The crisis this week involves Allegiant Travel Co.and how it’s handling a federal investigation related to the emergency landing of one of its planes on July 23. In that incident, a plane being flown by two company executives carrying150 passengers landed in Fargo, N.D., after telling air traffic controllers the plane was low on fuel. The plane was scheduled to land at Fargo airport, but the flight arrived during a time the airport was closed because it was being used by the Navy’s Blue Angels aerobatic jets.

The incident is being investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration. Allegiant said its dispatchers released the flight to Fargo because the FAA notice made it seem like the airport would remain open for passenger airlines—and said other airlines made the same mistake. The company said in a statement the plane’s captain “exercised sound judgment” in choosing to land at Fargo instead of landing at the airport in Grand Forks. Allegiant, which is negotiating a contract with its pilots union, said assertions by the union the company is cutting corners on safety to save money are “completely unfounded.”

Using solely the company’s statement and the comments of its chief operating officer, Steve Harfst, the crisis experts were asked to evaluate how well the company did in responding to the incident, how it did in refuting claims of its critics, and what it should do next.

Andrew Hennigan, communications consultant: “Allegiant’s two-page ‘Statement Regarding Flight 426’ is well crafted, focusing on a crisp, bullet-pointed list of the events of July 23, 2015, from their perspective, with very little padding. There is the usual formulaic ‘safety of passengers and employees is our number one priority’ that both media and public dislike, but it is refreshingly brief. The problem is not with what the statement says but what it omits yet can be readily found from other sources.

“First of all, they avoid mentioning the widely reported fact that the crew on this particular flight were Greg Baden, vice president of flight operations and Michael Wuerger, Allegiant’s director of flight safety, raising obvious questions about who is overseeing safety in these cases. More serious is the apparent contradiction between the company statement and the recorded [air-traffic control] dialog, which is available to the media and public. In particular the Allegiant statement’s assertion that there were 42 minutes’ reserve fuel available after landing appears to contradict the pilot’s radio call to Fargo tower.

“Combined with earlier incidents the issue continues to undermine Allegiant’s reputation. Moving forward, if Allegiant is to allay concerns from travelers and restore its reputation they will need to be more transparent, recognize the unanswered questions and provide some answers that address the more serious concerns of the traveling public. At the very least it should address the concerns about the radio conversation between the crew and Fargo tower.”

Jonathan Bernstein, consultant and crisis manager: “When an airline has had a reported 65 maintenance-related incidents in [the September to March period], it has to do more than issue a generic statement–even if it was a pretty good generic statement.

“Airline incidents involving delays, luggage mishaps or poor customer service merely create annoyance. Safety-related incidents such as running low on fuel coming into Fargo, or others as alleged by the pilots’ union, create fear.

“Prospective customer fear is not adequately addressed by statements such as ‘The safety of passengers and employees is Allegiant’s number one priority.’ It’s too corporate-speak. And Mr. Harfst’s comment to The Wall Street Journal, ‘If we can’t run a safe airline, we shouldn’t be in the business,’ actually tied the idea that Allegiant shouldn’t be in business to a story questioning Allegiant’s actual commitment to safety.

“What Harfst and Allegiant should have done is put a lot more emphasis on very targeted reassuring messages to passengers and the travel industry, backing that up with detailed facts about its safety practices.”

Scott Farrell, president, global corporate communications, Golin: “On the surface, Allegiant appears to have handled this situation well. The company’s statement was detailed and fact-packed. Though laden with too much aviation jargon, the statement delivered what appeared to be a reasonable explanation for the pilot’s decision.

“The big miss here is a statement and strategy that appears solely focused on defending the actions of the pilot and the company. Allegiant either chose not to align with the Federal Aviation Administration on the statement, or they chose to share inaccurate information. The statement, issued a full seven days after the event, declared that the FAA found the pilot operated the flight ‘in a safe manner and within the bounds of all regulations.’ However, the FAA reported the same day that it was still investigating the event and that it had not made any determinations. My experience is that speaking for a government agency or pre-empting an agency’s findings can have serious repercussions down the road.

“Also, there is nothing in the statement or in any published comments by the company about how decisions were made with the safety of passengers in mind. Instead, Allegiant’s chief operating officer credits the pilot for ‘good fuel management judgment,’ and the company’s official statement said the pilot’s decision to land immediately at Fargo enabled him ‘to avoid utilizing reserve fuel.’ For a company whose pilots publicly allege that the airline cuts corners at the expense of safety, this was a missed opportunity to give passengers a valuable ‘safety first’ message.

“In addition to remembering that there is no substitute for truth and indisputable facts when communicating at any stage of a crisis, Allegiant should remember that it’s important to balance the company’s narrative with what customers need to hear in order to keep their trust and confidence in the airline intact.”