The sudden unplanned closure of Heathrow, Europe’s largest and busiest airport, following a fire at an electrical substation threw the aviation world into crisis on Friday. With some 300,000 passengers affected, the knock-on effects are likely still being felt by customers, businesses and supply chains globally in the days afterwards.

Aviation experts suggest the last time European airports experienced disruption on such a large scale was the 2010 Icelandic volcanic ash cloud that brought European and Atlantic air travel to a halt.

Yet, what stands out in this situation is that the electrical substation that caused the fire is not owned or controlled by Heathrow and is not even on the airport’s land. So, whilst this was not a crisis of Heathrow’s making, on the face of it, it was very much Heathrow’s crisis.

Airports and airlines are probably the most drilled and prepared organisations of the lot, when it comes to crisis response—they have to be by law—yet it appears that even this incident caught them, and all their stakeholders, by surprise.

None more so than British Airways, arguably Heathrow’s largest stakeholder, with an entire terminal dedicated to the airline and over 800 flights in and out of the airport daily. The airline released several statements over the weekend keeping customers updated with the latest information about cancelled or delayed flights. However, the reputational damage to the airline, airport and the UK, had already been done.

Criticism of the failure to prepare for such an event has been widespread, with Labour peer Toby Harris—who leads the National Preparedness Commission, which campaigns to improve resilience—saying: “It’s a huge embarrassment for the country that a fire in one electricity substation can have such a devastating effect.”

Willie Walsh, the former British Airways CEO who now leads the global airline body IATA, asserted, “It’s a clear planning failure by the airport”.

What is clear from this particular episode is that failing to prepare for a crisis, even if it is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb would call a “Black Swan”, will have severe consequences and is a powerful reminder for organisations to re-evaluate how they plan, coordinate and communicate with complex interconnected systems.

A crisis that is mismanaged or met with a delayed response can lead to financial losses, regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, and erosion of stakeholder trust. By contrast, companies that invest, both financially and culturally, in crisis preparedness are better equipped to manage uncertainty, mitigate risks, and recover faster.

A strong crisis preparedness strategy involves scenario planning, clear communication protocols, and a well-trained response team. Businesses must proactively identify vulnerabilities and stress-test their crisis plans, to ensure that leaders and employees know their roles and responsibilities when crisis strikes. This means simulating and stress testing the organisation’s ability to respond under pressure to a range of scenarios. This preparation not only minimises business disruption but also instils confidence among employees, customers, investors, and regulators.

Another key benefit of crisis preparedness is reputational resilience. In a world where news spreads rapidly, and where misinformation can manifest, businesses must act swiftly and transparently when issues arise. Those that respond with clarity, accountability, and decisive action can protect and even strengthen their brand reputation.

Ultimately, crisis preparedness is not just about risk management—it also provides a competitive advantage. Organisations that are seen as resilient, responsible, and responsive are more likely to earn long-term stakeholder trust and recover from setbacks with their reputation intact.

In an ever more unpredictable business and political landscape, being prepared is no longer optional; it is a necessity.