3709
Strategic Consumer Approach Towards Boeing
737 Max Planes
Prof. Dr. Anil SarinAbstract : It is a say that ‗Consumer is King.‘ But in reality, most of the companies whether multinational, medium or small scale forget that customer is source of revenue to them. On the contrary, many companies start playing with the money and emotions of their customers while focusing on unholy and immediate profits. These firms may earn short term profits but their existence becomes a challenge on long term basis. There are two well known aircraft manufacturing giants in the world – Boeing and Airbus. Boeing is well known and one of the largest aircraft manufacturing companies in the world and has neck to neck competition with its major competitor Airbus. Boeing company of US has put itself into trouble due to its st rategy which compromised the passengers‘ safety for higher and immediate returns. It resulted into grounding of around 300 aircrafts of Boeing‘s 737 MAX model globally. The production of Boeing‘s 737 MAX model has been reduced since March 2019 till the clearance from regulators of various countries and US regulator in particular. It all happened after the crash of Boeing‘s two 737 MAX aircrafts within a period of five months i.e October 2018 and March 2019, killing around 346 passengers on board. The company is in deep trouble. Additionally, the US regulator has also ordered in September 2019, about the inspections of Boeing aircraft 737 NG after cracks were found on some planes as per BBC. ―Boeing‘s net loss for the second quarter of 2019 was $2.94 billion, compared with a profit of $2.20 billion, a year earlier. Sales slipped by 35% to $15.75 billion and also came in below the average estimate of $18.55 billion, according to Refinitiv data‖ as reported by Reuters. It is a comparison between June 2018 and June 2019 quarters. Just in one year Nosedive Strategy has put company from profit generating to loss making. When the companies take decisions that are harmful to them, kill their own business, and corporate image, the act is known as Nosedive Strategy. Instead of investigating for the causes of crash of its two planes, introducing safety features and engaging customers strategically for making them to believe that 737 MAX are safe planes; Boeing has adopted Nos edive strategy by giving warning to regulators of countries that it would stop the production of 737 MAX, if they do not lift ban on the flights of 737 MAX. BBC mentioned ―If hurdles with regulators worldwide continue, Boeing said it would consider reducing or shutting down production of the 737 Max entirely‖. At the time when company needs action to work on the safety features of its 737 MAX planes, submit the entire plans about safety tests etc. of 737 MAX planes to regulators. Boeing threatened to stop the production of 737 Max entirely. It is well established fact that revenue to any business on this earth comes from one source and that is customer. In case of Boeing, company has moderate engagement with its direct customers‘ airlines and poor communication with ultimate consumers (air passengers) for resolving the issue about its grounded 737 MAX planes since March 2019 post the s econd crash of its aircraft. This study is research about the strategic consumer approach towards the product (737 MAX aircrafts) after two crashes in whi ch all the passengers on board lost their lives.
Index Terms : Aircraft, Boeing, Business, Consumer Behavior, Customer, Decision Making, Management, Marketing, Quality, Strategy
—————————— ——————————
1.
INTRODUCTION
AIRBUS and Boeing are the two companies ruling the aircraft manufacturing industry. ―Airbus and Boeing dominate an already under competitive airline manufacturing industry. The oligopololy/ duopoly owns the sky by making up 99 percent of global large aircraft orders.‖ (Sprague, 2019). Looking at the potential in this industry and the dominance of only two aircraft manufacturers worldwide, China is also in the process of jumping in the production of large passenger aircraft by Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC).
The large passenger aircraft manufacturing industry is different than the other industries competition and culture wise. Till 2018, Boeing was selling larger passenger aircrafts than its only rival Airbus and known as the leader of the industry.
Boeing introduced its Dreamliner aircraft around ten years back which developed many technical snags during their commercial flights and put many airlines in spot due to the disturbance of passenger traffic. But Boeing did not learn much from its past and introduced another aircraft 737 MAX with tall claims. ―It was 29 October 2018, when the world was shocked with the news that a passenger plane, brand new Boeing 737 MAX ofIndonesia‘s Lion Air carrying 189 passengers crashed in minutes after its takeoff. This fatal crash killed all the 189 passengers on the board.‖ (Bloomberg, 2018). ―As the aircraft began to nosedive, the pilot attempted to offset the action, fighting to keep it in the air. However, it became increasingly difficult to control the airplane as the load on the steering wheel became too heavy for the pilot to manually control, and then the plane drops. The aircrafts crashed into the sea at a speed of more than 400mph.‖ (The Guardian, 2018).
It all happened to the aircraft for which Boeing was having tall claims about its special features and lower fuel consumption. Even after the crash of its aircraft in October 2018, Boeing predicted in January, that 2019 would be record year for aircraft profits and deliveries due to its MAX- the best-selling model. Boeing reported an order of 5,011 MAX from 79 airlines in January 2019 (BBC, 2019). In the meantime, another crash of Boeing 737 MAX happened in March 2019, killing all 157 people on board. The regulators of most of the countries ordered the grounding of around 300 aircrafts of model 737 MAX globally. It all happened as Boeing adopted a nosedive strategy, that not only put its present and future business in trouble, but it has become a rare case where its past sold products have also come under scanner. ―Inquiries into both crashes are continuing, but black box data immediately ————————————————
Prof. Anil Sarin, Post Doctorate (DLitt) - Management, PhD - Business Administration. Possibly the first Indian professor of management based in India whose management theory Anil Sarin’s Contributory Theory of Existence has been accepted and published in the Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge and also got cited in the articles of most reputed International Journals and books. Anil Sarin’s Contributory Theory of Existence has been cited in many PhD thesis/Post-Graduate research submitted to the renowned universities in the world like The University of Waikato - New Zealand, Capella University – USA, University of Phoenix – USA, North Central University – USA, Walden University – USA, British University - UAE, Universidade da Beira Interior – Portugal. Dr. Sarin’s article about his theory got published in The Hindustan Times, Shine, ‘Let the employees give too’ has crossed one lac twenty thousand readership till date. It can be accesed through - http://www.isrworld.org/2009/05/contributory-theory-of-existence.html. Prof. Sarin also developed Nosedive Strategy, on the basis of his research on Boeing company’s development and investigations by American agencies on the basis of secondary data which got published in the Elseiver SCOPUS indexed journal.
3710
pointed similarities between the two accidents: A system designed to help the plane avoid stalling appears to have malfunctioned, pushing down the nose of the plane. The fallout continues to spread, with Boeing under financial pressure and the F.A.A. under scrutiny.‖ (Gelles, 2019). As per Anil Sarin‘s Nosedive Strategy, if management does not resolve the issue of company which affects customer and society in particular, external sources will intervene and take decisions for company, its business and products. The same thing happened in this case also. Regulators of most of the countries grounded around 300 Boeing planes of Model 737 Max with immediate effect globally after the second plane crash. Had Boeing taken EQQD – Ethical, Quick Quality decision after the first crash of its aircraft; regulators, government of various countries would not have been intervened about the business and products of Boeing company.
―The prolonged grounding of Boeing Co.‘s 737 MAX aircraft is rippling through the U.S. economy, hurting the nation‘s trade balance and clouding the outlook for airlines, suppliers and their tens of thousands of workers.‖ (Cameron & Sider, Boeing‘s 737 MAX Grounding Spills Over Into Economy, Weighs on GDP, 2019). Businesses are highly impacted by forces outside their industry (Sarin & Gupta, Solar Residential Rooftop Systems (SRRSs) in India: PEST and Environment Analysis, 2017). The consumer awareness about the product plays a crucial role in its usage (Sarin, Gupta, & Jituri, Solar Residential Rooftop Systems (SRRS) in South Delhi: A Strategic Study with Focus on Potential Consumers' Awareness, 2018).
2
POSSIBLE
TECHNOLOGICAL
ISSUES
BEHIND
CRASHES
It is fact that latest aircrafts are equipped with advanced technologies for their various functions. Aircrafts take direction from many types of soft wares for safe and efficient flights. But at the same time, two crashes of same aircraft model manifest the serious technical failure which was even beyond the control of pilots flying these jets. Investigations are being conducted by US Justice Department. As per BBC, Boeing admitted that the company was knowing the problem with 737 MAX airplane around one year before the two crashes involving 737 MAX. Boeing accepted that an alarm device was shifted in the category of optional features from standard one. This feature is known as the Angle of attack (AOA). As per Boeing AOA data was fed to the aircrafts Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation Systems (MCAS), an anti-stall system which has become an issue under investigation since the crashes (BBC, 2019). Anil sarin‘s Contributory Theory of Existence suggests that all human beings on this earth have two factors – Demanding Factor and Let Me Give Factor. However, the mix of demanding and let me give factors varies from individual to individual. Same is true in case of top management of companies. Some CEOs have higher level of demanding factor. In such case, most of the decision of the company are influenced by profits and more profits even by compromising safety of customers and society. Same thing happened in case of Boeing that it worked for high profits even by compromising about the safety of passengers (Sarin, Corporate Strategic Motivation: Evolution Continues- Henry. A. Murray‘s Manifest Needs to Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs to Anil Sarin‘s Contributory Theory of Existence, 2009). SWOT analysis is one of the major tools that help the firm to
understand the present scenario and accordingly provide startegic direction (Sarin, Gupta, & Jituri, Solar Residential Rooftop Systems Business Models: SWOT Analysis, 2019). Poor decision making brings companies to red most of the times rather than external factors (Sarin A. , Boeing Technological Issues and Challenges: Nosedive Strategy, 2019).
3
RESEARCH
PROBLEM
After the two crashes, whole world talks about Boeing company, its product-737 MAX aircraft, and indecisiveness of its management after first crash of 737 MAX. Still there is no significant change in organization including CEO and other senior functionaries till date. This study is about to find consumers (flyers) approach towards such products (737 MAX) of Boeing.
4
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
The study is based upon the collection of both primary and secondary data. Primary data has been collected through questionnaire along with walk-in interviews at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Efforts were made to include respondents from outside the entry gates also, but it worked in few cases only as people were rushing to catch the flights. Outside the arrival gates, the flyers were comparatively relaxed and cooperative while waiting for someone to pick them up from the airport. The questionnaire was filled by 506 respondents, out of which 490 were found suitable for the purpose of analysis. All 490 respondents considered in the study have travelled by air at least once. The primary data has been collected to understand the awareness among flyers towards plane make, awareness among flyers about the two crashes of Boeing 737 MAX planes. In order to determine the trust of people to fly by 737 MAX, the study also collected responses from flyers related to their willingness to fly by these planes, if reintroduced by the company in the future. The secondary data has been captured from various news articles, websites, publications etc.The representation and analysis of the collected data has been done using frequency table, bar charts etc. ANOVA (at 5 per cent level of significance) and Chi-Square have been used for testing of hypothesis. After the two crashes, whole world talks about Boeing company, its product-737 MAX aircraft, and indecisiveness of its management after first crash of 737 MAX. Still there is no significant change in organization including CEO and other senior functionaries till date. This study is about to find consumers (flyers) approach towards such products (737 MAX) of Boeing.
5
RELIABILITY
STATISTICS
The Cronbach's Alpha towards the set of questions designed to find out awareness of flyers towards make of plane is .762. Accordingly, the value of Cronbach's Alpha, lies in acceptable range (M&E Studies).
TABLE1
RELIABILITY STATISTICS
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items N of Items
3711
6
AWARENESS
ABOUT
MAKE
OF
PLANE
AMONG
FLYERS
The study has been conducted to find the awareness level of flyers towards make of the plane.
Null Hypothesis (H0) – Flyers are not aware about the make of the plane.
Alternate Hypothesis (H1) – Flyers are aware about the make of the plane.
The mean awareness score of 490 flyers surveyed towards make of plane is 3.07 on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 refers to the lowest degree of awareness score and 5 indicates high degree of awareness).
TABLE2
AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE
Description N Mean Std. Deviation Awareness Score –
Make of Plane 490 3.07 .718
TABLE3
T-TEST -AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE
Description
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Differe nce
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper Awareness
Score – Make of
Plane
2.126 489 .034 .069 .005 .133
As per t-test (table 3) at 5 per cent level of significance t (489) = 2.126, p = .034. 2-tailed test results have been produced through the SPSS statistical software. Further, t-statistic has also been compared with the critical t-values mentioned in the t-table at 5 per cent level of significance in order to perform one-tail testing of hypothesis. The critical t-value as per t-table at 5 per cent level of significance t (489) = 1.65. Hence null hypothesis is rejected. Accordingly, the flyers are aware about the make of plane.
6.1 Awareness Score Differentiation About Make of Plane Among Different Age Groups of Flyers
The awareness level of flyers towards make of the plane among different age groups of flyers has been analyzed. Null Hypothesis (H0) - There is no significant difference in awareness score about make of planeamong different age groups of flyers. Alternate Hypothesis (H1) - There is significant difference in awareness score about make of plane make among different age groups of flyers.
TABLE4
T-TEST -AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *AGE GROUP
Description N Mean Std. Deviation
Less than 25 years 25 2.94 .824
25 years and above but less
than 40 years 172 3.05 .671 40 years and above but less
than 55 years 200 3.13 .722
55 years and above 93 3.00 .763
Total 490 3.07 .718
TABLE5
ANOVA-AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *AGE GROUP
Description Squares Sum of Df Square Mean F Sig. Between
Groups 1.665 3 .555 1.076 .359 Within
Groups 250.604 486 .516 Total 252.268 489
As determined by ANOVA (table 5) at 5 per cent level of significance F (3,486) = 1.076, p = .359.
Hence null hypothesis is accepted i.e. there is no significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different age groups of flyers.
6.2 Awareness Score Differentiation About Make of Plane Among Different Education Level of Flyers
The awareness level of flyers towards make of the plane among different education levels of flyers has been analyzed. Null Hypothesis (H0) - There is no significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different education levels of flyers. Alternate Hypothesis (H1) - There is significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different education levels of flyers.
TABLE 6
AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *EDUCATION LEVEL
Description N Mean Std. Deviation
School Level 13 1.57 0.69
Graduate 252 2.79 0.53
Professional 84 3.85 0.39
Post-graduate 127 3.10 0.54
Doctorate 14 4.41 0.34
3712
TABLE 7
ANOVA-AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *EDUCATION LEVEL
Description Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig. Between
Groups 125.499 4 31.375 120.035 .000 Within
Groups 126.770 485 .261 Total 252.268 489
As determined by ANOVA (table 7) at 5 per cent level of significance F (4,485) = 120.035, p = .000. Hence null hypothesis is i.e. there is significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different rejected education levels of flyers. Accordingly post hoc Tukey HSD has been conducted to determine the difference in awareness score among respective education levels.
TABLE 8
TUKEY HSD-AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *EDUCATION LEVEL
Dependent Variable: Awareness Score – Make of Plane
Education Level Mean Difference Sig.
School Level
Graduate -1.22 .000
Professional -2.28 .000
Post-graduate -1.53 .000
Doctorate -2.85 .000
Graduate
School Level 1.22 .000
Professional -1.06 .000
Post-graduate -0.31 .000
Doctorate -1.62 .000
Professional
School Level 2.28 .000
Graduate 1.06 .000
Post-graduate 0.75 .000
Doctorate -0.56 .001
Post-graduate
School Level 1.53 .000
Graduate 0.31 .000
Professional -0.75 .000
Doctorate -1.31 .000
Doctorate
School Level 2.85 .000
Graduate 1.62 .000
Professional 0.56 .001
Post-graduate 1.31 .000
As determined by Tukey HSD (table 8) at 5per cent level of significance, the level of awareness towards make of plane is significantly different for each education level in comparison to other education levels. Doctorates are most aware about make of plane followed by professionals, post graduates, graduates. Flyers having education till school level are least aware about make of plane.
6.3 Awareness Score Differentiation About Make of Plane Among Different Occupations of Flyers
The awareness level of flyers towards make of the plane among different occupations of flyers has been analyzed. Null Hypothesis (H0) - There is no significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different occupations of flyers. Alternate Hypothesis (H1) - There is significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different occupations of flyers.
TABLE 9
AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *OCCUPATION STATUS
Description N Mean Std.
Deviation
Student 16 2.06 0.76
Homemaker (Family
Management) 110 2.85 0.69
Service 242 3.17 0.65
Business / Self-employed 91 3.32 0.75
Retired 31 2.80 0.53
Total 490 3.07 0.72
TABLE 10
ANOVA-AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *OCCUPATION
STATUS
Description Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig. Between
Groups 32.016 4 8.004 17.625 .000 Within
Groups 220.253 485 .454
Total 252.268 489
3713
Accordingly post hoc Tukey HSD has been conducted to determine the difference in awareness score among respective occupations.
TABLE 11
TUKEY HSD-AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE * OCCUPATION STATUS
Dependent Variable: Awareness Score –Make of Plane
Occupation Status Mean
Difference Sig.
Student
Homemaker (Family
Management) -0.79 .000
Service -1.11 .000
Business /
Self-employed -1.26 .000
Retired -0.74 .004
Homemaker (Family Management)
Student 0.79 .000
Service -0.32 .000
Business /
Self-employed -0.47 .000
Retired 0.05 .995
Service
Student 1.11 .000
Homemaker (Family
Management) 0.32 .000
Business /
Self-employed -0.15 .388
Retired 0.37 .031
Business / Self-employed
Student 1.26 .000
Homemaker (Family
Management) 0.47 .000
Service 0.15 .388
Retired 0.52 .002
Retired
Student 0.74 .004
Homemaker (Family
Management) -0.05 .995
Service -0.37 .031
Business /
Self-employed -0.52 .002
As determined by Tukey HSD (table 11) at 5 per cent level of significance, the level of awareness towards make of plane is significantly different for most of the occupations in comparison to other occupations of flyers. There is no significant difference in awareness towards make of plane among flyers belonging to service, business/self employed categories. Although, flyers belonging to service, business/self employed categories are most aware towards make of plane
followed jointly by homemaker (family management) and retired category of flyers. Students are least aware about make of plane.
6.4 Awareness Score Differentiation About Make of Plane Among Different Annual Family Income Groups of Flyers
The awareness level of flyers towards make of the plane among different annual family income groups of flyers has been analyzed. Null Hypothesis (H0) - There is no significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different annual family income groups of flyers. Alternate Hypothesis (H1) - There is significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different annual family income groups of flyers.
TABLE 12
AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
Description N Mean Deviation Std.
Less than Rs 10 lacs 174 2.84 0.67 Rs 10 lacs and above but less than
Rs 20 lacs 161 3.16 0.68
Rs 20 lacs and above but less than
Rs 30 lacs 119 3.20 0.72
Rs 30 lacs and above 36 3.32 0.84
Total 490 3.07 0.72
TABLE 13
ANOVA-AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *ANNUAL FAMILY
INCOME
Description Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig. Between
Groups 14.283 3 4.761 9.723 .000 Within
Groups 237.986 486 .490 Total 252.268 489
As determined by ANOVA (table 13) at 5 per cent level of significance F (3,486) = 9.723, p = .000. Hence null hypothesis is rejected i.e. there is significant difference in awareness score about make of plane among different annual family income groups of flyers. Accordingly post hoc Tukey HSD has been conducted to determine the difference in awareness score among respective annual family income groups.
TABLE 14
TUKEY HSD-AWARENESS SCORE –MAKE OF PLANE *ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
Dependent Variable: Awareness Score –Make of Plane
Family Income per Annum Mean
3714 Less than Rs
10 lacs
Rs 10 lacs and above
but less than Rs 20 lacs -0.32 .000 Rs 20 lacs and above
but less than Rs 30 lacs -0.35 .000 Rs 30 lacs and above -0.47 .001
Rs 10 lacs and above but less than
Rs 20 lacs
Less than Rs 10 lacs 0.32 .000 Rs 20 lacs and above
but less than Rs 30 lacs -0.04 .970 Rs 30 lacs and above -0.16 .619
Rs 20 lacs and above but less than
Rs 30 lacs
Less than Rs 10 lacs 0.35 .000 Rs 10 lacs and above
but less than Rs 20 lacs 0.04 .970
Rs 30 lacs and above -0.12 .811
Rs 30 lacs and above
Less than Rs 10 lacs 0.47 .001 Rs 10 lacs and above
but less than Rs 20 lacs 0.16 .619 Rs 20 lacs and above
but less than Rs 30 lacs 0.12 .811
As determined by Tukey HSD (table 14) at 5 per cent level of significance, the level of awareness towards make of plane is significantly different for few of the annual family income groups in comparison to other groups. Flyers having annual family income less than 10 lacs have least awareness towards make of plane in comparison to other annual family income groups. There is no significant difference in awareness score of flyers having income in the range of Rs 10 lacs and above but less than Rs 20 lacs, Rs 20 lacs and above but less than Rs 30 lacs and Rs 30 lacs and abovetowards make of plane.
7 CONCLUSION
The study shows that flyers are aware about the make of plane of their flight. In such scenario if Boeing re introduces its MAX 737, subject to legal clearances, majority of Indian flyers i.e. 86 percent would not like to fly by this model of Boeing plane. There is a severe dent on the financial performance of Boeing company and airlines throughout the world including India are suffering too. It is a manifestation that Boeing‘s troubles may not be evaporated even after the clearance from various regulators that are investigating the crashes of two MAX 737 killing 346 passengers on board. Since flyers are aware about the make of planes of their flights these days, therefore, Boeing and airlines, in case they start operations of MAX 737, they have to take flyers in confidence and assure them about the safety of MAX 737 planes first. The message for Boeing from this study is very clear that the legal clearances for re introducing MAX 737 are not enough but the company needs to fight another battle and that is to engage flyers also for the successful re launching of MAX 737. There is significant gap of communication between Boeing and airlines (immediate customers of Boeing) whose Boeig MAX 737 planes have been grounded worldwide after the crash of two planes. The airlines are losing revenue for their grounded Boeing 737 planes since March 2019. No one knows about future strategies to resolve the issue which is eating the revenue of Boeing as well as airlines every day throughout the world. Also there is no communication between Boeing and its
ultimate customers (flyers) and public at large. Boeing has not taken visible initiative to instil confidence among flyers to fly by MAX 737 as and when cleared by regulators and investigation agencies. Had such incidents (two crashes killing 346 passengers) happened in any government organization, its officials involved in decision making would have been replaced immediately till the conclusion of enquiry. There was possibility about the demand of resignation of minister heading such department. But in case of Boeing there is no change in management at the level of CEO and other decision making positions. It is corporate sector of 21st century.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
At this stage Boeing is required to take immediate initiatives for its prolonged existence. Chief executive officer (CEO) and decision makers in senior positions should be accountable for the poor performance of Boeing company. In order to bring the transparency in the internal investigations of the company, about its functioning; the team of top decision makers should not be allowed to continue to be part of decision making process till the completion of the release of company‘s own investigations. The company should appoint two independent directors- director ethics and director safety, who should report to the board and not to CEO. Since CEOs and marketing people are possibly prone to compromise on the aspects of safety and ethics in order to achieve targets and for generating more revenue. Achieving targets and increase in revenue means- deposit of huge amount of dollars in their (CEOs and senior executives) personal accounts in the form of variable pay, bonuses, equity etc. In such cases the temptation of acquiring huge money, makes some executives blind about ethics and the safety and of customers in particular. The company should use MAX 737 planes for its own use for at least one year and then bring them in the market. Such steps should be communicated to the airlines (immediate customers) whose MAX 737 aircrafts have been grounded after two crashes. Public at large and flyers (the customers of airlines using MAX 737) should also be kept informed about the changes being brought in the company and the steps taken for the safety of passengers, in MAX 737 aircrafts to fly again. Further, to improve its corporate image and instil the confidence among flyers and airlines about the safety of MAX 737, the company should conduct liberal visits of flyers, pilots, media people and experts in aviation industry to the works of the company enabling them to see the changes brought by the company to ensure the safety of passengers in the planes. It also gives message to premium management institutes that there is a need to incorporate the contemporary issues regarding the sensitivity towards the safety of customers instead of thinking of rvenue and profits only while developing future business leaders (Sarin A. , Lehman: Premier Branded Talent Syndrome, 2009).
REFERENCES
[1] BBC. (2019, July 5). Boeing 737 Max: 'I lost my family in the Ethiopian plane crash'. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48872395
[2] BBC. (2019, September 28). Boeing 737 NG: US regulator orders inspections into cracks. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49864964
3715
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797
[4] BBC. (2019, July 25). Boeing warns it may stop 737 Max production. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49108807
[5] Bloomberg. (2018, October 29). Boeing Plane Goes Down With 189 People in 737 Max's First Crash. Retrieved from Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10- 29/indonesia-says-lion-air-jet-lost-contact-on-way-to-pangkalpinang
[6] Cameron, D., & Sider, A. (2019, July 22). Boeing‘s 737 MAX Grounding Spills Over Into Economy, Weighs on GDP. Retrieved from The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-737-max-grounding-
spills-over-into-economy-weighs-on-gdp-11563815426?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=11&mod =article_inline
[7] Gelles, D. (2019, October 28). Boeing 737 Max: What‘s Happened After the 2 Deadly Crashes. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/business/boeing -737-crashes.html
[8] Johnson, E. M., & Ajmera, A. (2019, July 24). Boeing posts biggest loss on 737 MAX, may have to halt production of jet. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-results/boeing- posts-biggest-loss-on-737-max-may-have-to-halt-production-of-jet-idUSKCN1UJ1G9
[9] M&E Studies. (n.d.). Reliability Analysis in SPSS. Retrieved from M&E Studies: http://www.mnestudies.com/research/reliability-analysis-spss
[10]Sarin, A. (2009, March). Corporate Strategic Motivation: Evolution Continues- Henry. A. Murray‘s Manifest Needs to Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs to Anil Sarin‘s Contributory Theory of Existence. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 14(2), 237-244.
[11]Sarin, A. (2009, January - February). Lehman: Premier Branded Talent Syndrome. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 2(1), 29-32.
[12]Sarin, A. (2019, September). Boeing Technological Issues and Challenges: Nosedive Strategy. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(11), 481-485. Retrieved from https://www.ijitee.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v8i11/K14110981119.pdf
[13]Sarin, A., & Gupta, R. (2017). Solar Residential Rooftop Systems (SRRSs) in India: PEST and Environment Analysis. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(4), 71-84.
[14]Sarin, A., Gupta, R., & Jituri, V. V. (2018, June). Solar Residential Rooftop Systems (SRRS) in South Delhi: A Strategic Study with Focus on Potential Consumers' Awareness. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research Delhi: A Strategic Study with Focus on Potential Consumers' Awareness, 8(2), 954-963.
[15]Sarin, A., Gupta, R., & Jituri, V. V. (2019, May). Solar Residential Rooftop Systems Business Models: SWOT Analysis. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 39(5), 479-488.
[16]Sprague, K. (2019, January 26). Why the Airbus-Boeing duopoly dominate 99% of the large plane market. Retrieved from CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/why-the-airbus-boeing- companies-dominate-99percent-of-the-large-plane-market.html
[17]The Guardian. (2018, November 23). Lion Air crash: pilot fought to keep plane in air, says report. Retrieved from
The Guardian:
