From what I have learned about crisis communication in recent months, it is essential that an organization has a plan in place ahead of time, which can be implemented smoothly in the event it is needed. This can include plans for communication in the first hour, and then the next 23 hours, and then day-by-day during the first week after the crisis, depending on its severity. In developing that plan, learning from the prior success (and failure) of others can be instructive. Having said that, the article in the url below shows the dangers of a company following this advice too literally and being too formulaic with its crisis response plan -- specifically, the statements by the CEO of Air India, taken in the aftermath of the Dreamliner crash in India, over the summer):
"Campbell Wilson stood in a gray suit before a camera last week to read a carefully worded statement about the plane operated by Air India, the company he leads, that had crashed hours earlier in Ahmedabad, India, with 242 people aboard. His remarks immediately drew criticism. Social media users said he appeared cold and lacking in empathy. Soon after that, another critique emerged: Much of Mr. Wilson's speech was identical to one given five months earlier by Robert Isom, the chief executive of American Airlines, after a deadly crash in Washington."
The article illustrates just how similar the two statements were:
"'First and most importantly, I'd like to express our deep sorrow about these events,' Mr. Isom said in the video published Jan. 29. On June 12, Mr. Wilson began: 'First and most importantly, I would like to express our deep sorrow about this event.' 'This is a difficult day for all of us at American Airlines,' Mr. Isom continued. Mr. Wilson said: 'This is a difficult day for all of us at Air India.' Mr. Isom said, 'I know that there are many questions, and at this early stage, I'll not be able to answer all of them. But I do want to share the information I have at this time.' Mr. Wilson said exactly the same thing, except he didn't say 'early,' and in one instance he used 'we' instead of 'I.' 'Anything we can do now, we're doing,' they promised. Both said their companies had 'set up a special help line,' would 'continue to share accurate and timely information as soon as we can' and were 'working around the clock' to support "passengers, crew and their families.'"
For a more direct comparison, it is interesting to see the two statements pasted side-by-side, with the similar rhetoric highlighted – an illustration that was helpfully provided on social media by Karthik Srinivasan, a communications consultant in Bengaluru, India:
Understandably, this insensitivity has only created more problems for the airline:
"Many who responded to Mr. Srinivasan's post expressed anger and distrust at the airline. The outcry over the remarks has added to the challenges facing Air India as investigators work to understand what caused its London-bound jet to crash moments after takeoff, killing all but one person on board and dozens on the ground."
In response to the criticism, Air India sought to explain its intentions, while avoiding responding directly to the allegations of plagiarism:
"Air India did not address the plagiarism accusations in a statement responding to criticism of Mr. Wilson's remarks. But it acknowledged that it had drawn examples from other crashes. The company said it had "studied many airlines' immediate post-accident statements to identify the clearest, most concise and effective way to convey time-sensitive, critical information at a moment of immense human trauma."
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Air India's CEO's Remarks After Plane Crash Draw Scrutiny
By John Yoon
June 21, 2025
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
15
