Boeing remained the largest aircraft manufacturer for a significant period, yet its authority was destroyed as the two 737 Max airplanes crashed in Indonesia and Ethiopia, killing hundreds of passengers. Catastrophic events happened in less than a year between one, with similar causes, managerial mistakes, and consequences (Zakaria and DeJong 3). This paper aims to discuss the factors that contributed crashes of 737 Max planes and the executives’ and public relations’ missteps leading Boeing to fail to address the crisis.
Several crucial factors contributed to Boeing’s issues and consequent crashes of the 737 Max in Indonesia and Ethiopia, disrupting the company’s reputation and finances. Indeed, technical configurations were relatively old and built on the model’s preceptor plane 737-808 with modifications in anti-stall systems (Zakaria and DeJong 5). Another factor is a sensor angle of attack (AOA) which enabled the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) to enhance flight control. In both crushes of the 737 Max, this system received incorrect data from AOA, wrongly influencing pilots’ decisions. Lastly, the third factor is that Boeing did not provide its plane employees with sufficient training about MCAS activation and utilization (Zakaria and DeJong 5). Consequently, pilots could not prevent the issue and correctly regulate the flight if the problem had already occurred. Considering that the 737 Max was a Boeing flagman pre-ordered by various airlines, these factors caused serious doubts about the company’s trustworthiness.
Unfortunately for Boeing, the managerial and public relations activities that followed the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia harmed the company’s reputation rather than positively impacted it. For instance, the delayed reaction to the events and lack of official representatives’ response to passengers’ grieving families demonstrated the unpreparedness to address a crisis and the non-customer-centric approach in communications. Moreover, the change in Boeing’s executive boards was also a signal of the company’s leadership’s unwillingness to deal with the difficulties (Zakaria and DeJong 9). Lastly, the scandal with misleading safety assumptions of the 737 Max could have been avoided if the involved employees had opened the information right after the crash. Boeing could have handled the severe crisis differently if all systems had been put to re-testing after the first crash. Also, being more transparent in their public relations and media would have made the company look more reliable.
Boeing’s misleading integration of sensors and lack of training for the pilots resulted in a severest crisis and reputation disruption. The crashes were preventable, and the lack of action from the company’s end displayed its untrustworthiness and raised doubts about the quality of its other aircraft’s safety. Furthermore, Boeing could not properly respond to the scandal, address the passengers’ families’ considerations, and change its leadership rather than enabling the executives to manage the difficulties.
Work Cited
Zakaria, Rimi, and Dale DeJong. “Dominance to Near Demise: Can Boeing Return to Its Position as the World’s Largest Aircraft Manufacturer?.” SAGE Publications: SAGE Business Cases Originals, 2021.