ENG 204-002

JetBlue, in my opinion, did not handle this situation as best as they could. The first attempt to smooth over the situation was given through a short video with the CEO and it was a poorly done video. In the “Stake Holders and Audience” excerpt, it said that the messages to the audiences need to be “plausible, believable, and have the manifest backing of senior management.” Yes, the video was of the founder of the company, but the way he was presented did not appear to be of “senior material.” The video was very sloppy and did not look professional. The CEO should have been dressed in a more formal manner to gain the trust of the consumers. People respond better in crises if they feel like the person with the supposed answers appears to be credible.

The situation according to the “Defining our Terms” excerpt was not ethical. If JetBlue were to ask themselves the ten questions given in this document, then I believe the crisis would have been handled differently. The passengers were left in a freezing cold building or on a plane with no food, water, or clean air. If JetBlue had to answer number four, “Will this decision harm anyone?” then they would be able to put into perspective where their priorities should have been. The answer to number five would have also been a determining factor for the company to decide what needed to be done.

Another issue that JetBlue encountered was knowing exactly when all flights would be up and running again. The CEO went on a news show and had to correct the times of when the flights would all be on schedule. It did not look good for the head boss of the company to not know every detail going on within his company.

When it comes to the Jet Blue crisis, for the CEO to record an apology video and then not have the video be a part of the Jet Blue’s website, makes the video ineffective. Ruff and Aziz point out that when a crisis occurs “messages must be confident and believable.” The apologetic and empathetic message that the CEO provided lost some of its credibility when the video wasn’t a part of Jet Blue’s website. Without the endorsement of the website, the video and referral plan are not confident messages. Ruff and Aziz stress the importance of a technical plan. Jet Blue needed all of its employees to be trained in customer service protocol so that in a crisis they could be an asset. An accessible video and customer service training for all employees could have helped the outcome of the crisis.

Jet Blue did not handle the crisis in an ethical way; even though the CEO of JetBlue tried humanizing the message of his apology as discussed in Luntz’s Rule #7. In the video, he wasn’t in a suit, he seemed to have had a lack of sleep, and the stumbling of his words showed that he wasn’t going off of a script. He conveyed a level of distress that the customer probably could have related to. In order for the customer to relate with the CEO the CEO had to be able to relate to the customer, this idea is discussed in Luntz’s Rule 10. It seems as though the CEO of Jet Blue tried to understand the perspective of the stranded customers because he promised to bring “humanity” back to air travel. Despite trying (and the key word is trying) to humanize the situation it was hard for the CEO to really understand the perspective of the travelers. He wasn’t in below freezing waiting areas, or having to use backed up toilets while waiting for hours on an airplane. As a customer it must be hard to hear the CEO talking about humanizing a situation when he never experienced it.

What I learned from the Jet Blue crisis that could be used when crafting documents for the project is to consider the language, context, and placement of a video message

After reading the selections, the Jet Blue crisis was handled rather poorly, or rather ineffectively, to say the least. The Parsons reading shows us that the second step in Public Relation decision making is to Plan and to “Decide what outcomes you want.” Jet Blue’s first attempt to resolve their corporate crisis was a rather inadequate YouTube video apology to their customers. It seems to me that Jet Blue did not carefully analyze their situation and in no way spent time planning the objectives they wanted to accomplish. This video only seems to diminish Jet Blue’s credibility with their stake holders. However, the Luntz reading states that the fifth rule in communicating successfully is Novelty. This YouTube video is a new approach. For the CEO of a company to sit down in front of a camera and almost literally, adlib an apology to its stakeholders and customers is indeed new and in this way it is in some sense, effective.
The situation was handled in an ethical way. Parsons shows us that since the crisis was unfair to people and the corporation feels bad about the situation that it is an ethical issue. The CEO does exactly as ‘The Potter Box’ entails; he defines the problem, he analyzes the values of his corporation and he applies the principles when he details the steps they have taken “in the next 7 days and the next 30 days.”
From the Jet Blue crisis, I have learned that professionalism is crucial to my project. No matter how stellar the crafting of our groups video or other works are, how they come off to the audience is the key. TO be perceived in a negative light would undercut all the hard work of our group, but more importantly, our intensions.

The Jet Blues CEO apology video appears to lack a great deal of credibility, which is the third rule in Luntz’s ten rules to effective language. Throughout the video, the CEO appears very flustered and unsure of what he is truly trying to convey. This is somewhat understandable because he was likely under a great deal of pressure at the time, however by being better prepared during his speech would have greatly increased his credibility.
His speech also did not flow very well at all. Rule six is that sound and texture matter. This is something that was severely lacking in the CEO’s speech. He did not make complete sentences in some instances and seemed to stutter a bit. This detracts from the trust the audience has in his speech and reduces the overall effectiveness. Furthermore, after a crisis that involved a major lack of planning and organization, one would think that Jet Blues CEO would take some in the planning of his speech in an attempt to sound coherent. However, there was a major lack of planning that directly affected the sound and effectiveness of his speech.
However, one thing that I felt was done right was the Jet Blue bill of rights. Luntz suggests to try something new and this would certainly qualify. By providing customers with a clear and concise list of options that they have as a customer is very innovative and reassuring for customers. I also feel the steps in public relations decision making that is referred to in Parsons Ethics in Public Relations was somewhat implemented. He appeared to gather the available data and assess what outcomes were needed. However, the way in which he presented the data was not very effective.

Sure, JetBlue did not cause the weather that left passengers stranded for up to 11 hours, but the airline did, however, magnify the symptoms of it. It was a corporate crisis, not a weather crisis. Some airlines canceled or delayed flights more than others, but JetBlue had hundreds of both, and even worse, many upset passengers. How did the

Not well. Ethically, passengers should not have been left in the airport terminal, with their exhale breaths crystallizing, or left on an airplane with out-of-service restrooms, among other uncomfortable and possibly harmful circumstances. Nearly all of the "PR Pillars" were left grounded and underutilized. To make it worse, the announcements the airline staff made were repetitious vague statements that only let-down the stranded passengers when they were not proving true. There really was not helpful communication between the airline and the passenger at all.

Afterwords, the C.E.O merely released a lackluster apology via Youtube that gave off a nervous and unprofessional vibe without a hint of sincerity or empathy toward the passengers. Clearly, the video was a just device for a corporation attempting to smooth over a crisis. The "Bill of Rights" the company also released was a slap in the face; the promises do not prevent a similar situation from happening again, but rather, they are automatically responding to situations that have not happened yet! Are all their disappointed and irate passengers willing to be cheaply bought out?

JetBlue simply had no preparation for weather affecting their business to this extent. The airline management had the opportunity to show they can handle unforeseen circumstances, but failed to do so; Hopefully, others in the corporate world will use this as an anti-example and learn from how badly this was handled. As for our project, each group member can visualize the effects each company has on its particular customer, and compare it to how JetBlue's passengers were treated.

I definitely think that the whole Jet Blue situation is ridiculous. Even though there were apparently certain legal technicalities that insisted that passengers be held on the planes for some odd amount of hours, something should have been done more abruptly. They should have been looking out for their top priority in their customers, and done everything possible to get them out of the planes and get them to comfort, and dealt with the legal technicalities and costs at a later point, with the continuous goal of putting their customers first. I think that it would have been better received by the public, and that Jet Blue would have gained more support all around for doing their best in the sticky situation that they were in. Needless to say, I don't think that Jet Blue handled the crisis effectively.

According to Luntz, short amounts of words and credibility are a part of the ten rules of effective language. They should have quickly used short phrases and simple words in addressing their customers on the situation at hand, why it happened, and what they were doing to solve the problem. They should have proven their credibility as a business that puts their customers first and foremost. They also should have worked along other professionals to solve the problem.

According to Parsons, ethics is more than just following the "simple letter of the law." This proves that Jet Blue had an ethical duty to society and to their customers as human beings to ensure their personal comforts, and to not imprision them because of a legal technicality. Not to say that companies should be lenient with their legal matters, but this was an extreme situation.

When crafting our documents for this project, we can learn from the Jet Blue situation, and the Ruff and Aziz excerpt as well, that communication is not always dependable, and there needs to be a concrete plan to depend on. Obviously, Jet Blue needed a plan to go by before they began communicating with their customers and with the public. Our group members will need to have an agreed and understood plan, so that communication will not confuse things.

I think JetBlue handled the situation poorly. Although they have a track record of having unhappy customers/clients, they did not seem prepared to handle this situation and bounce back right off the bat. The CEO of the corporation conducted an interview and recorded a video, which was an intelligent step. However, this video was only released on sites such as YouTube, and was not even able to be found on the JetBlue website. That would be the first place I would search for an apology if I were one of the attendants stuck on that plane. They also "screwed up" in having absolutely no customer service- Yes, there were legal aspects involved, but keeping your attendents on a plane in freezing weather and a backed up toilet, is simply unethical.

The CEO was however showing strong symptoms of fatigue and stress. He was not conducting himself in an entirely professional manner, which I actually found effective. He was showing distress, which is something the attendents of that day can relate to. His lack of being professional could be the reason the video was not publicly aired on the site? But, that was not a smart move.

JetBlue needed to be more like Pepsi in the incident that occured in the United States. They were ready to bounce back from anything and everything and had proof proveded by the Food and Drug Administration aired along with their apologies and concerns.

It is all about how situations like this are handled, and JetBlue needs to take further actions.

One of the main rules according to Luntz that JetBlue broke was that “credibility is as important as philosophy”. The company’s passenger first philosophy is worthless now that the trust with the customers has been shattered. While they can say this all they want, people will always remember the events that transpired, leaving thousands of people upset and not feeling like they were the most important thing to JetBlue. Another rule in the article that JetBlue failed to follow is the tenth rule, providing context and explaining relevance. The company failed to really give a reasonable explanation for why everything went awry. Perhaps if CEO David Neeleman clearly explained what went wrong and why they couldn’t immediately fix it to the stranded passengers in the terminals, they would have been more forgiving and understanding. Instead, the passengers probably sat and wondered what was wrong and why things couldn’t be fixed sooner.
The Ruff and Aziz article talks about being prepared for a crisis, and having a plan of action in place long before one actually happens. Had JetBlue had extra operators, planes, pilots, and terminal workers on standby, none of this would have happened, or at the least it would have been repairable in a timelier fashion.
Ethically however, I would say that JetBlue did a good job. They were as respectful as possible to their passengers, and did as good of a job as they could, given the situation. It was not their ethics that failed the passengers; it was their logistics and planning. What followed that failure was the inability to recover in a timely manner, not the inability to recover in an ethical manner. The reality of the situation might not have been ideal for the comfort of their passengers, but they tried to compensate whenever possible and after the fact acknowledged their shortcomings instead of trying to make excuses, and were very apologetic to customers.

In "The Ten Rules of Effective Language," Luntz says "What matters is not what you say, but what people hear." Now this applies to the type of language used and the context of the speech, but it also applies to how the speech is presented and the method in which it is delivered. JetBlue's online apology was not performed in a professional manner and seemed "off the cuff" and sloppy. JetBlue had an ethical responsibility to present a professional and well done apology. Therefore, I believe JetBlue did not handle the crisis in an effective way.

Parsons said that "It is clear that the concept of professionalism is closely tied to ethics." Put a tie on. Put a jacket on. Present your speech without the "ums" and "ahs." These are all things that if changes, could have made the JetBlue apology more professional, and therefore more ethical. It was laughable when David Neeleman, CEO of the airline, grabbed the security badge and waved it in front if the camera. That act just further exemplified the unprofessional manner of the speech and made Neeleman seem even less credible. JetBlue just left hundreds of passengers stranded on tar-mats and in terminals. Neeleman's apology needed to be professional in order for customers to feel that they could trust JetBlue again. Neeleman's unprofessional mistake followed by and unprofessional apology was ridiculous and unethical. There's no wonder why he got fired from CEO of the company.

In Ruff and Ariz's writting, the authors presented several important things for companies to remember when dealing with a crisis. Two of the more important points were: 1. "It is crucial for management to be seen to have done well." And 2. "Messages must be confidant and believable." With the apology that Neeleman gave, management did not come off as having done well. The hurried apology was viewed as a quick fix to a terrible problem. The message was believable, but certainly not confident. If the apology was done in a more professional manner, it would have seemed for confident and well done.

Jet Blue was not trying to sell a product or make itself look good or embark on a new campaign to sell services and turn a profit. Its sole goal after the fiasco of February 14th was to win back the public. And the best way to do this was to sound and look credible. In a few areas it clearly failed. Luntz suggests simplicity, repetition, and aspiration and doing all these things well. The visual media (the YouTube video) had the opportunity to resonate with all of those who are well-connected to cyberspace, and yet the ad hoc interview failed. I imagine the intent of the video was to make it look homey and off-the-cuff, as if the CEO just decided to take a break from helping customers to film this clip. The problem, however, is that the CEO looks frazzled, noticeably sleep-deprived, and not in clear command of his speech. His repetition (e.g. abberration) does not indicate a new identifiable policy program for Jet Blue, but rather that the CEO's inarticulate and maybe even incompetent. His countenance fails to inspire. He doesn't look as if he's visualizing any idea (rule 8) or direction for his company. He could have asked questions also. Ideal among those might have been, "What will Jet Blue do for you from now on and forever more?" repetition of that question would have kept him focused on each bullet point of their new passenger bill of rights and would have taken more pressure off of him and made him look more at ease.
The CEO also failed to fully account for Luntz's rule ten: explaining context and relevance. He should have begun with an outright acknowledgement of what had happened, how Jet Blue was responsible, and what would happen at airports from now on to prevent that from occurring again. He might also have mentioned individual cases of suffering, naming the passengers by name and empathyzing with them personally. Such is the politician's craft, but it works really well by personalizing it for the audience. The CEO should also have reinforced his position by saying that Jet Blue is going to pay passengers if things go awry again, and listed the amounts. And he should have done so enthusiastically to show commitment and excitement for the program.

My mother works for US Airways, so I know a thing or two about the proper etiquette you would take when dealing with an airline crisis. Us airways has been through quite a lot of controversy; the main one being the crash in the Hudson.
When I talked to my mother about this Jet Blue incident she informed me that airlines staff usually knows the estimated tome of departure for a flight. Once it supersedes three hours my mom feels like at that point the plain could have then re-connected to the jet bridge and let the passengers off. We were flying to Philadelphia once when the flight was delayed and we were ALLOWED to unload the plane and reload when the time was right.
I feel like JetBlue should adopt a policy to prevent this from happening again. I feel like from the JetBlue crisis we can learn that a proper emergency plan should be present.
I also felt like the crisis was not handled professionally. The video was super tacky. They might have tried to make it seem like it was off the cuff, from the heart, and like he was busy trying to solve the problem; however, it came across poorly executed and extremely scripted. It was almost like the Chris Brown apology on you tube for hitting Rhianna.
When my group chooses a corporate crisis I hope we choose one like this. The JetBlue crisis has so many facets to talk about. You can talk about how the company policy needs work. You could discuss how the CEO or presidents should have addressed the situation. You could even mention the customer dissatisfaction nationwide; even those not on the plane were infuriated. In my opinion, a corporate crisis should be something that inconveniences many people on a large scale.

The Jet Blue crisis was about as bad as could happen to a corporation. Everyone slips up every now and again and makes customers unhappy and unsatisfied but the magnitude of this near catastrophe surpasses it all. Of course in a situation like this, everyone can only expect the company to react in the most perfect way possible, but that rarely happens, and the YouTube video released by the CEO of the company is more than a viable symbol of that. Not much could really be said after the fact that would change what had happened. With that said, a public apology on YouTube really diminished what credibility the company may have had left. The context was unprofessional and the content was useless. It didn't help that the CEO seemed like he hadn't slept in 48 hours, and he may have not had, yet Jet Blue was supposed to consider what outcomes they wanted from their PR.

According to the Parson's model for ethics decisions, they needed to apply principles of ethical decision making in their steps to a successful public response, and I feel like this is where they went all wrong. There is nothing ethical about putting a stuttering, blundering, and seemingly confused CEO on YouTube for an apology that barely makes sense to begin with. It is unethical to the passengers that got stranded, and it is poor decision making all around. In the same model, Jet Blue also needed to second guess their decision after making it, which obviously didn't happen. If they would have done this, it would have been more than apparent that they were about to dig themselves an even deeper hole than they already had on their hands.

I do not think that the Jet Blue crisis was handled very effectively. The CEO did make an apology video, but it was lacking. In the Luntz piece, we read that "Sound and Texture Matter". In this section it states that words should be memorable. The Jet Blue CEO's words are anything but memorable. Most of the time he is just stuttering through his words without any clear direction. If you actually analyze what he's saying you can see that he is often just rambling.

The company also failed to have an appropriate response set up prior to the crisis' occurrence. In the Ruff and Azis piece they emphasize the importance of being ready to handle crises with the words "Most important of all, the company crisis team had prepared for such an eventuality in advance". Because Jet Blue wasn't ready for such an occurrence, they're response was poor.

I do believe that Jet Blue acted appropriately ethically. It was unfortunate that the passengers were stuck on the plane, but even though the Parsons piece says that ethics is more than simply following the letter of the law, Jet Blue was bound by the law to act as they did. Also their apology videos at least showed that they were remorseful.

Obviously, no one in their right mind would blame Jet Blue for the weather that, in the end was the root of the problem here. However, it is JetBlues responsibility to make sure the situation is handled properly, ethically, and with due speed. Airlines cancel flights all the time, they switch gates, and they rearrange passengers commonly. However, JetBlue ran into a brick wall in this particular situation. Logically, and ethically Jet Blues passengers should not have been left in the airport terminal, prisoners for no wrong doing. The frustration that ran rampant in that terminal must have been palpable, and I can't honestly say I would blame them. Jet Blue seemed to leave almost all of the PR "pillars" alone, nearly all weren't even used. The airline should have communicated more thoroughly and with a greater level of comfort than they did. Instead, only vague statements that proved ultimately to be untrue were made to the passengers, briefly bringing their hopes up, just to crush them over and over.

After the situation had been "resolved" and the passengers were home, complaints started rolling in, and the story began to get national attention. The C.E.O of the company scrambled a video apology that came off as rushed, nervous, and wholeheartedly lacking any level of professionalism. The video was obviously just a "brush-aside" attempt by the company trying to sweep this tory underneath a cabinet. A temporary fix. The "Passenger Bill of Rights" that was released soon after is just an embarrassment to any of the people who were stuck in the terminal considering it basically only addresses things that haven't even happened yet. The Bill of RIghts doesn't even address what happened in the very beginning! So when it comes down to it, JetBlue was beyond ill-prepared for this sort of situation. These sort of situations oft can end up being positive because it teaches a company how to deal with a situation like this, however, it appears JetBlue hasn't learned anything. A pathetic apology and then an ironic "Bill of RIghts" do nothing to improve the confidence of the passengers. Who, after all, are always right.