Content Analysis of Boeing’s Press Releases Regarding the 737 MAX Crashes

 

Caitlan Hannegan

Strategic Communications, Elon University

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications

Abstract

For decades, the phrase “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going” reflected passengers’ trust in the aerospace giant known for manufacturing reliable aircraft. This reputation was compromised when two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft crashed within five months. The similar accidents resulted in 346 fatalities, forcing a crisis response. This study uses content analysis to evaluate the communication strategies employed in Boeing’s press releases following the crashes. The strategies were assessed based on four communication principles: response timeliness, victim care, transparency/factual communication, and responsibility. The results indicate that Boeing’s response was more effective after the second crash, as the company incorporated more of the recommended strategies. However, none of the press releases were entirely effective, as Boeing failed to propose actions to support victims and deflected blame. This research highlights the role of crisis communication in helping companies manage crises, restore trust, and minimize harm to victims.

Keywords: Boeing, 737 MAX crashes, press releases, crisis communication, strategies
Email: channegan@elon.edu

I. Introduction

Boeing’s reputation was built on a legacy of producing some of the safest and most advanced planes in the sky. Founded in 1916 by William E. Boeing, the company played a pivotal role in the development of commercial jet travel and became an iconic brand, synonymous with World War II bombing missions and supplying military hardware to the Pentagon. Over the years, Boeing grew into the world’s largest aerospace manufacturer and the U.S.’s largest exporter, with annual revenues exceeding $100 billion (Robinson, 2021). Known for its engineering excellence, Boeing’s reputation was further cemented with the development of the 737 MAX series (e.g., MAX 8 and MAX 9). Introduced in 2011, the 737 MAX was designed as the next generation of commercial aircraft, with the goal of reducing fuel and maintenance costs for airlines by offering extended range, improved fuel efficiency, and simplified operations compared to previous models. The 737 MAX became the fastest-selling plane in Boeing’s history, with 1,700 orders in the year following its announcement and more than 4,000 orders by the time it entered service (Larcker & Tayan, 2024).

On October 29, 2018, 181 passengers boarded Lion Air Flight 610, a brand-new Boeing 737 MAX 8. At 6:20 a.m., the aircraft departed from Jakarta, Indonesia, bound for Pangkal Pinang. Unbeknownst to the pilots, a faulty angle of attack sensor triggered the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), causing the plane’s nose to pitch downward repeatedly. As a result, the aircraft plunged into the Java Sea, killing all 181 passengers and eight crew members (Robinson, 2021). Following the crash, Boeing officials maintained that the 737 MAX 8 was safe for flight, asserting that an updated checklist would resolve the issue. However, five months later, on March 10, 2019, another 737 MAX 8, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, exhibiting the same flaws in the software design, crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 157 passengers and crew on board. In response, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all 737 MAX aircraft (Robinson, 2021).

The deaths of 346 people in two brand-new Boeing aircraft within five months drastically altered the public’s perception of the company, sparking intense scrutiny and forcing Boeing to deploy a crisis communications strategy to salvage its reputation. Public confidence in the safety of U.S. air travel is crucial to the nation’s economic health, making Boeing’s response during the crisis of critical importance. This article examines Boeing’s crisis communication strategies following the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes. The study evaluates Boeing’s press releases following the crashes using content analysis to determine whether the responses effectively employed the crisis communication methods recommended by the literature.

II. Literature Review

A crisis is defined as the “sudden, unexpected creation of victims, accompanied by unplanned visibility for an organization” (Lukaszewski & Noakes-Fry, 2013, p. 18). Over the past three decades, significant research on crisis communication has focused on strategies that help organizations effectively manage crises. A well-formatted crisis response can allow a company to move past the event with its reputation intact and use it as a chance for growth and learning (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2006). This literature review examines four strategies for effective crisis communication: 1. timeliness of response, 2. care for victims, 3. transparency and factual communication, and 4. acknowledging responsibility, highlighting successful and unsuccessful real-life examples. It also examines Boeing’s crisis response strategy before the two crashes. The review aims to analyze the four primary strategies discussed in the literature, which will later serve as a basis for critically assessing Boeing’s press releases.

Crisis Communication Strategies

In a crisis, “speed is of the essence” (Fink, 2013, p. 621). Silence can be perceived as indifference or guilt, allowing a negative narrative to spiral out of control. The “Golden Rule” of crisis response is that the sooner a company takes accountability and communicates clearly with the public, the more likely it is to prevent a negative backlash and protect its reputation. A negative narrative is less likely to gain traction if a company defines the crisis and acts within the first 24 hours. However, failure to act within 72 hours can lead to widespread negative perceptions, increasing scrutiny and damaging public trust (Doorley & Garcia, 2015). Johnson & Johnson’s response to the Tylenol crisis in 1982 is a historic example of how timely action can protect lives and restore trust. After seven people died from cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules, the company acted quickly. Within one day of discovering the contamination, Johnson & Johnson issued a nationwide recall. Within a week, it halted production, withdrew advertising, and recalled 31 million bottles (Robinson, 2021).

In an effective crisis response, “caring about the victims becomes key” (Doorley & Garcia, 2015, p. 305). How leadership addresses victims sets the tone for the entire response effort. A company must acknowledge the impact on victims, prioritize their needs, and take concrete actions to support the victims and their families. Leadership should be present with the victims and their families. “They should be at the hospitals, in the homes of affected families, and meeting with groups of those affected—sharing comfort and understanding” (Lukaszewski & Noakes-Fry, 2013, p. 45). A strong example of effective crisis response is China’s Premier Wen Jiabao, who arrived within two hours of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake to comfort survivors, hold grieving families’ hands, and made a visible effort to address their emotional and psychological needs (Doorley & Garcia, 2015). The literature emphasizes that one of the leading causes of litigation during a crisis is disregarding or discrediting victims and their families, as their feelings must not be “ignored, belittled, discredited, or trivialized” (Lukaszewski & Noakes-Fry, 2013, p. 39). This was evident in Toyota’s response following crashes, injuries, and deaths caused by unintended acceleration due to electronic problems in their vehicles. Despite receiving complaints for three years, the company downplayed the crisis, failed to warn customers, and blamed them for the crashes (Fink, 2013).

Transparency and clear communication of facts are essential for an effective crisis response. The literature emphasizes that companies that communicate openly and honestly can reduce crisis-induced uncertainty more effectively. “To have a transparent response, a company must provide consistent updates to the public, communicate with certainty about the crisis, and provide a prospective vision for recovery” (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2023, p. 57). Pepsi’s response to backlash over an ad that trivialized the Black Lives Matter movement in 2017 exemplifies transparency and the importance of providing facts during a crisis. The company promptly apologized, admitted fault, clarified the ad’s intent, and took immediate action to remove the problematic content (Victor, 2017).

A company must take accountability for its actions during a crisis, especially when fatalities occur. Crisis communication becomes ineffective when an organization attempts to spin the crisis to reduce its responsibility or deflect blame onto others (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2023). BP’s response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion illustrates how failing to accept accountability and shifting blame can worsen a crisis. A week after the explosion, BP CEO Tony Hayward did not take responsibility and instead shifted the blame, stating, “This was not our accident. This was not our drilling rig. This was not our equipment. It was Transocean’s rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment” (Doorley & Garcia, 2007, p. 316). By downplaying the company’s role, BP’s response only exacerbated public and media scrutiny, further damaging its reputation. Instead, a company should implement an effective crisis response that “shows understanding, takes action, and demonstrates learning” (Fink, 2023, p. 58).

Having a crisis communication plan in place before a crisis occurs is essential for any organization. A well-prioritized crisis communication strategy provides a crucial foundation, ensuring that the organization can respond quickly and effectively when faced with a crisis (Coleman, 2023). The aftermath of the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 highlighted that Boeing was unprepared for the crisis, lacking both a proper crisis management plan and a dedicated team trained to handle such situations (Imad, Elbuzidi, & Chan, 2021).

III. Methods

This study will address the following research question: How effective was Boeing in following the crisis communication strategies outlined in the literature in mitigating reputational damage after the two Boeing 737 Max crashes? The study employs a content analysis approach to evaluate the crisis communication strategies presented in Boeing’s press releases following the crashes. After the first crash, Boeing issued only three press releases, and following the second crash, Boeing released six press releases. This study will analyze Boeing’s press releases and examine public statements made through press conferences, interviews, CEO letters, and media responses to Boeing’s communication efforts.

The coding scheme for the content analysis will focus on four key themes from the crisis communication literature: 1. timeliness of response, 2. care for victims, 3. transparency and factual communication, and 4. acknowledging responsibility. Timeliness of response will be assessed by the time gap between the crashes and Boeing’s initial response, as well as the speed of updates. Responses will be categorized as immediate, meaning within 24 hours of the crash or previous statement, or delayed, meaning any time after 73 hours. Care for victims will be assessed by how Boeing demonstrates concern for the victims and their families. This category will be divided into two sections: acknowledgment, which evaluates whether Boeing expresses sympathy and condolences for the victims’ families, and actions taken, which identifies any steps taken to support the victims.

Transparency and factual communication will be operationalized by examining whether Boeing provided facts and was transparent. This will be categorized into two areas: facts, which refers to providing information on the crash and why it occurred, and transparency, which evaluates whether Boeing is sharing relevant details with the public about the steps being taken in response to the crisis and to prevent future incidents. Finally, acknowledging responsibility will be operationalized by examining whether Boeing acknowledges or deflects responsibility. This theme will be categorized into two areas: taking responsibility, which involves owning responsibility for the crash and its causes, and deflecting responsibility, which refers to avoiding acknowledgment of the company’s role in the incident or attributing blame to external factors.

IV. Results

This study found that Boeing’s crisis communication response was initially ineffective, as the press releases following the Lion Air Flight 610 crash did not successfully incorporate the recommended crisis communication strategies. These releases were delayed, acknowledged the victims without offering specific actions, were transparent but provided few facts, and consistently deflected responsibility. The study found that Boeing’s press releases were more effective following the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash, as the press releases were more frequent, timely, and transparent. However, similar to earlier press releases, Boeing still failed to propose specific actions and continued to deflect blame, meaning the press releases were not fully effective. These findings are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, followed by a detailed analysis.

Table 1: Boeing’s Press Releases Regarding the Lion Air Flight 610 Crash

Strategy Categories Press Release #1 Press Release #2 Press Release #3
Timeliness of Response Immediate ✔
Delayed ✔ ✔
Care for Victims Acknowledgment ✔ ✔ ✔
Actions Taken
Transparency & Facts Facts ✔
Transparency ✔ ✔
Responsibility Taking Responsibility
Deflecting Responsibility ✔ ✔ ✔

The first press release Boeing issued was immediate, as the company sent a brief statement within 24 hours of the Lion Air Flight 610 crash. The statement offered condolences and announced that Boeing was providing technical assistance to authorities investigating the incident. However, following this first press release, Boeing failed to provide regular updates, and there were significant delays between follow-up press releases. The second press release was issued 23 days after the crash, on November 21, marking a substantial delay in communication. Boeing’s response continued to be delayed; the third press release was issued six days later, on November 27, discussing the preliminary findings of the ongoing investigation.

Boeing begins each of the three press releases with a public expression of condolences and sympathy for the families and loved ones of the victims. Each statement reiterates that Boeing is deeply saddened by the loss of Lion Air Flight 610 and extends heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the families and loved ones of those onboard. While the press releases acknowledge the victims, they fail to outline the actions Boeing will take to support the victims’ families beyond general condolences.

The first press release was brief and did not provide facts, such as the factors that may have contributed to the crash. However, it demonstrated transparency, clarifying that Boeing was providing technical assistance at the request and under the direction of government authorities investigating the accident. In the second press release, Boeing continued not to provide facts. The statement reiterates Boeing’s commitment to working with the investigation team and regulatory authorities but adds, “While we can’t discuss specifics of the ongoing investigation, we have provided two updates for our operators that re-emphasize existing procedures.” (Boeing, 2018). This lacks transparency because it withholds details on what was communicated to operators. The third press release provides details on why the crash occurred, citing findings from the preliminary investigation, and noting that “the pilots experienced issues with altitude and airspeed data that had previously occurred on earlier flights due to erroneous AOA data” (Boeing, 2018). Boeing demonstrates transparency by openly acknowledging and supporting Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee in its investigation and emphasizes its commitment to fully understanding the incident while working closely with the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board as technical advisors throughout the process.

Boeing did not accept responsibility for the crash in any of the three press releases. Instead of acknowledging accountability, the company focused on reaffirming its confidence in the safety of the 737 MAX. In both the second and third press releases, Boeing emphasized that safety is a core value and stressed its commitment to the safety of its airplanes but did not address any direct responsibility for the incident. In the third press release, the tone subtly shifts responsibility away from Boeing, introducing uncertainty about whether the pilots followed the prescribed procedures. The release notes that “the preliminary report does not state whether the pilots performed the runaway stabilizer procedure or cut out the stabilizer trim switches” (Boeing, 2018). This wording may influence public perceptions of responsibility without directly assigning blame.

Table 2: Boeing’s Press Releases Regarding the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Crash

Strategy Categories Press Release #1 Press Release #2 Press Release #3 Press Release #4 Press Release #5 Press Release #6
Timeliness of Response Immediate ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Delayed ✔ ✔
Care for Victims Acknowledgment ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Actions Taken
Transparency & Facts Facts ✔
Transparency ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Responsibility Taking Responsibility
Deflecting Responsibility ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Following two crashes involving Boeing 737 MAX planes within nearly five months, Boeing increased the frequency of its press releases to keep the public promptly informed. The first press release was issued immediately, within 24 hours of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash, expressing deep sorrow over the loss of passengers and crew. The following day, on March 11, 2019, Boeing released another immediate press release outlining its actions regarding the 737 MAX. On March 12, Boeing issued another timely press release with updated information. On March 13, when the FAA ordered the temporary grounding of all 737 MAX aircraft, Boeing responded immediately with a statement expressing support for the decision. The first four press releases were issued immediately; however, the two subsequent releases were delayed. Boeing refrained from issuing any further statements until April 4, 2019, following the release of the Preliminary Investigation Report. After that, Boeing did not issue another press release until May 16, when it provided details on the 737 MAX’s return to service.

The first two press releases express care for the victims, offering “heartfelt sympathies” to the families and loved ones of those on board. However, the third press release does not acknowledge the victims or mention any actions to assist their families; instead, it focuses on Boeing’s commitment to safety. The fourth press release includes a quote from Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg, who acknowledges the victims, stating, “On behalf of the entire Boeing team, we extend our deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives in these two tragic accidents” (Boeing, 2019). The fifth press release also begins with a quote from Kevin McAllister, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, stating, “I’d like to reiterate our deepest sympathies are with the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the accident” (Boeing, 2019). However, the sixth press release states, “We know lives depend on what we do” (Boeing, 2019), but it does not acknowledge the victims who lost their lives in the two crashes or outline any actions to support the grieving families. Despite four out of six press releases expressing care and sympathy, none of the statements detail specific measures Boeing took to assist the families directly, such as financial support, compensation, or other tangible assistance, beyond general statements of condolence.

The first press release is transparent, as Boeing outlines the steps taken in response to the crisis, including deploying a technical team to the crash site. However, it did not provide any facts about the crash itself, and the second press release similarly failed to offer details about what caused the second crash or any data regarding the incident. However, the second press release was transparent by providing a specific update on Boeing’s steps to prevent future occurrences, such as collaborating with the FAA on critical software enhancements and incorporating customer feedback into the process. While not providing facts about the crash, the third press release remained transparent by indicating that Boeing would continue to inform operators and the public. It states, “We understand that regulatory agencies and customers have made decisions that they believe are most appropriate for their home markets. We’ll continue to engage with them to ensure they have the information needed to have confidence in operating their fleets” (Boeing, 2019). The fourth press release did not provide facts about what caused the crash but was transparent, stating that Boeing supported the FAA’s action to ground 737 MAX operations. The press release stated, “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” (Boeing, 2019). The fifth press release presented crucial facts, including flight data recorder information, that directly explained the cause of the crash. It incorporated findings from the preliminary investigation report by the Ethiopian Accident Investigation Bureau, which determined that an erroneous angle of attack sensor triggered the MCAS system, similar to the Lion Air Flight 610 crash. Boeing also demonstrated transparency by outlining steps taken to address the issue, including a planned software update and enhanced pilot training to prevent future MCAS malfunctions. The sixth press release did not mention facts regarding the crash but was transparent, stating, “We’re making clear and steady progress and are confident that the 737 MAX, with updated MCAS software, will be one of the safest airplanes ever to fly. The accidents have only intensified our commitment to our values, including safety, quality, and integrity, because we know lives depend on what we do” (Boeing, 2019).

Boeing consistently fails to take accountability for the issues surrounding the 737 MAX in all six press releases. None of the releases acknowledge that Boeing’s mistakes contributed to the crashes or offer an apology for its role in the accidents. While Boeing repeatedly emphasizes customer safety as a priority and highlights its ongoing efforts to improve the aircraft, it never directly accepts responsibility for the accidents or the underlying causes that led to the loss of lives. The company also fails to acknowledge potential design flaws or internal failures, despite stressing its collaboration with regulators and efforts to enhance safety measures in each press release. Specifically, in the fifth press release, Boeing explains that an erroneous angle of attack sensor activated the MCAS, which caused the crash, as it did in the Lion Air 610 crash, but stops short of accepting direct responsibility for the accidents.

V. Discussion

The findings indicated that Boeing failed to implement the literature-suggested strategy of a timely response after the first crash but adopted it following the second crash. As shown in Table 1, most of Boeing’s press releases after the first crash were delayed. The literature explains that the “Golden Rule” of crisis response is that the sooner a company takes accountability and communicates clearly with the public, the more likely it is to prevent negative backlash and protect its reputation. This principle was evident in the media’s heavy criticism of Boeing’s delayed responses after the first crash, with reporters questioning whether the Ethiopian Airlines accident could have been prevented if information had been shared more transparently and quickly after the Lion Air incident (Beech & Suhartono, 2019). Boeing adopted a timelier communication strategy after the Ethiopian Airlines crash. The literature suggests that a response within 24 hours is recommended, and as shown in Table 2, Boeing issued press releases within 24 hours for four of six statements following the second crash.

The study found that all eight press releases followed the literature’s strategy of expressing care for the victims through acknowledgment but did not incorporate the crucial step of taking action. None of the releases mentioned any specific actions taken to support the victims’ families. The literature recommends that leadership be actively present with victims, as failure to do so can lead to litigation. Boeing’s lack of action resulted in heavy media scrutiny, and the families of victims from both crashes later filed lawsuits against the company. Prominent publications, such as The New York Times, interviewed the victims’ families, who criticized Boeing for prioritizing its reputation and profits over the victims’ well-being and safety (Beech & Suhartono, 2019). The backlash Boeing received following their press releases highlighted that the company should have followed the literature’s recommendations by detailing and taking concrete actions to support victims. This point was further underscored on April 29, when family members of the crash victims attended Boeing’s annual shareholder meeting in Chicago, holding up photos of their loved ones and signs reading, “Prosecute Boeing & execs for manslaughter” and “Boeing’s Arrogance Kills” (Robinson, 2021, p. 211).

The literature recommends that companies be open and honest to respond effectively during a crisis. The study found that Boeing adopted a fully transparent, fact-based communication strategy after the second crash, but this approach was not effectively implemented after the first crash. As shown in the first table, after the first crash, Boeing included concrete facts in only one of the three press releases. Although Boeing was transparent in most of the releases, the media questioned the legitimacy of this transparency. The Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing withheld critical details about the 737 MAX 8, which contributed to the Lion Air crash. This led to a loss of public trust, with critics questioning the company’s transparency and its delayed disclosure of the MCAS system’s risks (Pasztor & Tangel, 2018). The literature emphasizes that for a company to demonstrate true transparency, it must provide consistent updates, communicate with certainty about the crisis, and offer a clear vision for recovery. Following the second crash, Boeing effectively adopted this approach, demonstrating transparency in all of their responses and improving the disclosure of concrete facts.

The literature emphasizes that a company should take responsibility for its wrongdoing during a crisis, especially when fatalities are involved. Boeing did not implement this strategy and failed to take accountability in any of the eight press releases issued after the crashes. The company also did not follow this approach in public statements; in an interview with FOX Business, Muilenburg shifted some blame to the pilots, claiming the aircraft had undergone extensive testing and that pilots had been provided with all the necessary information to operate the aircraft safely (Robinson, 2021, p. 184). However, Boeing did begin to accept some blame in a letter issued by Muilenburg, who stated, in reference to the MCAS malfunctions, “It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it, and we know how to do it” (Kitroeff, Gelles, Glanz, & Beech, 2019). While Boeing accepted responsibility for the technical failure, the company was careful not to take full responsibility for broader regulatory and oversight failures, and this lack of taking full responsibility was reflected in their press releases.

VI. Conclusion

This study examined Boeing’s crisis communication strategies in response to the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes, focusing on how Boeing applied four key strategies recommended in the literature: timeliness of response, empathy and support for victims, transparency and factual communication, and acknowledging responsibility. The methodology used in this study was content analysis, which examined Boeing’s eight press releases issued after the crashes. The analysis revealed that Boeing’s response was more effective following the second crash, as they employed a greater number of the recommended strategies. However, despite this improvement, the media and public heavily criticize Boeing’s crisis response strategies. The backlash was due to the company’s failure to implement two critical strategies suggested by the literature in its press releases: taking accountability and demonstrating care for the victims through tangible actions.

The limitations of this study stem primarily from the methodology of content analysis. Due to this methodology, the study did not include interviews with human subjects, thus lacking direct insights from airline industry professionals, crisis communication experts, or individuals personally connected to the crashes, such as Boeing employees or victims’ families. Interviews with these groups could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of Boeing’s crisis response and effectiveness. Additionally, examining other forms of communication, such as internal messaging, could provide a fuller picture of the company’s crisis management beyond its external response.

This study provides a clear roadmap for companies to navigate crises in a way that rebuilds public trust. By analyzing the shortcomings in Boeing’s communication during the 737 MAX crisis, the study underscores the importance of using all four strategies presented in the literature. To truly restore public trust, companies must respond swiftly, fully acknowledge their role, maintain ongoing transparency, and demonstrate genuine care and empathy for victims. When these strategies are consistently implemented, organizations can turn a crisis into an opportunity to regain trust and strengthen their reputation.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. Don Grady, who mentored me throughout this process, for all his feedback and suggestions during the development of this research. Additionally, I want to thank my parents, whose insight was instrumental in shaping the final work.

References

Beech, H., & Suhartono, M. (2019, April 2). Between two Boeing crashes, days of silence and mistrust. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/world/asia/boeing-max-8-lion-air.html

Coleman, A. (2023). Crisis communication strategies: Prepare, respond and recover effectively in unpredictable and urgent situations. Kogan Page Limited.

Doorley, J., & Garcia, H. F. (2015). Reputation management: The key to successful public relations and corporate communication (3rd ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Fink, S. (2013). Crisis communications: The definitive guide to managing the message. McGraw-Hill Education.

Kitroeff, N., Gelles, D., Glanz, J., & Beech, H. (2019, April 5). Ethiopian crash report indicates pilots followed Boeing’s emergency procedures. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/business/boeing-737-ethiopian-airlines.html

Imad, A. R., Elbuzidi, K. J., & Chan, T. J. (2021). Crisis management and communication approach: A case of Boeing 737 MAX. Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 4(2), 7-14.

Lukaszewski, J. E. (2013). Lukaszewski on crisis communication: What your CEO needs to know about reputation risk and crisis management. review. Skillsoft.

Pasztor, A., & Tangel, A. (n.d.). Boeing withheld information on 737 model, according to safety experts and others. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-according-to-safety-experts-and-others-1542082575

Robison, P. (2021). Flying blind: The 737 MAX tragedy and the Fall of Boeing. Anchor Books.

Tayan, B., & Larcker, D. (2024, June 6). Boeing 737 MAX. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/06/06/boeing-737-max/

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2023). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Victor, D. (2017, April 5). Pepsi pulls ad accused of trivializing Black Lives Matter. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/kendall-jenner-pepsi-ad.html