Two apologies are evolving in this week’s news cycle: from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, regarding his comparison of Syria’s use of chemical weapons to Hitler’s, and from United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz regarding the passenger who was forcibly removed from a plane this week. Each man has offered successive apologies, after his original apology was rejected. It goes to show how difficult it is to make a good apology, especially a public one.

In each case, I think the problem with the original apology was that the speaker was still trying to save face just a little: Spicer was still trying to emphasize the unique horror of a leader dropping bombs of lethal gas on his own people, and the United CEO wanted to imply that the passenger was at least partly at fault for what happened. Each had a point; but an effective apology needs to take full responsibility. The further explanation can come later.

Each man’s apology would’ve been better had it started with a gasp. If Spicer had reacted with shock when the reporter pointed out what he had just communicated, and said something like, “Oh my, I really blew it, that’s not at all what I meant to say,” he might have been forgiven. Might. If the United CEO had started off with a huge statement of regret about the whole incident — “What happened was horrible and I will make sure it never happens again” –, he might have had a chance to minimize the damage. Might. The statement Munoz issued today comes closer to a good apology, but it’s his third try.

It’s tough to make a good apology.