JetBlue’s Corporate Meltdown

The lucky JetBlue passengers were the ones whose flights were cancelled last week. They were fortunate enough to remain stranded in well-heated airports with restrooms and food courts. As for the unlucky ones, hundreds of them were trapped for as many as 10 hours in planes on the tarmac, with overflowing toilets, dwindling supplies of drinking water, and of course no food when the pretzels ran out. So far there have been no reports of cannibalism aboard immobilized JetBlue flights, but, with the company’s post-ice storm PR campaign in full swing, who knows?

I could do 10 hours on the tarmac, provided I had a sufficient supply of Xanax and protein bars. But with children? JetBlue’s CEO David Neeleman has nine of them. Would he dare risk a family vacation in the Caribbean if any of them are in the challenging 0 to 10 age range? According to CNN, parents on stranded planes were ripping up t-shirts to make diapers for their babies. And how many times can you read Curious George out loud anyway?

Neeleman has admitted to being “humiliated and mortified” by his company’s post-storm meltdown (one might wish that his status included “fired.”) But JetBlue’s outbreak of passenger abuse reflects larger problems in corporate America. One is a premium on youth at the expense of experience. According to Aero News, this may have had something to do with the company’s decision, shortly after the storm, to push planes off to the tarmac rather than canceling flights, as the older airlines did. JetBlue’s approach certainly succeeded in clearing some boarding areas of noisy, disgruntled passengers, but a stun gun might have been more humane.

“There’s a lot more gray hair at older airlines than there is at JetBlue,” Aero News quoted Tim Sieber, general manager of the Boyd Group, an aviation-consulting firm. But youth is part of JetBlue’s branding, even if it means having no one around who’s ever seen snow.

The other widespread problem is a simple shortage of employees. Since the late eighties, corporate America has pursued the beautiful dream of an employee-free company. Imagine: no payroll except for the top executives, no benefits to provide, and of course no unions! So the pattern has been that every time a company downsizes, its stock rises and its top managers drool over their burgeoning portfolios.

Since 9/11, the airlines in particular have been shedding employees like unwanted ballast, with predictable results. As the New York Times reports, there’s been an industry-wide “thinning of staff,” meaning that in bad weather, airlines often “do not have enough people…” Which might be OK if bad weather hadn’t become so routine that it’s crowding out all other news on CNN.

The budget airlines are especially skimpy when it comes to human employees. In late 2006, Neeleman announced plans to reduce its number of full-time employees per plane from 93 to 80. He should rethink that, since the major reason JetBlue couldn’t get back off the ground after the Valentine’s Day storm was that it lacks the personnel to connect crews to their flights. Pilots and flight attendants remained stuck in their hotels while passengers slept on airport floors.

Neeleman might also want to rethink the paltry passengers’ “bill of rights” JetBlue is offering as part of its effort to regain customer trust. What it’s missing is the crucial right to be freed from an airplane that isn’t going anywhere at all. According to a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, the industry’s major trade group, such a right would “impose[s] inflexible standards on a carrier's operations” – just as laws against kidnapping place a terrible burden on ransom-seekers.

If I get stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours, I plan to use my cell phone to call Homeland Security. Let’s face it, JetBlue and the rest of you: Anything more than three hours on the ground isn’t an airline delay, it’s a hostage situation.

Comments

[annie]

For me, your last paragraph describes what I have thought of this situation and a similar one a few weeks ago at the Denver airport...it seems like a hostage situation. Aside from the inhumanity, is it legal to hold people against their will for that long? Must be...sickening.

[BlondebutBright]

Wow - I hadn't heard about this story (being far away, even virtually) and I'm speechless. I'm surprised this hasn't received more attention - oh wait, I guess I'm not.

[mixpixlix]

JetBlue's meltdown is just the most recent. Almost all the major carriers have had incidents of leaving passengers in planes for an extraordinary amount of time with no provisions or working toilets.

There ought to be a law. Shall we add it to the UP to do list?

[Barbara E]

I just learned that Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe are sponsoring passengers' rights legislation that would include a 3 hour limit. The industry is of course resisting such stringent "regulation."

[realpc]

Well I agree with Barbara E. on this. Of course, the airline doesn't keep hostages for any malicious purpose. But it certainly is negligent and irresponsible. Maybe caused by, as she says, a minimal staff with minimal experience.

[jetbluehostage]

I agree with you, even tho I've been getting much flack on the issue. I was a "hostage" (i'm using quotes now as some have been sensitive to my use of the word) for 11 hours on a JetBlue flight on Valentines day.

www.jetbluehostage.com

Somehow, CNN picked my blog up and now I'm meeting with the CEO of JetBlue. Go figure. I'd love to get your input on how what you would have done to change the situation or how you would change the airline industry. In the meantime, I'm just reading the stories and finding solace in knowing people have found a place to vent.

[Monica]

Airlines have been doing all kinds of outrageous things such as making people take off their shoes and telling them what they can or cannot carry on a plane, not to speak of ethnic profiling, and you are only outraged now that they are actually making people wait for many hours? It is surprising that there are still people who are willing to put up with that, especially when it's not because of their jobs or for some other important reason. In fact, even for such reasons, things like videoconferencing may replace travel in many cases. Why don't people just refuse to travel unless they have absolutely no choice? If it's for a vacation, there may be places where they could go some other way. In fact, in a large city, fun activities may be available right there, perhaps in a different area of the city. With that money, perhaps they could pay for health insurance, pay off credit cards, have some money left for a rainy day, and so on. And if people won't travel, maybe terrorists won't try to blow up planes any more. Eventually, market forces will create better transportation services, but for that, many people have to refuse to use those that are now available.

[Barbara E]

JetBluehostage: Thanks for writing. I would urge the CEO to accept a bill of rights that limits the time people can be imprisoned on a plane to 3 hours. Right now JetBlue is suggesting that they "pay" people for their hours on the tarmac -- in JetBlue vouchers! (like you want more of this?) Ask him what his time is worth per hour. And let us know what comes of your meeting.

[Hattie]

Well, those sexy little airlines are fun when all is going well, but when things get serious, give me the old and seasoned carriers.

[lc2]

Well, this is Barbara's blog and she is free to write about whatever topic she wishes ... but this has nothing to do with the day-to-day experience of working class people in the U.S. in my opinion.

There is a major strike of retail workers imminent in the northeast, which if unsuccessful in its aims (which I predict it will be) ... will be the deathknell of organized labor in this part of the country ... disappointed that Barbara hasn't commented on this.

But I do realize it's her blog to do with what she sees fit. And for the record, most working people I know have never even been on a plane or it is at least a rare enough event that such a bill of rights is nowhere on their radar.

[Speed Limit]

The empty half of the glass is always at the top.

Speed Limit
http://speedlimit.home.att.net

[barbsright]

IC2, even the working poor fly today---and get treated just as badly as the miidle class passengers. Suffering---I mean flying---is one of the truly egalitarinan/democratic experiences left in our society!!! Hattie, Northwest Airlines was an "old and seasoned" carrier when it did (in 1999?) the same thing as JetBlue. Lack of personel and/or experience is not the problem. Lack of caring about people, by the airlines, is.

[Cam]

The week before the storm, I laughed at the ridiculousness of being booked on a nonstop direct flight that a) had a stop, and b) required switching not only planes, but regional carriers. The four of us who were traveling to the final destination were scolding by the flight attendant for not keeping our boarding passes handy -- why would we if we didn't know that we would need to re-board? But I can laugh at that. Laugh that the flight I routinely take out of LaGuardia on Friday nights has 52 minutes added to 'total flight time' to account for time sitting on the tarmac. But JetBlue is promising not to keep me on a grounded plane for more than 5 hours? Are they kidding? I'd be so outraged that I think I'd be arrested for my bad behavior -- it would be way past grumbling by hour 4. But, that would at least get me off the plane wouldn't it -- and placed on a discriminatory no-fly list.

There was a airline representative (although she was presented as a unbiased commentor on the airlines) on one of the morning news programs following the JetBlue incident. She said that ultimately the captain is responsible and that there was nothing wrong with what happened -- that the captain and the airlines were acting out of concern for their passengers. For 10 hours? Who are these people kidding?

[chris]

lc2 wrote:

"There is a major strike of retail workers imminent in the northeast, which if unsuccessful in its aims (which I predict it will be) ... will be the deathknell of organized labor in this part of the country ..."

I can't wait. This rumored event, of which I've heard nothing, would most certainly help to open the door for Wal-Mart in New York City, I hope.

[chris]

Monica, you wrote:

"Airlines have been doing all kinds of outrageous things such as making people take off their shoes and telling them what they can or cannot carry on a plane, not to speak of ethnic profiling, and you are only outraged now that they are actually making people wait for many hours?"

How old are you? 18? Apparently this will come as news to you: Airlines are not in charge of Airport Security. The US Government handles that chore. JetBlue, nor any other airline demands you remove your shoes and empty the metal objects from your pockets.

Airlines would rather do anything than antagonize customers. An airline seat is a commodity, which means one airline is almost as good as another. Fliers know they can quit flying on one airline and switch to another any time.

As for ethnic profiling, well, I hope airport security personnel do more of it. Maybe it's news to you, but certain ethnic and racial groups commit a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes.

You opined:

"It is surprising that there are still people who are willing to put up with that, especially when it's not because of their jobs or for some other important reason."

You must be 18. Do many people fly around simply to kill a few free hours? Whenever a passenger boards an airplane the reason is always important, though you might not agree.

You noted:

"In fact, even for such reasons, things like videoconferencing may replace travel in many cases."

Yes, video-conferencing does affect airlines, just as conference calls do. But the simple fact is this: as prosperity grows around the world, air travel increases. Meanwhile, even if the family has a web-cam, the whole gang will head out to visit Grandma and Grandpa as often as possible. We're funny that way.

You wondered:

"Why don't people just refuse to travel unless they have absolutely no choice?"

They have no choice. Is there a business you can name that doesn't require someone to travel?

You offered:

"If it's for a vacation, there may be places where they could go some other way."

Like how? By train? Train-travel is more expensive than air-travel and it takes a lot longer.

You claimed:

"In fact, in a large city, fun activities may be available right there, perhaps in a different area of the city."

I live in New York City, where there's more to do than anyone could possibly imagine. But I still like to get out of town once in a while. Sounds crazy, right?

You calculated:

"With that money, perhaps they could pay for health insurance, pay off credit cards, have some money left for a rainy day, and so on."

I see. The Frugal Monica Plan. Good luck.

You veered into nuttiness:

"And if people won't travel, maybe terrorists won't try to blow up planes any more."

If you're referencing 9/11, maybe you should recall that the goal was to kill as many people as possible INSIDE the World Trade Center. The people killed on the planes were just an added bonus.

You incorrectly predicted:

"Eventually, market forces will create better transportation services, but for that, many people have to refuse to use those that are now available."

Wrong. In the case of travel, advances and improvements will result from technology.

We already know what travelers want. They want to get there in a hurry, but in safety and comfort. That's technology, not the market.

[Anarcissie]

chris: '... As for ethnic profiling, well, I hope airport security personnel do more of it. Maybe it's news to you, but certain ethnic and racial groups commit a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes. ...'

It is my tedious duty to enlighten you about this issue. Regardless of whether some ethnic groups commit more crimes than others, ethnic profiling will not work against organized terrorists or other criminals. Once they perceive it in operation, they will use their more ethnically obvious people to attract the attention of the guards while the ethnically non-obvious slip through. In effect, ethnic profiling _reduces_ security. Sadly for many, there is really no substitute for assuming the burdens of rationality, even in police work. Regardless of what you have seen on television.

[Anarcissie]

barbsright: '... Lack of personel and/or experience is not the problem. Lack of caring about people, by the airlines, is.'

As far as caring about people goes, I imagine the people who make up an airline are about like everyone else: no, they don't care much, except about themselves and possibly their relatives. Those who do care often want to convert you to their religion or the like, which can be a good deal worse than indifference. This may be unfortunate but it seems to be the way people are.

But as I see it the problem is not a matter of the wrong emotions but simply the result of economic pressure. People want to fly cheap. I have read that airlines have found that they would rather be crowded and uncomfortable and fly cheap than pay more and be less uncomfortable. Efficient, reliable scheduling is one more service which can be performed well or badly, but the better it's performed the more expensive it is. No amount of regulation is going to change that equation. It is, of course, very bad to leave people on a plane for ten or eleven hours, but evidently it's cheap. The airlines can be compelled to construct alternatives, and the low-end cost of fares will be raised accordingly. People could have accomplished the same thing by buying their tickets more selectively, and favoring airlines with better records, but since evidently they don't maybe a law is necessary to protect them from themselves.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"Regardless of whether some ethnic groups commit more crimes than others, ethnic profiling will not work against organized terrorists or other criminals."

Yes it will and yes it does.

Terrorism of the type we experienced in the US on 9/11 and the type Israel experiences all too often is not a statistical game, as you seem to think criminal activity is.

It is binary. What makes it different from common criminality? The willingness of the perpetrators to die.

Kamikazi pilots in WWII and muslims today. That's about it for people who will kill themselves to kill others.

No other contemporary -- I can't say "modern" -- culture breeds suicidal agents of death. All other groups kill from a distance.

You think:

"Once they perceive it in operation, they will use their more ethnically obvious people to attract the attention of the guards while the ethnically non-obvious slip through."

Like muslims can find non-muslims to kill themselves for a nihilistic cause that is not their own. Or like muslims can find non-muslims they would trust to carry out such a task.

This is like hiring a hit man. Nitwits are forever looking in the Yellow Pages for guys to kill their hated spouses. But every time they reach someone, they are arrested because the "killer" is actually a cop.

You claim:

"In effect, ethnic profiling _reduces_ security."

Not a chance. I live in Brooklyn, NY, an area that has seen more than a fair share of crime. Guess what? You won't find many cops patrolling in stable white neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Why? Very little crime to fight. Very little criminal intent to suppress.

Go to a black and hispanic neighborhood and you will find most of the NYPD at work, much of which consists of suppressing crime simply by being visible.

Moreover, cops keep a close eye on the known gang-bangers and they make it their business to confront people who look even a little suspicious.

You lamented:

"Sadly for many, there is really no substitute for assuming the burdens of rationality, even in police work."

Rationality? Okay. About 90% of violent crime in NY City is committed by blacks and hispanics. Thinking rationally, where should the city spend its policing dollars to get the biggest bang for its buck?

Moreover, almost 100% of street crime in predominately white neighborhoods is committed by blacks and hispanics who know where the money is.

You chided:

"Regardless of what you have seen on television."

Yeah. Right. I see it all on Law & Order. Never have I witnessed real crime or been a victim.

[chris]

barbsright, you wrote:

"IC2, even the working poor fly today---and get treated just as badly as the miidle class passengers."

Nonsense. Anyone who flies enough has a horror-story to tell. But flying is on commercial airllines relatively safe, and looks especially good when compared with do-it-yourself travel, like driving the family car to Yellowstone Park.

Over 40,000 people a year are killed in accidents on US highways. How long would airlines remain in business with a death toll like that?

You blabbed:

"Suffering---I mean flying---is one of the truly egalitarinan/democratic experiences left in our society!!!"

Yeah, that sums up every second of every flight taken by every passenger.

You mislead:

"Hattie, Northwest Airlines was an "old and seasoned" carrier when it did (in 1999?) the same thing as JetBlue."

Not likely. Northwest was plagued by labor problems for years. One tactic of disgruntled workers -- which included virtually everyone who worked in or on the planes -- was causing delays, which always angered passengers and had them complaining to management about poor service.

You might note that Northwest is now emerging from bankruptcy. Hopefully the reconfigured company will offer better service.

You wrote:

"Lack of personel and/or experience is not the problem. Lack of caring about people, by the airlines, is."

Well, with respect to Northwest, the pilots, the cabin staff, the mechanics and the baggage handlers deliberately contributed to passenger unhappiness, believing it would force management to increase paychecks. Instead, the company declared bankruptcy and was restructured by the bankruptcy court, which no doubt permanently reduced the employee headcount to enable the company to come out of bankruptcy.

In case you hadn't noticed, the airline business is not very profitable. In fact, virtually every airline disappears in bankruptcy. More often than not, the bankruptcy leads to a takeover -- like Eastern and Pan Am and People Express and Braniff and TWA and Texas Air and on and on.

But air traffic continues to increase. Amazing, isn't it?

[Anarcissie]

chris: '... Like muslims can find non-muslims to kill themselves for a nihilistic cause that is not their own. Or like muslims can find non-muslims they would trust to carry out such a task. ...'

They probably can, but even if not, "Muslim" is not an ethnic group, nor an ancestry, nor a look. And Muslims are not the only people who do terrorism. It's delusional to think that you can protect yourself from terrorism or other forms of crime based on how people look, or what their names are. Do try to figure it out.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

""Muslim" is not an ethnic group, nor an ancestry, nor a look."

First, muslims, due to their disapproval of non-muslims, congregate in countries that are either muslim theocracies or muslim dictatorships.

Historically muslims have driven out all non-muslims from their theocratic nightmare nations. Hence, it's a sure bet anyone with a passport from the usual muslim states is a muslim.

Second, ALL terrorist groups practicing suicide terrorism today are islamic.

The only non-islamic suicidal agents for change that I can recall were a handful of Buddhist monks who set fire to themselves in Vietnam. But they died in protest of the war, not as suicidal murderers.

You attempted to spread the blame and confuse the issue by stating:

"And Muslims are not the only people who do terrorism."

Well that's true. The Irish via the IRA committed quite a few acts of terrorism over the years. But, in case you didn't notice, they did not fly planes into Buckingham Palace. Neither did the English send any jetliners crashing into The Vatican.

The Harrod's bombing was probably one of the worst attacks. But no one in Ireland is forgetting Bloody Sunday. In short, almost all the terrorist acts related to The Troubles in Northern Ireland were committed there, between the people who were struggling for control of the region where both groups live and work.

You might also note that it appears that peace may have finally broken out between the two groups. Moreover, neither group ever deluded itself into thinking the other would move out of town. The solution to problems of Northern Ireland were always viewed in terms of compromise.

That's not how it goes with muslims. They want us dead or they want full control. There is no compromise with islam. It is not within the religion to offer peaceful co-existence or plurality as part of a mixed society.

You grasped for the obvious:

"It's delusional to think that you can protect yourself from terrorism or other forms of crime based on how people look, or what their names are."

Funny. Israel has kept hijackers/killers off El Al planes for almost 40 years by profiling, and profiling with great intensity.

However, I admit that if muslim terrorists are going to remove your head and show the video worldwide on the Internet, they won't kill themselves as they decapitate you. But fortunately there haven't been many beheadings, and they've all occurred in muslim countries. What a shock.

Frankly, I hope the profiling of muslims at airports incenses them to the point that they refuse to fly. I'd love nothing better than a muslim boycott of all airlines.

Of course we learned long ago that we must inspect the baggage. Who can forget the Pan Am flight that was destroyed over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb in the luggage compartment. Guess what? It was the work of muslims! How about that?

And Khadaffy is close to forking over the final payment of compensation to the families of those killed on that flight way back in 1988.

Oh. I forgot to mention the 1,000 Americans killed by muslim terrorists from 1968 to 9/10/01.

While it's true a random gunman carelessly firing his weapon might nail me any day in New York City, there's little that can be done to eliminate that small risk from everyday life.

But it's not hard to keep an eye on and thwart the people who have repeatedly announced their desire to kill westerners.

As you suggested:

"Do try to figure it out."

By the way, my Brooklyn neighborhood is adjacent to a large muslim neighborhood. As a result, the police presence on the streets around my house has gone from the occasional police car passing through to 24/7 foot patrols.

There are many fundamentalist muslims in nearby. They dress in the al-qaeda fashion and their wives are covered head-to-toe in black burqas, chadors, hijabs or whatever else they're called and they often ride the subway.

It's my expectation that when one of them attempts a terrorist act, the perp will be dressed as a woman to rouse minimal suspicion. Of course, the cops are watching their movements in my neighborhood. And the FBI is on the scene as well.

It's not likely this ruse will work.

On the other hand, I think it's possible for an observant terrorist to cause massive damage to the subway system. They were fiendishly clever enough to exploit weaknesses in the airline industry.

The same may be possible here as well. But I'm sure the weaknesses are known to those who would defend the system from attack.

[Anarcissie]

Well, I'm just going on science, reason, and history. No need to trouble yourself about them if you don't want to. I doubt if you're in charge of anyone's airplane security anyway.

By the way, the inventors of suicide bombing, or at least the most recent fad for it, were not Muslims but the Tamil Tigers. I think they may have done a recent one, too. Conceded, Muslims seem to be ahead right now in diligence of practice, but nothing lasts forever. Eventually a certain Darwinian logic should mitigate the problem.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"Well, I'm just going on science, reason, and history."

Guess again.

You erroneously claimed:

"By the way, the inventors of suicide bombing, or at least the most recent fad for it, were not Muslims but the Tamil Tigers."

Wrong. The suicidal savages of hezbollah drove a truck bomb into the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in October, 1983, killing 241 Marines.

The first tamil suicide bombing occurred in 1987. Furthermore, some tamils are, surprise, muslims!

More importantly, the tamil nonsense is not unlike the idiots of the ETA in Spain. They're both separatist groups hoping to break free of the homeland.

For that reason we can sleep soundly knowing that neither suicidal tamil nuts nor suicidal eta nuts will detonate bombs in the US. They have no argument with us, though the tamil muslims might approve of other muslim terrorist actions against the US and other western nations.

[Antigone]

Chris, three main things:

1) Northwest is a poor American airline (and all American airlines are pretty piss-poor already). Their bankruptcy problems are caused by inept management (which, incidently, what caused the labor problems in the first place) not the other way around.

2) Minorities get CONVICTED more often of crime. They commit about the same amount as any other ethnic group.

3) Profiling is useless.

[Monica]

The fact that the government, not the airline, is in charge of screening is not an excuse to tolerate it. I understand that airlines don't have a choice, but they, as well as concerned citizens, could lobby the government, and perhaps even refuse to provide services under such circumstances (not forever, of course, since they need to make money, but then, transportation services are necessary, too). Besides, some decisions, such as kicking some Muslim-looking individuals off the plane, were really made by airline personnel. And since it only takes one or a handful of individuals to have terrorism, of course it is possible to find Muslims from many racial and ethnic backgrounds, as such individuals actually exist and others are welcome to convert, and some do. But because of a few isolated incidents, everybody has to suffer, and those who belong to certain racial/ethnic/religious groups even more. That's not fair! Why aren't planes protected just by making it impossible to commit terrorist acts once on the plane? You may say that it is possible to hide explosives somewhere. But what for? I was going to say that, while that may seem cruel, simply not seeming to care and not doing what the terrorists want may help prevent further incidents if and when that happens. But then, there is no need to sacrifice passengers at the beginning. Maybe just making everybody without exception dress in Muslim garb while on the plane would discourage Muslims from killing their "brothers" and "sisters", as they would not know who are in fact disguised "infidels". On the other hand, one way to fight ethnic profiling would be for many passengers to always dress like that when going to the airport. It's hard to profile a planeload full of Muslim-looking people. In fact, once they are the majority, then ordinary clothes would stand out. This fashion may no longer be necessary in a few years, and it's a small price to pay for safety, and by no means as bad as the current security screening. And while some modesty in dress is badly needed nowadays, it's not as if they had to dress like that every day.

Also, covering up as much as possible is just a matter of modesty taken to an extreme. While some Muslims tend to do just that, this really has nothing to do with being "Al-Qaeda types". In fact, smart terrorists may try to blend it. You can't guess who the terrorists are.

[chris]

Antigone wrote:

"1) Northwest is a poor American airline (and all American airlines are pretty piss-poor already). Their bankruptcy problems are caused by inept management (which, incidently, what caused the labor problems in the first place) not the other way around."

Antigone, you can argue the chicken-or-egg aspect of this issue forever. But the facts are plain. When a company enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, a lot of people ALWAYS lose their jobs. ALWAYS.

Therefore, unless an employee is certain he/whe will be retained, participating in actions that push a company into Chapter 11 are self-defeating. If Chapter 7 bankrupcty -- total liquidation -- is on the horizon, well, then EVERYBODY loses their jobs.

You claimed:

"2) Minorities get CONVICTED more often of crime."

This much of your statement is true. But then you went into outer space.

You ridiculously claimed:

"They commit about the same amount as any other ethnic group."

You'd better visit some national law enforcement statistical sites. Or listen to people who are in the business of stopping crime.

In NY City, according to both the former mayor and the current police chief, minorities -- that's blacks and hispanics, not asians -- commit about 90% of NYC's violent crime.

But blacks and hispanics account for about 50% of the population.

The rate murder is committed by blacks and hispanics is about 7-8 times the rate among white perpetrators.

Admittedly there is some unfairness about drug prosecutions. Crack dealers get heavy sentences while coke dealers fare better. But most crack dealers are black while coke dealers are more racially and ethnically diverse.

You uttered a whopper:

"3) Profiling is useless."

Yeah. Sure. On what evidence do you base this claim?

[chris]

Monica, I didn't know you were actually joking at first. But now I see that you are, especially after reading the following:

"The fact that the government, not the airline, is in charge of screening is not an excuse to tolerate it."

I suppose you mean passengers should show their intolerance by keeping handguns in their carry-on baggage.

You hee-hawed:

I understand that airlines don't have a choice, but they, as well as concerned citizens, could lobby the government, and perhaps even refuse to provide services under such circumstances (not forever, of course, since they need to make money, but then, transportation services are necessary, too)."

Yeah, I guess what you're saying is the airlines could behave like kids who threaten to hold their breath till they turn blue. Yeah, that'll show the nasty old government.

Your genius kicked in with this one:

"Besides, some decisions, such as kicking some Muslim-looking individuals off the plane, were really made by airline personnel."

I know what you mean. That's exactly what I was thinking when I considered those people on Flight 93, you know, that plane that was hijacked on 9/11 in which the passengers and flight attendants battled the hijackers -- muslims, by the way -- and caused the plane to crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

You cracked me up with this one:

"And since it only takes one or a handful of individuals to have terrorism, of course it is possible to find Muslims from many racial and ethnic backgrounds, as such individuals actually exist and others are welcome to convert, and some do."

Yes, and we've caught a few of them fighting against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You preached:

"But because of a few isolated incidents, everybody has to suffer, and those who belong to certain racial/ethnic/religious groups even more."

Yeah. A lot of Christians and Jews took a beating on 9/11. About 3,000 in all. But it was a tough day for muslims, losing 19. Of course they were the hijackers. But what difference does that make?

Then there's the 1,000 Americans killed by muslim terrorists from 1968 to the day before 9/11. And the many many thousands of others killed around the world by muslim terrorists. Yeah. Isolated incidents. Very isolated.

Hey, this is good stuff:

"That's not fair! Why aren't planes protected just by making it impossible to commit terrorist acts once on the plane?"

You mean like making them bomb-proof, like an armored personnel carrier?

Your comedy routine is really getting hot here:

"You may say that it is possible to hide explosives somewhere. But what for? I was going to say that, while that may seem cruel, simply not seeming to care and not doing what the terrorists want may help prevent further incidents if and when that happens."

Oh. Could we fill those planes with only terrorists? Or is it your plan to play musical terrorists with airplanes? Oops, those unlucky people on flight 666 are now scattered over the countryside.

You went on:

"But then, there is no need to sacrifice passengers at the beginning."

But later on we've got to kill some innocent people just to make a point. I see.

And more:

"Maybe just making everybody without exception dress in Muslim garb while on the plane would discourage Muslims from killing their "brothers" and "sisters", as they would not know who are in fact disguised "infidels"."

Absolute genius. Should I grow an al-qaeda beard and get my wife to buy a few chadors or hijabs to wear while flying?

You outdid yourself:

"On the other hand, one way to fight ethnic profiling would be for many passengers to always dress like that when going to the airport."

Yes, for the same reason I often dress like a Hell's Angel, I will assume my terrorist appearance to increase my personal safety while flying. Yes.

And then:

"It's hard to profile a planeload full of Muslim-looking people."

Yeah. Sure. You're right.

And then:

"In fact, once they are the majority, then ordinary clothes would stand out. This fashion may no longer be necessary in a few years, and it's a small price to pay for safety, and by no means as bad as the current security screening."

Would you consider becoming the head of Homeland Security? The country needs you.

[TMC]

Please post the number of Homeland Security. I will call them if I am held hostage on an airport tarmac!!!

[M]

Ms. Ehrenreich, I am watching you on C-SPAN2 right now, and listening to you repeating myths. The fact is that illegal aliens (they aren't immigrants, they are aliens. Alien refers to a person who comes from a foreign country.) do receive welfare, medicaid, medical, food stamps, and housing assistance.

They become eligible once they become pregnant in this country, and the benefits include children born outside this country as well as the parents.

American citizens are deprived of these benefits, even when they desperately need them. My husband died because cancer went undiagnosed as he didn't have health insurance. This impacted our entire family, espcially our child.. perhaps human rights do not apply to the most powerless Americans in your book?

Anyone seeking to further human rights would demand the countries, like Mexico take responsibility for their powerless and provide more for them.. not turn a blind eye to corporate interests that collude with the new left who seek to exploit the poor for their own agenda.

Another myth you give lip service to is that socialism is in aid of equality and representing the poor's interests. If one looks at the impact of socialism, the world over, including Europe.. through the gainin of power of the student movements you wrote about.. is that the poor are as, if not more exploited than they were before. The average life expectancy of a French laborer for example, is 34. How progressive is that?

Also, how can you claim not to have known how bad Bush would be? It was well reported that he was aiming to push us into a war in the Middle East, long before he gained office. His record as governor of Texas was one of the utmost inhumanity, his eradication of environmental laws and workers rights. You'd have had to be blind or willingly indifferent to not have known this.. also, these facts were loudly debated in 2000.

[Monica]

I did not mean to make jokes. I was serious. And of course, I did not say that passengers should carry handguns (although if that was allowed, that would in fact provide extra protection against terrorists) or be killed. But why wouldn't my ideas work? It's just that they are not seriously considered. For instance, let's say passangers really DID dress in Muslim garb. What would happen? And in the rare instances when a terrorist act was in the works, would terrorists go ahead when so many people on the plane seem to be Muslim? And this could help, why not try it? Why is it that people would rather remove their shoes, or whatever they are asked to do nowadays, than do that?

By the way, Muslims may have killed Americans, but what about all the people who are/were killed or imprisoned by the Americans and their allies, who actually had the guts to invade other countries? How would you like it if you just lived somewhere and BOOM, some big bad superpower invaded your country? If you don't see it that way, maybe that's because this is not likely to happen in your country (who would be that superpower, anyway?). Why do so many people hate the US and even a few citizens fought against the US?

As for protesting, don't forget that, even though people need transportation, if they united their efforts, maybe that would work, because airlines need passengers and the government, too, may relax its rules if many citizens refuse to put up with them. What do you think would happen if for a few weeks, virtually nobody wanted to travel by plane? Or, what if each and every passenger simply refused to take off his or her shoes without nevertheless disturbing the peace? After refusing, they would not be allowed to go on the plane and they would not complain in ways that would justify arrest (for instance, they would not scream), but then, the next passenger would refuse, too, and then the next, and so on.

[chris]

Monica, you wrote:

"I did not mean to make jokes. I was serious."

We've now gone from funny to scary.

You wrote:

"And of course, I did not say that passengers should carry handguns (although if that was allowed, that would in fact provide extra protection against terrorists) or be killed."

About 10,000 people a year are murdered by killers with guns. In other words, there are quite a few hot-heads in the country who will fire weapons at people just because the other guy angered them.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to fly with people like that.

You wondered:

"But why wouldn't my ideas work?"

Here's why. They're nutty.

You went on:

"It's just that they are not seriously considered."

Yes, because they're nutty.

And more:

"For instance, let's say passangers really DID dress in Muslim garb. What would happen?"

The muslim terrorists would blow up the planes or fly them into buildings. Their goal of terror, mayhem and chaos goes well beyond the handful of victims stuck on the planes.

The 9/11 terrorist hijackers would have been equally successful had they grabbed FedEx jets full of packages and crashed them into the same targets.

You wondered:

"And in the rare instances when a terrorist act was in the works, would terrorists go ahead when so many people on the plane seem to be Muslim?"

Of course. A plane full of martyrs? What could beat that?

You further wondered:

"Why is it that people would rather remove their shoes, or whatever they are asked to do nowadays, than do that?"

Rather? I don't know anyone who would "rather" remove his shoes and then put them on again before boarding. Just like I don't know anyone who "rather" pay taxes than not.

You accused:

"By the way, Muslims may have killed Americans, but what about all the people who are/were killed or imprisoned by the Americans and their allies, who actually had the guts to invade other countries?"

Are you muslim? Or just treasonous by nature?

You asked:

"How would you like it if you just lived somewhere and BOOM, some big bad superpower invaded your country?"

Well, I can tell you I didn't like it one bit when my office on the 47th floor of Tower 1 in the World Trade Center was blown to bits and some of my friends and colleagues were killed. Yeah, I really hate it when innocent people are murdered in surprise attacks.

You stupidly challenged:

"If you don't see it that way, maybe that's because this is not likely to happen in your country (who would be that superpower, anyway?)."

I live in the US, which has been attacked by Japan and muslim terrorists acting on behalf of most muslim nations. Meanwhile, communist organizers have operated here since Marx wrote his thesis. Moreover, there is a nazi party here too.

However, it is true that the US is not attacked militarily often.

Why? Because, believe it or not, the US is rarely the CAUSE of problems elsewhere in the world. The US may get into the act as the policeman, but that's inevitably in response to either the growing involvement of another foreign power or the rise of a troubling political force in the subject country.

You naively wondered:

"Why do so many people hate the US and even a few citizens fought against the US?"

Why? Because those people fear freedom and are ignorant about how freedom is practiced.

As for protesting, don't forget that, even though people need transportation, if they united their efforts, maybe that would work, because airlines need passengers and the government, too, may relax its rules if many citizens refuse to put up with them. What do you think would happen if for a few weeks, virtually nobody wanted to travel by plane? Or, what if each and every passenger simply refused to take off his or her shoes without nevertheless disturbing the peace? After refusing, they would not be allowed to go on the plane and they would not complain in ways that would justify arrest (for instance, they would not scream), but then, the next passenger would refuse, too, and then the next, and so on.

[Monica]

The law requires people to pay taxes. The law does not force them to agree to the conditions for boarding the plane unless they actually want to get on the plane. If they keep their shoes on and are sent home (or even stopped, but then, they did not commit any crime), the law is actually on people's side. Why don't they do something like that? As for guns, if more people had guns, criminals would be afraid to commit crimes and in some cases, it would be the criminal, not the intended victim, who would die. But I did not understand why the United States insist on being the world's police? Who died and left them in charge? In fact, isn't it a little bit arrogant to expect people from other countries to just accept that without hating the States or, God forbid, actually fight? Since the Irak invasion, I started to actually feel sympathy and respect for the brave warriors who would stand up against their attackers. Mind you, while some terrorists actually came to your country or were even born there, the fact is that you are the invaders in the countries you have attacked, and some victims were civilians. And while I don't owe anything to your country, being a Romanian-born Canadian, so I can't be a traitor, the fact is that once a country is that unfair, being against its policies is not treason. If it was, then those Germans who were against the Nazis while the Nazis were leading Germany must have been traitors. While the States are probably less bad, the fact is that they are doing things like invading various countries and torturing prisoners, for instance those in Guantanamo Bay.

[chris]

Monica, you wrote:

"The law requires people to pay taxes. The law does not force them to agree to the conditions for boarding the plane unless they actually want to get on the plane."

True. But suspicious behavior, like refusing to remove shoes and then leaving the security check-point is certain to get the attention of airport security personnel who will ask a few questions.

You claimed:

"If they keep their shoes on and are sent home (or even stopped, but then, they did not commit any crime), the law is actually on people's side."

The people? Yes the law, in this case, is on the side of "the people". In other words, the safety of the general population. Not the individual who is acting strangely and might pose a risk to all the others in line or flying.

YOu wondered:

"Why don't they do something like that?"

Because there are laws against creating disturbances at security check-points. Try it. You'll learn quickly.

You went way out there:

"As for guns, if more people had guns, criminals would be afraid to commit crimes and in some cases, it would be the criminal, not the intended victim, who would die."

I'm experienced with many weapons and have owned guns, though I don't own any these days. Based on my observations about people and guns, your views are nuts.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the people most inclined to increase their personal arsenals are criminals. There are at least 200 million guns in the US. The vast majority are legally owned and legally used.

But criminals are always interested in getting their hands on weapons. If it were made easy, they would acquire more guns and commit more gun-related crimes. Meanwhile, a few armed and honest citizens would kill criminals who attempted to commit crimes.

But mainly, criminals would adjust to the greater prevalence of opposing fire-power. Have you ever been confronted by a gun-toting criminal? They rarely announce their intentions in time for you to pull out your .44 magnum.

You wondered:

"But I did not understand why the United States insist on being the world's police? Who died and left them in charge?"

It is a default position. If not the US, then which nation?

If there were no policeman for the world, dictators would run completely wild and at least another billion people would find themselves under the thumb of a brutal leader or regime.

You rambled:

"In fact, isn't it a little bit arrogant to expect people from other countries to just accept that without hating the States or, God forbid, actually fight?"

Yeah. I know. It's so much better for everyone involved when a guy like Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or Castro or Kim Jong Il just takes over and brings misery to the entire population.

You spouted idiocy:

"Since the Irak invasion, I started to actually feel sympathy and respect for the brave warriors who would stand up against their attackers."

Yeah. Poor saddam and his henchmen. It's terrible what happened to them.

And you ranted:

"Mind you, while some terrorists actually came to your country or were even born there, the fact is that you are the invaders in the countries you have attacked, and some victims were civilians."

Yes. That's true. A lot of civilians died when the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. And three days later Japan surrendered. Somehow I think the bombing was justified by the instant surrender.

You stated your true dopiness by admitting:

"And while I don't owe anything to your country, being a Romanian-born Canadian..."

Are you muslim? Clearly you love dictators. Are you part of the Ceaucescu family?

and

"...so I can't be a traitor, the fact is that once a country is that unfair, being against its policies is not treason."

I see you are totally bereft of reason.

You linked:

"If it was, then those Germans who were against the Nazis while the Nazis were leading Germany must have been traitors."

If you asked that question of the nazi high command, they would have agreed. As would any operational government.

You went on:

"While the States are probably less bad, the fact is that they are doing things like invading various countries and torturing prisoners, for instance those in Guantanamo Bay."

Your ignorance is world class. Industrial-strength ignorance. But what else can we expect from educated in Romania?

[Monica]

Actually, I am educated in Canada, where I got a degree in Montreal. I did get some education in Romania, too, but considering your country's success in education, you can't assume that European countries, even Eastern-European, can't provide a decent education, at least in the major cites. Now, about the airport, I have emphasized that people would not create any disturbance. If not removing their shoes and not allowed to board the plane, they would not scream, argue, and so on. They would merely be denied service the same way a customer without a tie is, or used to be, denied service in some restaurants. If, however, they are asked a few questions, they would answer politely that conditions like removing their shoes are unacceptable to them, violate their privacy, and that they cannot accept that. If enough people did that, things would change. On the other hand, this kind of behaviour is not illegal if it is done very calmly and politely, the same way it would not be illegal not to eat in a restaurant that requires a tie. And I did not say that people would simply leave the screening area, but if they won't comply, won't they be asked to leave, or questioned and then asked to leave? As for guns, at least people would be able to defend themselves and some would succeed, and some criminals would be afraid to commit crimes when even victims who are physically weaker then them can kill them.

But what makes you think that somebody must be the world police? If it wasn't the US, what about just not having such "police"? As for dropping nuclear bombs, that was a dirty trick. It would have been better for the war to last longer than to violate the very principles of a fair fight. And the fact that Nazis may have considered the Germans who were against them "traitors" is just emphasizing my point. That's exactly what the Americans would say when an American turns against the States. Why is it that the Germans were right to betray their country but the Americans who do so are wrong?

I am not a Muslim (I was thinking of converting), but I dress very conservatively (I would actually cover my head) and I feel sympathy for Muslims and like some of their ideas such as the idea that covering up makes women get respect for their character, intelligence, etc., and not for their looks. Considering how arrogantly you are invading their countries, now I would almost prefer to see you lose the war to them and be led by someone like Osama. Mind you, with the president you got now, you are not much better off. Why can't you just stay out of other countries where you are obviously not welcome, since some poeple would go as far as sacrifice their own lives (as suicide bombers, for example) just to fight you?

[Michael Price]

"If I get stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours, I plan to use my cell phone to call Homeland Security. Let’s face it, JetBlue and the rest of you: Anything more than three hours on the ground isn’t an airline delay, it’s a hostage situation."

Sorry Barb, but your government will side with the hostage takers. There's a reason why I call it the War on (Some) Terrorism.

[chris]

Monica, you wrote:

"Considering how arrogantly you are invading their countries, now I would almost prefer to see you lose the war to them and be led by someone like Osama. Mind you, with the president you got now, you are not much better off. Why can't you just stay out of other countries where you are obviously not welcome, since some poeple would go as far as sacrifice their own lives (as suicide bombers, for example) just to fight you?"

Okay. It's official. You are insane.

[Jon Skelley]

It might interest you to know that JetBlue has it's maintainence done in El Salvador.

[lc2]

Well Barbara ... I must say I lost a bit of respect for you with your assertion that the "working poor" are airline consumers. The working class with stable jobs/access to credit, maybe ... but the working poor? Come on, now. The people you worked with in Fla who lived in a van or bunked with equally poor people in the Motel6? The maids in Maine?

Barbara, write about whatever you want on your blog, but please don't claim that this is an issue the working poor face. I agree that we all benefit from consumer protections, but the need for a passenger bill of rights is so far off the radar of the "working poor" ... it's not even funny.

Any idea when you might comment on that union struggle in the northeast?

[lc2]

And for the record, for once I'm agreeing with chris, in his above assessment of Monica's post. Finally, a point of agreement!!

[chris]

John Skelley wrote:

"It might interest you to know that JetBlue has it's maintainence done in El Salvador."

Partially true. The following is from JetBlue's 10-K, which explains its maintenance program. Last year the company spent $87 million on all maintenance and repairs. Total revenue was $2.36 billion.

Maintenance

We have an FAA-approved maintenance program, which is administered by our technical operations department. Consistent with our core value of safety, we hire qualified maintenance personnel, provide them with comprehensive training and maintain our aircraft and associated maintenance records in accordance with FAA regulations.

The maintenance performed on our aircraft can be divided into three general categories: line maintenance, maintenance checks, and component overhaul and repair. Line maintenance consists of routine daily and weekly scheduled maintenance checks on our aircraft, including pre-flight, daily, weekly and overnight checks, and any diagnostics and routine repairs.

Although the majority of our line maintenance is performed by our own technicians, we also subcontract our line maintenance to third-party organizations.

Maintenance checks consist of more complex inspections and servicing of the aircraft that cannot be accomplished during an overnight visit. These checks occur at least every 15 months and can range in duration from a few days to approximately a month, depending on the magnitude of the work prescribed in the particular check.

We use Air Canada and TACA, in El Salvador, to perform our maintenance checks under the oversight of our personnel.

In addition, in December 2006, we entered into an agreement with Empire Aero Center in Rome, New York to provide heavy maintenance support for up to 12 Airbus A320 aircraft in 2007.

Component overhaul and repair involves sending engines and certain parts, such as landing gear and avionics, to third party FAA-approved maintenance repair stations for repair or overhaul.

We have a ten-year service agreement with MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH for the scheduled and unscheduled repair of our Airbus A320 aircraft engines.

We also have separate long-term arrangements with other service providers for various airframe component repairs.

[iknowall]

Search for in all major search engines simultaneously on the site http://www.iknowall.com.
Simultaneous search on Google, Yahoo and MSN Live Search.

Try http://www.iknowall.com

[Peter]

They do not seem to learn. Below an experience for me over the last couple of days flying from JFK to Logan and back, during which I spent at least 12 hours waiting on and off planes... I sent the letter below to them, it is going to be interesting to see if and how they respond...

Hi,

I'd like to share some very recent experience with your airline which made me feel very strongly negatively about your airline. And the 'Bill of Rights' seems more like a nice P&R gag with no real meaning whatsoever.

1) On Monday, June 10th I was booked on the flight at 18:40 from JFK to Logan. The flight kep on being delayed and delayed until around 8pm or so we finally boarded. It took another almost 3 hours for the plane to take off, which we spent on the tarmak! sounds familiar? I thought so... INstead of being in Boston around 8pm for dinner with friends, I was there at 2am!!!! An had an important meeting at 8:30 in Camebridge. Great.

2) Today, on Tuesday, June 11th, I am book on the flight 1017, leaving 18:40 fomr Boston to JFK. And just when I get to the gate, I am told that the information on your webpage and the monitors (which said a delay until 7:10) was inaccurate. We will be leaving at the earliest! 10:30pm!!! So I will spend another 5 hours wasted here at the airport.

3) You claim to provide internet at JFK yet it has not worked any of the last 8 times or so I was there. It is either down, or wrongly configured, or simply with a horrible signal. What a fraud.

4) Here at Logan, even better, you do not offer internet, not even a whole lot of plugs are available (there are all but 2 here around the gate area (29th-3xish)

5)I do not recall a SINGLE TIME my flight between JFK and Boston has been on time!!!! Please feel free and check into my flight records and check the percentage yourself of flights that actually land on time!

6)Remember - happiness(or customer satisfaction) is the difference between expectation and reality. And as far as I can tell, you are running a brand-campaign based on the great 'JetBlue experience'. Unfortunately that experience has all but deteriorated to a painfull drudgery of eternally delayed flights and failed promises. Is this just an experiment in "how much can we fool those people to stay our customers"?

I'd appreciate a personal response from someone in a meaningful position to instigate some change (or let me know that no change is planned so that I can stop bothering to fly with you and move on). Trust me, a general canned 'we are sorry, there is nothing we can do. Its weather or the bad people at JFK or the bad people at Logan or whatever' is not going to do it.

I'll try to find your head of customer relationship and email him/her this letter or post it at some blogs he/she might read, yet I'd appreciate if you can be so kind and forward it to him/her directly.

If you'd like to reach me, I'll be here at Logan for the next few hours it seems...

Cheers

Peter

[JetBlue Bloger]

Hello I am here to show everone that there is a new Jetblue Crewmember blog out there called www.jetbluecrewmembers.com Check it out