ability to predict stakeholder reactions and enables organizations to implement pre-emptive measures to manage disruptive situations and restore stakeholders’ trust in the event of a crisis.

Practical Implications

Boeing’s recurring crises emphasize the necessity of integrating transparency, empathy, and accountability into crisis management frameworks. These principles should be non-negotiable in organizational policies to effectively address stakeholders’ concerns in times of crisis. First, transparency is paramount in rebuilding trust. Organizations must ensure timely and accurate communication with stakeholders during crises. Companies should prioritize proactive communication strategies, leveraging multiple channels to provide real-time updates and assure stakeholders of the actions being taken to mitigate risks. For example, creating dedicated crisis communication teams trained to provide consistent and clear information can alleviate stakeholders’ fears, prevent information gaps, and counteract rumours. Another key factor for organizations to consider in crisis management alongside transparency is engaging the stakeholders involved in the crisis and providing them with up-to-date information on developments pertaining to how the company is handling the crisis to restore its full operational status. Engaging with stakeholders, which include customers, regulatory bodies, and employees, is essential during and after crisis as it provides assurances that the crisis situation is under control. Building “two-way symmetrical” (Grunig et al., 1995, p. 164) communication in the event of crisis encourages feedback and allow organizations to incorporate stakeholder concerns into their decision-making processes, which helps to enhance trust and collaboration during organizational crises.

Conclusion

Boeing’s crisis emphasizes the importance of integrating SCCT and IRT in crisis communication research and practice. The case analysis did not rely on Coombs’ three crisis response strategies (deny, diminish, and rebuild), as a more structured and comprehensive approach was needed. Instead, Benoit’s image repair strategies were employed, offering a more detailed framework for addressing the company’s tarnished reputation. Holdsworth (2014) noted that while Coombs’ strategies are valuable, they lack the depth necessary to effectively mitigate the long-term impact of a crisis on a company’s image, making Benoit’s approach a more suitable option.

Key lessons that communication professionals and students can learn from this case example include the importance of timely and transparent communication while expressing genuine remorse during organizational crises, as this helps to rebuild stakeholders trust in a company’s business operation during difficult times. The media analysis and the theoretical combination offer a framework for enhancing crisis communication literature while emphasizing the critical role of crisis history and external media framing on customers perception in business management. Critical understanding of crises history and external media framing in corporate crises ensures organizational resilience and recovery from a “disruptive/threaten-hreatening events” (Hayes & Smudde, 2015, p. 417).

The analysis, however, did not examine how business social networks or enterprise social media can be used as a tool to strengthen internal stakeholders’ workplace morale, rebuild their trust, and provide assurances during high-profile organizational crises. Employees, as critical crisis stakeholders, can exhibit “positive communication behaviors” (Kang & Sung, 2017, p. 87) during times of organizational challenge. These behaviours, such as “positive megaphoning” (Chong & Kim, 2021, p. 1), in which employees act as advocates by promoting positive news and the company’s image, are crucial. Furthermore, as first responders, employees can address customer queries and provide assurances in difficult moments, helping organizations maintain a positive image.

There is also limited academic research on Boeing’s 2024 crisis, with much of the information in the case analysis sourced from public relations consulting firms and media organizations rather than academic literature. This highlights a gap in scholarly exploration of the crisis, emphasizing the need for more academic studies to provide a deeper, more rigorous understanding of the situation. Future studies could explore these areas to offer more comprehensive insights.