The EU's swift and coordinated response to the Boeing 737 Max 8 crash in Ethiopiabanning that model from flying in or out of Europe. People's safety always comes first. It is legitimate to think that the measure was facilitated by the alignment with European interests in support of Airbus, the main competitor to Boeingbut the decision was the right one. And that the US followed suit and grounded all aircraft of that model, too. However much it hurts a strategic sector such as the naval aviation industry.
Let us congratulate ourselves because the official bodies responsible for our security have acted swiftly and decisively, without being held back by economic interests. This is not always the case, so they deserve our applause today, so that they can set an example.
The same cannot be said of Boeing. All its stakeholders (airlines, shareholders, regulators, public authorities, the rest of the industry) would have preferred a more diligent approach. Air traffic is an activity that is highly sensitive to social perceptions of safety. We would all have welcomed an immediate response that did not seek to protect its own interests, but to defend the general interest. This is not the most frequent attitude in the case of the discovery of a potentially defective product, but it is the only way to weather the crisis well.
Boeing is in crisis because its relations with these stakeholders are seriously threatened. Some will be wondering whether better alternatives cannot be found. The only way to protect and even strengthen these relationships is to forget about the bottom line. You have to spend what you have to spend to fix the problem, i.e. to protect these relationships. You can survive a crisis with debts, even huge debts. But not without customers, without shareholders, without banks to lend to us, without official permission.
Sometimes we misunderstand reputation, as if it were a value independent of our actions. We conceive of it as if it were the consequence of complex communication or - worse still - marketing engineering, which is sustained in the air without support. We are then tempted to avoid anything that has a negative impact on the corporate image. Clearly acknowledging a problem, assuming one's own responsibilities and stopping the machines is seen as throwing stones at one's own roof. It's the other way round!
We lose credibility because of the opposite. And then, regaining it is very difficult. It would have been very different if the whole initiative to stop those planes had come from Boeing. Hard hit, no doubt, but credibility intact with its priority audiences. Then, it would have been possible to say: "fortunately, it was a false alarm: everything is fine"; or even, "we have discovered the problem, and we will fix it before there are any more accidents".
This episode also shows that problems are showing signs of life. The crash of an aircraft of the same model a few months ago was not taken seriously enough. The question was not asked: What if what happened to that aircraft is a structural defect, and it was taken to its logical conclusion. These days we read comments from pilots who experienced the same problems, complaints about the lack of more intensive training processes and clearer and more detailed materials... Today nothing internal remains inside: absolutely everything will be known, and not through the mouths of official spokespersons. The truth will find a way to come out.
And now what? Well, learn. This is not the first crisis in the aviation industry, nor will it be the last. We need strong companies, able to respond quickly in the general interest. It is in everyone's best interest that Boeing recovers, and sews up the rift in its relations with its priority audiences. It will, if its actions restore its lost credibility. I am inclined to think it even has hope of recovery if they themselves reveal that there were internal failings. But if they are discovered by others, they are as good as dead.
In short: aircraft manufacturers have to go out of business again. It would be a disaster if now, instead of choosing the airline, we started to see whether we would fly with a particular model.
It is not just other aircraft manufacturers that need to study this case. There are lessons to be learned for all industries working towards the control of activities by artificial intelligence that have a direct impact on people, such as cars and transport in general. It is not enough to say that the number of casualties "as machines learn" will be small, and less than what is currently caused by human error. If they want to avoid a reaction motivated by strong emotions alone (and by anti-establishment ideologies) blocking progress, a lot of time and energy needs to be devoted to communication processesThe company does not decide what is acceptable risk, but the people. It is not the company that decides what is an acceptable risk, but the people.
Yago de la Cierva
Crisis Communication Director of Proa Comunicación