If 2026 has shown us anything, it’s that aviation and transport businesses are masters of disruption management. Airlines continue to grapple with aircraft delivery delays, scarce MRO slots, short-notice airspace restrictions and rising costs, while airports, OEMs and transport operators are routinely seeking workarounds for infrastructure constraints, supply chains problems and manpower shortages.
Thanks to this, many businesses – successful ones, anyway – have become even more skilled at managing operational challenges. However, there’s a growing risk of them being slow to address the accompanying communications challenge.
The communications gap
This is because many firms still communicate the way they did 10 or 20 years ago: operations teams take a decision and then communications teams are briefed to explain what has already happened.
In today’s high-scrutiny, low-tolerance world, that approach creates substantial risks. A business can take an entirely justified operational decision and yet still take a lashing from customers, employees, investors, regulators and politicians.
That’s because stakeholders no longer judge organisations just on the decisions they take, but also on how those decisions are communicated. They expect timely explanations, openness about difficult trade-offs and evidence that the impact on those affected has been properly considered.
Bringing reputation into the decision-making process
This is why communications should no longer begin after the fact. It needs to form part of the decision-making process itself. Senior management needs to ensure that communications leaders are around the table so that stakeholder expectations and reputational risks are considered while different options remain under discussion.
Take an airline’s decision to cut service frequencies or routes because aircraft are unavailable. Operations will rightly focus on safety, fleet utilisation and network resilience. Commercial teams will consider customer demand and revenue implications. Finance will examine the costs. All totally valid.
However, communications will be asking equally valid and valuable questions. For example, which customers will be most affected? Which corporate clients deserve advance notice? What concerns could be raised by local MPs or councils? Will employees hear the news internally before reading it online? Are frontline colleagues equipped to answer customers’ questions consistently? And what misunderstandings might arise if the decision is announced without enough context?
Yes, these are communications questions, but they are also about business risk.
Stakeholders only see the big picture
The same principle applies in the transport sector. Whether introducing new pricing structures, responding to route disruption, managing industrial relations or seeking to reduce carbon emissions, organisations are increasingly judged not simply on the decisions they make, but on the transparency and consistency with which those decisions are explained.
One reason for this is that stakeholders rarely see an industry in the same way as those within it. Passengers don’t distinguish between an airline, an airport, an engine manufacturer or an air navigation service provider. They experience a single journey. If that journey is disrupted, passengers expect clear information regardless of where responsibility ultimately lies.
The changing role of communications leaders
This environment is therefore reshaping the role of today’s communications leaders. The strongest are no longer simply media specialists. They bring an understanding of stakeholder expectations, monitor emerging issues, identify sources of reputational risks and help executives think through how important decisions are likely to land. They often identify factors that operational or commercial colleagues wouldn’t naturally consider.
Today, CEOs and senior leaders effectively operate in a ‘fishbowl’, with every significant move scrutinised and critics quick to air their views publicly. Reputation therefore needs to be treated like any other enterprise risk, demanding communications leaders who are confident advisers. Organisations routinely assess financial, operational and cyber risks before making significant decisions. Reputational risk needs to receive the same disciplined consideration, because once trust has been damaged it can be harder and more expensive to repair than an operational setback.
None of this is to diminish the importance of operational excellence. Good communications cannot compensate for poor operational decisions. However, the reverse is equally true.
Solid operational decisions can still result in reputational damage if organisations fail to explain them with openness, empathy and an understanding of stakeholder concerns. Witness Heathrow Airport’s 2025 decision to close over an electricity substation fire, still grist to the mill of the airport’s critics.
Adapting to a more demanding era
Even if peace broke out tomorrow in Ukraine and the Strait of Hormuz, aviation and transport are unlikely to become less complex in the future. Neither are audiences likely to become more trusting. The organisations that will fare best are not necessarily those facing the fewest operational challenges, but those adapting their decision making to how stakeholder approval must be managed in the modern era.
To discuss reputation management and resilience, contact the 8020 Communications team.
