Crisis Management Audit of Airline X and Airline Y

Abstract

The study ascertained the crisis preparedness/proneness of Airline X and Airline Y through a crisis management audit. Its key objectives are the ff: 1) To identify the types of crisis that each airline is most likely prepared to face 2) to determine the crisis phases each airline is able to handle, 3) to recognize the systemic factors the company is able to avoid 4) to identify the main crisis stakeholders identified by each company and 5) to ascertain the similarities and differences of Airline X and Airline Y in terms of crisis preparedness/proneness. The researcher employed a descriptive research design that examined the existing situation and condition of the crisis management programs of the two airlines. Respondents of the study included the management and staff from the Operations division of both airlines. Through simple random sampling, a total of 25 employees per company participated in the study. The station manager of Airline X and customer relations officer of Airline Y served as the key informants for the interview, to clarify certain findings from the study. The survey questionnaires and interview guide were based on Mitroff, Pearson and Harrington's model of a crisis audit. Data gathered were tabulated and analyzed in terms of descriptive statistics and the CM audit standards. Also, qualitative data analysis was employed for the information gathered during the interviews with the key informants. Results show that Airline X and Airline Y were inclined towards crisis types such as natural disasters, criminal attacks and breaks in equipment and plants. For crisis phases, Airline X and Airline Y showed high frequencies in business recovery and no-fault learning. Both Airlines had poor frequency scores in managing systemic factors. In terms of crisis stakeholders, the two airlines had high frequency scores. Airlines X and Y acknowledged that all departments are part of crisis management. The audit scores of Airline X showed that it satisfied only one of the CM factors particularly stakeholders. On the other hand, Airline Y satisfied types, phases and stakeholders. It failed, however, to reach the minimum mark for systems. Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1) Airline X is most likely prepared for natural disasters, criminal attacks, breaks in equipment and plants, human resources, industrial disasters, legal and health. Airline Y is most likely prepared for criminal attacks, economic attacks, loss of proprietary information, industrial disasters, natural disasters, breaks in equipment or plants, legal, human resources, health and regulatory; 2) Airline X is able to handle business recovery and no-fault learning while Airline Y is able to handle signal detection, probing, damage containment, business recovery and no-fault learning; 3) Airline X is able to avoid only organizational culture problems while Airline Y is unable to avoid any systemic problem; and 4) Both Airlines identified top management, legal, security, human resources, operations,' health and safety, public affairs and reservations as their stakeholders. Moreover, since both Airlines failed to satisfy the four key CM factors in the crisis audit, Airline X and Airline Y were qualified as crisis prone. Recommendations of the study include the tapping of more departments to participate in the study as well as employing other data gathering procedures such as observations and focused group discussions. The researcher also suggested finding a tool for data analysis that will show the degree of crisis preparedness/proneness of a company. The applicability of the Mitroff, Pearson and Harrington CM audit should also be tested in other industries.