All this recent bad press JetBlue has gotten recently doesn't make that much sense to me. Yes they really dropped the ball on this one but is all the negativity their fault? For instance after that massive blizzard in DEN where people ripping UA and F9 from limb to limb? Sure. But did they then make the cover of Business Week? Nope. Did they make the Jay Leno, and other late night shows? Probably not as much as B6 has taken. So what I ask is why is Jet Blue taking such a PR hit? It seems to me that people are trying to make a scapegoat out of jetblue on this.

It is most likely due to B6's reputation as having good customer service. They emphasized their service above all else. For instance, when flying, they refer to the flight as the "Jet Blue Experience". In an age of $50 fares, it seems like no carrier can deliver all the time. We'll see how B6 deals with this situation.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 1):

Yep, I agree. JetBlue has always been the darling of the airline world since it debuted, and it finally f***ed up. I guess it's kind of like when you see someone perfect screw up, you enjoy it a little more than the average person screwing up because they were "perfect"...

B6 however was the only airline to actually "trap" more then one aircraft with passengers.

AA only did it once in AUS I believe, UA and F9 did not trap any passengers for such an extended amount of time like B6 did. I think thats why the sudden rap on B6.

Alex

JetBlue is the "media darling" right now. Anything they do, good or bad, is news.

Now, in reality, UA and F9 didn't have their passengers stuck on the planes - B6 did.

What made the problem so bad, as I see it, is that airlines have no contingency plans when things go wrong, such as massive storms leaving thousands stranded. It's not that I would expect any airline to operate planes in unsafe conditions - but after stranding thousands it has become obvious that no one has ANY contingency plans whatsoever when things go wrong. THAT is the real crime to me.

I think it was a multitude of things that lead to all the press:

1) We are suppose to be well known for our customer service
2) We are suppose to be a step above the other carriers
3) People where held on aircraft for up to 11 hours
4) Operations where snarrled for the better part of a week
5) Slow news week, Nothing new to report on Anna Nicole. I still find it amazing how quickly the television and print media can change subjects. Now with the judge's ruling the media is going "what jetBlue meltdown."
6) NYC is the capital of all news organizations, they all have cameras and new personal ready to report.

Unfortunatly it was a major major major blunder by the company to continue operations and leave customers stranded. That, I believe, is why the new media picked up on it, can you blame them though? This just wasn't AA with 1 isolated aircraft in a non-hub city here. This was a major carrier, at it's primary hub, with several aircraft, and nearly 5,000 customers affected. This was/is a MAJOR deal!

It seems pretty clear that jetBlue made some mistakes (although I can't authoritatively say what they were since I don't work for them and wasn't there), but I do agree with you that they are taking more than their share of "blame" in things.

I think alot of that comes from unrealistic expectations of the traveling public and the press. The public/press don't see nor understand the behind-the-scenes workings of an airline, yet that side has some limitations. Not seeing/understanding these limitations, the public/media tend to assume that the airlines have no limitations of any kind, since they didn't see any when they watched "Die Hard II" or some other fictional aviation movie/news report that they're using as a frame of reference.

For example, take one of the aspects of the jetBlue scenario at JFK, an aircraft stuck on the ramp awaiting an open gate. People assume that the crew that brings an aircraft into a gate is always the ones that push it off the gate, so surely it'd have been a "simple" matter for a crew to push an aircraft off a gate once empty and free up the gate for another waiting aircraft. That's not necessarily the case--crews often make connections between different aircraft as well. They do not usually stay with the same aircraft all day, like they were part of the aircraft itself. So, it's entirely likely that when a crew brings in an aircraft, they too are deplaning and going to a different aircraft. The crew that's scheduled to take the aircraft out might be in the airport, stuck in traffic getting to the airport, or even on one of the aircraft stuck out on one of the taxiways awaiting an open gate. Meanwhile, a crew's "duty time" (different than flight time) may well be steadily ticking away such that they eventually are illegal to continue their series of flights. If you delay the crew (that brought an aircraft into the gate), you're also then delaying their getting to their normal outbound flight, and there's probably another aircraft awaiting that gate too.

Multiply the above variables by multiple aircraft gates, and you see how quickly it can become a real mess, and make seemingly "simple" solutions alot more problematic.

DFW had a cold front come through yesterday with winds and blowing dust that pretty much shut the the airport down for several hours due to crosswinds that exceeded the limits of most aircraft. (Yes, aircraft have operating limits, another thing the public/press can't seem to fathom). Some of the people that the TV news interviewed seemed to think that it was all a big conspiracy by the airlines to inconvenience them. This, like the blizzard, seems to ignore the fact that airlines like and prefer the weather to be good so such problems can be avoided, but you're not likely to convince a skeptical public of that, especially when the "experts" from Nitwitness News are out there doing live remotes that say otherwise.

Bottomline is that air travel has become so routine and so "normal" that people have become increasingly intolerant of any deviation from that norm. These same people seem to readily understand why their normal :30 minute crosstown car trip in dry weather will take longer when it's raining, or longer still when there's snow and ice out, but the concept of weather similarly slowing down airline ops seems to be beyond comprehension for them.

[Edited 2007-02-25 18:33:24]

I was flamed in an earlier thread for saying this, but I believe that JetBlue will learn from this and implement the corrective actions to prevent, or at least ease the impact of, future weather-caused operational calamities such as they suffered during Valentine's Day week.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): Bottomline is that air travel has become so routine and so "normal" that people have become increasingly intolerant of any deviation from that norm. These same people seem to readily understand why their normal :30 minute crosstown car trip in dry weather will take longer when it's raining, or longer still when there's snow and ice out, but the concept of weather similarly slowing down airline ops seems to beyond comprehension to them.

Throw in high mins captains, MELs, fogged in takeoff alternates (yes, I've had none that were legal before,) flow, thunderstorms, icing, TSA butting their head into things, etc., and you've got it nailed.  

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 8): Throw in high mins captains, MELs, fogged in takeoff alternates (yes, I've had none that were legal before,) flow, thunderstorms, icing, TSA butting their head into things, etc., and you've got it nailed.

Yeah, I could have added those (and a few other) variables, but I didn't want to make anyone's brain explode...  

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): Bottomline is that air travel has become so routine and so "normal" that people have become increasingly intolerant of any deviation from that norm. These same people seem to readily understand why their normal :30 minute crosstown car trip in dry weather will take longer when it's raining, or longer still when there's snow and ice out, but the concept of weather similarly slowing down airline ops seems to be beyond comprehension for them.

Well said OPNLguy,

I remember during the blizzards in DEN, that they had interviewed some passenger who was unable to depart that this was poor mismanagement by the airline - don't remember if it was UA, WN or F9. But I was just thinking to myself what an @$$hole he was, since he apparently didn't realize the nearly 2 feet of snow DEN was being hit with. Apparently, acts of God now fall under "airline mismanagement".

    

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): I think alot of that comes from unrealistic expectations of the traveling public and the press.

But who created those expectations?

If you have a pretentious slogan such as JetBlue: "Bringing humanity back to air travel" you'd better make sure you are doing that.

mariner

Quoting Cadet57 (Thread starter): For instance after that massive blizzard in DEN where people ripping UA and F9 from limb to limb? Sure. But did they then make the cover of Business Week?

You are seeing how New York-focused US news reporting is. If an event didn't happen in New York, it didn't happen. And if the event DID happen in New York, it is by that very fact much better (or much worse) than anything anywhere else.

Sports fans have known this since newspapers started covering baseball.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 12): You are seeing how New York-focused US news reporting is. If an event didn't happen in New York, it didn't happen. And if the event DID happen in New York, it is by that very fact much better (or much worse) than anything anywhere else.

Anna Nicole Smith didn't die anywhere near New York, and yet, her death pre-empted the local news in MANY stations across the country.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 10): Apparently, acts of God now fall under "airline mismanagement".

No, but mismanagement can still occur during events that are "acts of god".

Every airline that flys into the Northeast U.S. got affected, but you didn't hear anything about Delta's or AA's mass cancellations in the NY area because they were prepared and pre-cancelled many of their flights long before the conditions at JFK forced them to.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): For example, take one of the aspects of the jetBlue scenario at JFK, an aircraft stuck on the ramp awaiting an open gate. People assume that the crew that brings an aircraft into a gate is always the ones that push it off the gate, so surely it'd have been a "simple" matter for a crew to push an aircraft off a gate once empty and free up the gate for another waiting aircraft. That's not necessarily the case--crews often make connections between different aircraft as well

You see, this is an over complicated response to a simple problem. You have a plane at the gate and a plane stuck waiting for a gate. You have three options. 1) Get a mechanic to brakeride and get the damn plane off the gate. 2) send a set of stairs and a couple buses to what is gradualy escalating into a serious situation and get these poor people off!(BTW, the plane that was stuck for 9 hours was only several hundred feet from the terminal). Or, 3) let them wait.

What I don't understand is the why in the world did the pilots not declare an emergency? Why did they just sit there? They are responsible for the lives of those onboard and to sit there without forcing the issue and saying they need these people off the plane, after 4-5-6-7-8 or 9 hours is absurd and completely within their discretion. You declare in emergency and say, I am either getting a gate or these people are going to be evacuated, get me a damn bus. B6 operations would have surely reacted then.

B6 is getting the same heat that NW got a few years ago after their large scale mess in DTW. According to a nW manager I spoke to recently, NW now has a policy that no plane waits for more than 3 hours. At that time, if they are still stuck, they will get the people off one way or another.

I do have to say, that in recovery efforts, B6 is going all out and are doing a pretty good job apologizing and promising change. There is a storm on its way to the NY area later today. Lets see how they handle it.

cheers

Quoting WJ (Reply 14): You see, this is an over complicated response to a simple problem. You have a plane at the gate and a plane stuck waiting for a gate. You have three options.

You must not be in the airline biz, or the operational end of the airline biz, as if you were, you'd readily know that things are not always as "simple" as they seem...

Quoting WJ (Reply 14): 1) Get a mechanic to brakeride and get the damn plane off the gate.

OK, were there enough around, or were they all doing their normal job duties? Did the airline have the ability to take the little hammer and smash the big box with the glass door that said "In case you need more mechanics, break glass?"

Quoting WJ (Reply 14): 2) send a set of stairs and a couple buses to what is gradualy escalating into a serious situation and get these poor people off!(BTW, the plane that was stuck for 9 hours was only several hundred feet from the terminal).

Using external stairs (metal) during a rain or especially a snow event is an invitation for a passenger(s) to slip and go ass-over-tea kettle down the stairs and impact the concrete pavement at the bottom, which = lawsuits which = big bucks.

Quoting WJ (Reply 14): Or, 3) let them wait.

Unfortunately, the lesser of all the evils, but the safetest one for the passengers.

Quoting WJ (Reply 14): You declare in emergency and say, I am either getting a gate or these people are going to be evacuated,

An empty threat. There is no imminent life-or-death threat to passengers involved, only inconvenience. Commanding a passenger evacuation down the slides out into the snowy night only creates more passenger danger. In addition to the usual passenger injuries to be expected (ankle injuries, etc.), you now have dozens of passengers down on the ramp area, risking hypothermia without their coats and shoes (had to remove them for the slides, remember?), and passengers scattering on the ramp and subjecting themselves to slipping on glycol-contaminated surfaces, being run over by ramp equipment, or being ingested into running engines of other aircraft.. Any captain who commanded such an evacuation in these conditions would have to be out of his mind.

Yep, it's all so simple....  

[Edited 2007-02-25 19:32:22]

Quoting WJ (Reply 14): I do have to say, that in recovery efforts, B6 is going all out and are doing a pretty good job apologizing and promising change.

Well said.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15): An empty threat. There is no imminent life-or-death threat to passengers involved, only inconvenience. Commanding a passenger evacuation down the slides out into the snowy night only creates more passenger danger. In addition to the usual passenger injuries to be expected (ankle injuries, etc.), you now have dozens of passengers down on the ramp area, risking hypothermia without their coats and shoes (had to remove them for the slides, remember?), and passengers scattering on the ramp and subjecting themselves to slipping on glycol-contaminated surfaces, being run over by ramp equipment, or being ingested into running engines of other aircraft.. Any captain who commanded such an evacuation in these conditions would have to be out of his mind

Are you kidding me? Airlines such as SAS, Finnair, Aeroflot, Alaska, etc. seem to operate from remote and major airfields in winter using stairs-only and rarely is there any sort of problem. Five minutes outside in 35 degree weather is not giving anyone hypothermia, and if it does, they would likely be about to die of something else very soon anyway. Jetblue messed-up at all levels. During this whole debacle, flights in and out of NYC were totally snarled, whereas flights to upstate new york, which got oh, 120 inches of snow, returned to normal very quickly...Get a grip folks, IT SNOWS IN WINTER!

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 13): Anna Nicole Smith didn't die anywhere near New York, and yet, her death pre-empted the local news in MANY stations across the country.

Sex, really nasty politics, and war are exceptions.  

The New York focus is inevitable so long as the most important US news people (editors, more than just reporters) live there. The local stuff seems more important to THEM. Like all of us, they're somewhat lazy; and it's easier to cover local stuff (JFK as opposed to DEN, for example); so they do - overcover things in NY with an emphasis they don't always deserve.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 18): so they do - overcover things in NY with an emphasis they don't always deserve.

..and February being a "sweeps" ratings period didn't help either....

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15): You must not be in the airline biz, or the operational end of the airline biz, as if you were, you'd readily know that things are not always as "simple" as they seem...

Well, yes I am and have dealt with far worst conditions than 4 inches of ice and snow. It's not that anything is "simple" in ice and snow but it's a much quicker and easier response than to go through the motions of departing a flight. Remember that so many airports were affected and ultimatly closed, you are not going to board aircraft only to push them out and have them sit, knowing they would be stuck. YOU GET THE PLANE OFF THE GATE and if you need to and can, swap tails and have the live inbound take out what would have been the prior departure.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15): Using external stairs (metal) during a rain or especially a snow event is an invitation for a passenger(s) to slip and go ass-over-tea kettle down the stairs and impact the concrete pavement at the bottom, which = lawsuits which = big bucks.

Quoting Afay1 (Reply 17): Are you kidding me? Airlines such as SAS, Finnair, Aeroflot, Alaska, etc. seem to operate from remote and major airfields in winter using stairs-only and rarely is there any sort of problem.

Bingo

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 15): An empty threat. There is no imminent life-or-death threat to passengers involved, only inconvenience. Commanding a passenger evacuation down the slides out into the snowy night only creates more passenger danger... Any captain who commanded such an evacuation in these conditions would have to be out of his mind.

See, that is where your operational understanding comes into question. Using the slides is an extreme but if there are no stairs around (seams unreasonable but B6 decided not to send one) all you need a bus to get the people back inside. It is absolutly doable. 9 hours on a plane, with no food, no water, lavs backed up and people either are or getting to be extremely agitated, with no word on when this will end, is a dangerous situation. People get sick, the crew can be a target of physical harm and it's not a situation that should be allowed to take place. Is it as dangerous as a mechanical problem on an aircraft that's airborne? of course not. However, what seems reasonable to you? 5 hours? 9? maybe 12? or perhaps 24 hours? If you were in controlls of an aircraft that was going no-where for hours, at what point would you take control to force the issue and get them off? At some point, it is an emergency, the only question is, when.

I am not in the airline industry at all but you had better believe that if I was a passenger stuck for 9 hours on a plane that was going nowhere I would be on the verge of leading a riot to get off that plane. I don't care what means the airline has to do to get me out of there after about 2 hours getting people off that plane had better be the number 1 priority of that airline and that airport.

I do not care if the mechanics are doing routine things that have to be done. Get the problem fixed and get me off the plane if I am not going anywhere.

Quoting WJ (Reply 20): See, that is where your operational understanding comes into question. Using the slides is an extreme but if there are no stairs around (seams unreasonable but B6 decided not to send one) all you need a bus to get the people back inside. It is absolutly doable.

If you think it was in any way reasonable for jetBlue to have even considered evacuating passengers via the slides to the ramp just because the inconvenience of not having any gates available, I'd submit to you that it's not my operational understanding or judgement that's questionable, but yours.

Yes, yes, 5, 6, 7, 8 hours or more stuck on the ramp awaiting a gate is a royal pain in the arse, but that inconvenience still pales in comparison to the passenger risks associated with an evacuation via the slides, and with cold/wet/slippery conditions outside. Now, if the aircraft caught fire, that'd be a completely different story, but trying to infer that awaiting a gate is an "emergency" is really a stretch.

Please note that NONE of my comments should necessarily be construed as a carte blanche defense of what jetBlue did (or didn't) do. All I've tried to do here is point out some of the numerous variables involved, and how many folks don't understand nor appreciate them. If the solutions to all the problems were all as "simple" as people seem to think, don't you think the airline would have done so?

This was likely a one time event and really linked to weather. No ones perfect not even jet blue. i dont think one sour situation should ruin what is the best airline in terms of service in the US. They still treat their passengers a hell of alot better than any legacy and they still offer great service. If you thought their reaction was bad immagine it happening to a Legacy with their already "screw you" customer service attitude. United got ripped after the stom in denver. But not as much as jet blue. You've got to give the weather some credit for all the problems, and at least jet blue is working on fixing their problems, something no legacy would ever think of doing. People and the media in my opinion should give jet blue a break.
my 2 cents.

Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 23): United got ripped after the stom in denver. But not as much as jet blue.

United didn't leave people sitting in aircraft on the tarmac for 8 or more hours.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 22): Please note that NONE of my comments should necessarily be construed as a carte blanche defense of what jetBlue did (or didn't) do. All I've tried to do here is point out some of the numerous variables involved, and how many folks don't understand nor appreciate them. If the solutions to all the problems were all as "simple" as people seem to think, don't you think the airline would have done so?

This is where you hit the point right on the head. Solutions to a situation that is uncomplicated as a single plane sitting on a taxiway somewhere are, in the big scheme of things, simple. Please dont get hung up on the solution of popping the slides. It is the last resort that I threw out there but that will only come after not being able to get a stair truck out there. You want to tell me that in the entire JFK field there was not a single set of stairs that could be freed up to an hour to get these people off? No one thought the situation was serious enough and whatever our opinion is, they got judged in the public opinion court and lost.

The problem as I believe it to be was this; The plane sat there, as it was a departure and not an aircraft that was coming in, and simply fell off the boards. It was expected to take off and leave but did not so it fell into this black hole where no one was looking for it for a while until he called back and said "hey buddy, we are still on the ground and have been for 5 hours and need to refuel" or something like that. From that point, it likely sat, just like all inbounds did that day, about 3-4 hours waiting for a gate to come back to. No one raised the flag on this situation and that is why some people are no longer in the position they were before Valentines day.

Quoting WJ (Reply 14): B6 is getting the same heat that NW got a few years ago after their large scale mess in DTW. According to a NW manager I spoke to recently, NW now has a policy that no plane waits for more than 3 hours.

This is something I see as very important to this discussion. (I mentioned it in one of the other "B6 and Valentine's Day" threads.)

How could an airline let themselves replay the same scenario a few years later? Did Blue exec's not remember that terrible few days in Detroit and the horrible press and lawsuits that followed? Once the DTW episode was finally finished, I would think EVERY airline would (and apparently most have!) DAP to make sure that NEVER happened to them.

I wonder what Neeleman would have said to Letterman or on the Today Show if he had been asked to compare his JFK event to NW's Detroit nightmare?

This remains one of the biggest blunders made by B6 during this whole occurrence; a poor memory is not an acceptable excuse in a case like this!

bb

Quoting WJ (Reply 25): It is the last resort that I threw out there but that will only come after not being able to get a stair truck out there.

Sorry, but what you fail to grasp is that it's not even a last resort, absent an onboard fire..

Quoting WJ (Reply 25): You want to tell me that in the entire JFK field there was not a single set of stairs that could be freed up to an hour to get these people off?

Given the weather that day, do you think there was an endless supply of stairs? If jetBlue had X-stairs, but needed 4X-stairs, do you think anyone else who had any were going to lend them to jetBlue when they probably would also need them themselves? In any event, the availability of stairs was a moot point--the snow/ice falling would have made them hazardous for use by passengers.

Quoting WMUPilot (Reply 5): 4) Operations where snarrled for the better part of a week

My "take" on the subject of the reason for extended media "piling on" in the aftermath of B6's foibles of 14 Feb is that it is not so much about the manner in which B6 handled the events of that date as the extensive irrops and more than 100 daily cancellations that ensued for nearly a week, long after the storm was no longer a factor. Other airlines, it seems, are able to fully return to normal operations following large-scale irrops due to weather in less than half the time it took for B6 to do so.

Once again, as in other threads on this subject, the focus in this discussion seems to be squarely on pax stranded on aircraft during the storm rather than the media's taking B6 to task for the inexcusable extent of B6 irrops/cancellations that continued after the storm, for the better part of a week.

And certainly we all know that Jetblue stair trucks certainly won't work in the snow and or ice, especially since NYC is in a tropical area which never experiences winter, and Jetblue's homebase is far away so they were unfamiliar with JFK opps...

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 27): Given the weather that day, do you think there was an endless supply of stairs?

They didn't need endless, they needed one. Since I actualy work at JFK I will tell you that other than all of the ones B6 actualy have, if they needed others all they would have to do was ask. They would have probably gotten a covered set as well.

You need to lay off the slide thing. Neither of us were on the plane and we don't know what the mind-set was. I brought it up as a way of getting people of an aircraft in extreme situations, which this one was headed to. Don't construde that I think that every time a plane waits for 2 hours for a gate they have to evacuate everybody. Get serious.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 28): My "take" on the subject of the reason for extended media "piling on" in the aftermath of B6's foibles of 14 Feb is that it is not so much about the manner in which B6 handled the events of that date as the extensive irrops and more than 100 daily cancellations that ensued for nearly a week, long after the storm was no longer a factor. Other airlines, it seems, are able to fully return to normal operations following large-scale irrops due to weather in less than half the time it took for B6 to do so.

I was just about to try to make a similar point.

If I had to boil down the causes for the media attention paid to B6, I think it would come down to these three factors:

1. The operational aspect. Large parts of the airline were shut down for nearly a week. Around a dozen cities were without B6 service for that period. On the day of the storm itself, you have the now-famous "passengers stuck on jets for over eight hours!" aspect. While lots of airlines have had issues like this, I don't immediately recall another one where so much went so wrong in such short order. Even that AA flight in December that kept passengers trapped for far too long -- which itself was the subject of national media attention -- was a relatively isolated incident. But by virtue of having so many of its operations focused on JFK, a winter storm had an outsized effect on B6's operations, which leads me to my second point.

2. The weather aspect. Part of the problem is, the weather just wasn't that bad. This wasn't a blizzard like the one that shut down DEN. This was a relatively minor ice storm, which I think my have even been less serious than had been predicted in the days leading up to it (at least if I remember the forecasts of that week correctly.) But even so, the other airlines operating out of the New York area took the appropriate steps given the available forecast, and had their operations more or less back to normal with a fraction of the time it took B6 to do the same.

3. The customer service aspect. Make no mistake, this surely played a role. By creating a certain level of expectations in the mind of customers and potential customers ("We love you too."), people -- and the media -- were surprised when operations collapsed like they did. And of course, backlash followed from this. I don't think you can really fault the media for what happened here; B6 has been the beneficiary of generally glowing media attention, and you better believe that has had its own set of rewards. Now the pendulum is swinging back, and there's a new set of issues to manage.

I think had any of these factors been absent, the public reaction would have been mitigated. And on the flip side of that coin, if anything else had gone wrong -- say, god forbid, a passenger had become ill on one of those planes and died -- the reaction would have been even worse. But I think those are the major issues that explain why this story has become as big as it is.

Quoting WJ (Reply 30): You need to lay off the slide thing.

Hey, I wasn't the one that brought it up.... It really had no place in the discussion...

Does anybody have a link or can someone explain what exactly went down? I was out of the country when this happened so I didn't hear anything. I'd love to see the Leno clips and stuff as well lol.

Kris

i want to know why my thread was deleted over the same topic. i asked and didnt even get the chance to get an answer.....

One thing I think many have also overlooked was the faulty weather forecasting of that day. The info JetBlue and other airlines had in hand was that temperatures would go into the upper 30s that day at JFK and they never went above 32. If JetBlue had an internal meteorlogist, he should be held accountable along with other public weather forecasters, who often get away with all the errors they make.

Guess all the arm chair ceo's are back, as well as the perfect. This is what the first big issue for jet blue? give it a rest.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 1): In an age of $50 fares, it seems like no carrier can deliver all the time.

$50 fares have nothing to do with a company's obligation to hold up their end of a contract and do so in a reasonable way.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): Bottomline is that air travel has become so routine and so "normal" that people have become increasingly intolerant of any deviation from that norm.

So you think the passengers stuck int the airplane for 11 hours on the ground should "just" tolerate the situation since it is only a simple deviation of the norm.

Here is my wish for you:
- You and your family are on the airplane.
- You have a 5 year old, a 3 year old, and a 3 month old baby.
- You only brought enough baby food for one meal (TSA restricted you from bringing more). Same thing for the diapers.
- No food on-board.
- Lavs are full or over-flowing.
- And maybe one of your other kids gets sick, or start acting up after the 4th hour (you only have 7 more hours to go).
- No clear end to your ordeal, which ends up lasting 11 hours.

I would like to have seen how you would have responded to the post after going through such an ordeal.

Quoting Fabio777 (Reply 38): So you think the passengers stuck int the airplane for 11 hours on the ground should "just" tolerate the situation since it is only a simple deviation of the norm.

What is the difference between this and flying LAX-NRT? You are still stuck with the same situation, well minus the lavs. And there would be food on board as B6 serves food. Stop playing devils advocate.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 39): Quoting Fabio777 (Reply 38):So you think the passengers stuck int the airplane for 11 hours on the ground should "just" tolerate the situation since it is only a simple deviation of the norm. What is the difference between this and flying LAX-NRT? You are still stuck with the same situation, well minus the lavs. And there would be food on board as B6 serves food. Stop playing devils advocate.

What's the difference???   

If I'm on a Jet Blue flight to anywhere Jet Blue flies, I don't bring supplies for a 10 hour trip. Because at most, I'm thinking the flight will be 5 hours.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40): If I'm on a Jet Blue flight to anywhere Jet Blue flies, I don't bring supplies for a 10 hour trip. Because at most, I'm thinking the flight will be 5 hours

Irrigardless. He posed the question saying he only brought enough supplies per TSA standards. So even if you brought the maximum you'd still be shit out of luck after a few hours. So I still fail to see where he is going with this.

Quoting Fabio777 (Reply 38): So you think the passengers stuck int the airplane for 11 hours on the ground should "just" tolerate the situation since it is only a simple deviation of the norm.

No, I don't.

Perhaps when you read this:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): Bottomline is that air travel has become so routine and so "normal" that people have become increasingly intolerant of any deviation from that norm. These same people seem to readily understand why their normal :30 minute crosstown car trip in dry weather will take longer when it's raining, or longer still when there's snow and ice out, but the concept of weather similarly slowing down airline ops seems to be beyond comprehension for them.

...you took that as a blanket endorsement of sitting on an aircraft for 8, or or 10 or 11 hours. It wasn't.

Perhaps you also missed these:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): It seems pretty clear that jetBlue made some mistakes (although I can't authoritatively say what they were since I don't work for them and wasn't there), but I do agree with you that they are taking more than their share of "blame" in things.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 22): Please note that NONE of my comments should necessarily be construed as a carte blanche defense of what jetBlue did (or didn't) do. All I've tried to do here is point out some of the numerous variables involved, and how many folks don't understand nor appreciate them. If the solutions to all the problems were all as "simple" as people seem to think, don't you think the airline would have done so?

You may find this hard to believe, but I've also been trapped on an aircraft a time or two. Not the 10+ hours, but 4-5. It's never a pleasant experience, yet at the same time, I understand how such situations can occur. That doesn't make the time go any faster, but it does temper the frustration knowing that in many (if not most) cases, it couldn't have been avoided. The operational variables involved with air travel are transparent to most folks outside the business, which is as it should be. Sometimes, the number of things that could possibly go wrong do go wrong, and in such numbers that you have a real mess on your hands. It happens, and no amount of teeth-knashing about how the airline coulda/shoulda/wounda done this or that to avoid the situation are necessarily accurate conclusions.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 41): Quoting Halls120 (Reply 40):If I'm on a Jet Blue flight to anywhere Jet Blue flies, I don't bring supplies for a 10 hour trip. Because at most, I'm thinking the flight will be 5 hours Irrigardless. He posed the question saying he only brought enough supplies per TSA standards. So even if you brought the maximum you'd still be shit out of luck after a few hours. So I still fail to see where he is going with this.

But your comparison was completely illogical. No one boarding a JetBlue flight plans on being on board for 10 hours.

On second thought, maybe now they should.....

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 43): No one boarding a JetBlue flight plans on being on board for 10 hours.

I think you are missing my point entirely... What I am getting at is what is the difference between being stuck in the air for 10 hours and being on the ground. You are still STUCK ON THE PLANE. Yeah, its not moving but you still are stuck in a metal tube.

It happens at one time or another to every airline... and it stinks. IMO JetBlue got hammered more than most as they recovered so poorly and it took so long for them to recover. Eight-ten hours is over the top though. Four to six I can understand and indeed have experienced several times. In all cases the airline did a good job of keeping us up to date on our status. It helped.

Most recently was AA 1945 MIA-DFW in mid-july (I think). A two hour flight turned into six once we hit the ground. As I recall, we landed at DFW and as it was the captain's final flight, we were given a water cannon salute (first time I've EVER seen one that up close and personal, I was in 1J and pretty much looking down the mouth of the cannon, wish I'd had my camera!).

While we were waiting for the cannons to get into position they shut down the engines. Apparently the operator on the port side got it wrong and doused half of the aircraft with foam. Not sure if they had to wait to inspect but it was about another 45 minutes before we powered back up. By that time, the famous Dallas weather bit us in the derriere and we were walloped by a massive T-storm. That took another good bit of time and by the time we got to the gate, it was WAY late. I was very much thanking my lucky stars I'd gone ahead and paid a bit more for a YUP fare!

Another time, got stuck on an ERJ! This was just post 9/11 and we'd had some sort of security breach. The plane was actually pulled over on the taxiway by airport police and taken back to the terminal (that was unique). We were all rescreened and taken back to the plane. Not sure if EVERYONE made it back on or not. We had pushed back and were on the taxiway when, naturally, mother nature decided to have some fun. That lasted 1h30 and it was a corker of a storm... several times big gusts gave the RJ a pretty strong shove.

By the time that blew over, the crew had timed out! They found us a new crew and 5 hours late we were on our way. Either they had clearance or broke the rules 'cause that was the first time I was on an ERJ where we didn't throttle back. Fastest trip ever... DFW-CRP in something like 42 minutes and she was spooled up the entire time.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 44): I think you are missing my point entirely

I get your point, but I don't see the relevance.

If you are flying to Narita, you are achieving something - it is something you have chosen to do. The flight will have provisions for that length of time. You will probably arrive roughly when you expected, and your hotel and other bookings will be secure.

If you are stuck in a plane sitting on the ground for a similar length of time you are achieving nothing - it is time lost from your life - and your hotel and other bookings will be going out the window.

And it is not likely that the jetBlue aircraft had provisions for such a duration, unless blue chips count as food these days.

mariner

Strike One-When Crew Scheduling can't locate crews thats the airlines fault
Strike Two-When you board planes to lessen the load in the terminal and effectively freeze availability of gates for
arriving flights-thats Terminal Management failure (airline)
Strike Three-when you fail to move empty aircraft off gates to hard stands thats terminal ground operations fault (airline)
JetBlue must address these problems and appoint people who are willing and able to make decisions. They took a weather problem and failed to address it in a timely and operationally correct manner. They have these problems before, whether its snow or thunder storms in the summer, only now they are in the spotlight and need to take the corrective
actions.

Quoting B767300ER (Reply 47): Strike Three-when you fail to move empty aircraft off gates to hard stands thats terminal ground operations fault (airline)

does B6 even have stands at JFK?

Quoting B767300ER (Reply 47): JetBlue must address these problems and appoint people who are willing and able to make decisions. They took a weather problem and failed to address it in a timely and operationally correct manner. They have these problems before, whether its snow or thunder storms in the summer, only now they are in the spotlight and need to take the corrective actions.

Hey everyone, Look its David Neeleman!