The case of Alaska Airlines serves as a clear example of a company in dire need of change. The company’s previous history shaped its culture which eventually put it in a critical state. The executive managers held false perceptions about the status of their company and were unaware of the need for change until a dramatic event forced the company to reconsider its structure. A special task force was established to analyze the present condition of the company and implement the changes that would improve it. The subsequent events led to a slow but continuous improvement over the following years. This paper will provide answers to various questions about the change process that saved Alaska Airlines from a crisis. Despite the established positive reputation of the company, and its relatively stable condition for the last few decades, its quality of service has gone down, and the number of passengers decreased dramatically. The most dramatic argument for change that the company experienced was a case of mishandled bags that led to an increase in complaints against the company and can be considered the beginning of the company’s problems. The mishandling was so severe that some passengers chose to involve the police to resolve the issue. Subsequently, the company started experiencing a slow but steady decline that required intervention to resolve it. Melting Iceberg or Burning Platform This situation can be described as a “melting iceberg” because the crisis would lead to a slow decline of the company until it would become unrecoverable. The main difference of a melting iceberg situation from the burning platform one is like the issue. A burning platform case would put Alaska Airlines in a situation where the management would have to choose between doing severe changes such as massive downsizing or closing the company. The situation presented in the case study is less urgent and was resolved without major losses for the company. Executive leadership was under the impression that Alaska Airlines had an endless pool of customer loyalty. The company began in 1932 and quickly became the largest airline in the region. Over the decades it was bought by larger corporations and in the 1970s experienced some difficulties. However, it was saved by its new leadership and quickly became profitable due to new legislation and the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline. The company continued to grow and was considered the dominant airline business in Alaska. This success created a false sense of security in the company’s management. Instead of working on creating new customers or ensuring loyalty among the ones that the company had, the management started to take them for granted. This eventually led to the constant mislabeling of baggage and negative attitudes among the company’s customers. The management of the company also believed that it is futile to try to raise the bar of company service because of the resources that would be required to do so. The present condition of the company was not improving, but it was not critical yet. This situation created a desire to reduce further spending on innovations and improvements to the company structure. In a sense, mediocrity was seen as the only available option because more risky strategies would