Can Boeing rebuild its reputation after two devastating crashes?

The plane manufacturer was far too slow to deliver a concrete statement on the latest disaster that left 157 dead in Ethiopia, says​ Chris Blackhurst

Recovery workers inspect an engine after it was recovered from the scene near Addis Ababa this week (Getty)

There can be no more terrible position to be in as a senior business executive. Your new aircraft has just crashed, for the second time in five months, killing all 157 people on board. As with the first accident, that saw 189 perish, the cause is not immediately apparent. So what do you do? If ever there was a case in corporate life where less really is more this is it.

This was the situation confronting Boeing chair, Dennis Muilenburg, following the downing of its 737 Max-8 model on an Ethiopian Airlines flight from Addis Ababa to Nairobi last Sunday. Operators around the world said they were grounding the airplane, only recently unveiled by a proud Boeing.

On Wednesday, Muilenburg issued a statement: “We are supporting this proactive step out of an abundance of caution. Safety is a core value at Boeing for as long as we have been building airplanes; and it always will be. There is no greater priority for our company and our industry. We are doing everything we can to understand the cause of the accidents in partnership with the investigators, deploy safety enhancements and help ensure this does not happen again.”

No, Dennis, no. That simply will not do. Whoever told you to say that was giving you poor advice or you chose to ignore their recommendation. How can I say this? Because I’ve been there before, advising clients in crisis. I do it every day.

One was a company hit by a design fault in a product. It cast around for other factors to blame. Understandably, it was reluctant to issue a recall. But that sense of being forced to act cost it badly in PR terms. The market could see it was struggling to do what the market wanted, and expected. In short, the client was not seen to be going about it the right way, and when it did, somewhat late, the manufacturer’s withdrawal was unconvincing and set the wrong tone. By the time we were called in, its image within the media, among politicians, and in a section of the industry was at rock bottom. My advice was simple: put yourself on the side of the consumer, join with them, do not work against them.

Alas, Boeing appears to be heading down the same path – one that makes recovery from an already appalling mess even more difficult. As soon as the accident occurred, however much it hurt, Boeing should have moved immediately to pull the 737 Max-8 from service. It didn’t, and from that moment on, the corporation was reacting to the actions of others. Worse, it could be perceived as putting profit first, trying to defend its own financial standing, ahead of exhibiting concern for consumers.

Wednesday was too late, after a crash that occurred three days previously. Be that as it may, the Boeing chief’s words accompanying the grounding were inadequate. “An abundance of caution” just will not do when there have been two unexplained disasters, costing 350 lives. That implies you do not believe such a step is necessary, you think it’s an overreaction.

But where safety and lives are concerned, there is no such thing as unnecessary. Until the exact circumstances are fully explored and established, nothing should be ruled in or out. Indeed, to attempt to do so smacks of flippancy, exactly at a moment when disregard should be banished from the mind.

To prove the point, Muilenburg’s phrase was undone by what he said subsequently: “We are doing everything we can to understand the cause of the accidents in partnership with the investigators...”

So, Dennis, you’re suggesting it’s an “abundance of caution”, that you do not share the view the aircraft must be withdrawn, but you also admit you don’t know what caused the plane to fail, and you’re working with investigators to ascertain what happened? It does not make sense, Dennis.

Then, as if that was not bad enough, Muilenburg adds that Boeing will, “deploy safety enhancements and help ensure this does not happen again”.

This is awful. Whoever cleared this needs their head examining. Relatives are still identifying their lost loved ones, the names of the dead are continuing to be released, their agony is raw, and here is the Boeing head talking about deploying safety devices and making sure there is no repeat. Safety devices were not deployed for those who died, and saying there cannot be another crash provides no comfort to those freshly bereaved and grieving.

These are a corporate boss’s words aimed at the industry, at his investors, stakeholders, and the markets. That’s what they smack of – reassuring them that the mighty Boeing is determined to get this expensively produced new model back in the air, back on sale, and earning revenues. They may be right for that financially-at-risk audience, but not for the wider one, of the worried, flying public.

What should he have said? Nothing, except express condolences, and that Boeing will work closely with the investigators to get to the bottom of the tragedy. That’s all he needed to say. Anything else is too much, and can’t help but jar. All you can do, all you must do, is show that you care, that you’re human. Any attempt to point an accusing finger, to wriggle, to obfuscate, to look ahead at this early stage, will backfire horribly.

Stick to the truth, to what is known, which is very little. Don’t stray into the unknown, into uncertainty, into dissembling. It’s very straightforward. You won’t like it, you’re straining to free your company, protect your brand, to keep faith in your new, expensive product. But Dennis, hard as it is, you must.

Chris Blackhurst is a former editor of The Independent, and director of C|T|F Partners, the campaigns, strategic, crisis and reputational, communications advisory firm