The JetBlue Corporation did not handle the aftermath of their corporate crisis well. The video produced by JetBlue and posted to youtube.com was, in theory, a good idea. Certainly, the affected customers and even wary potential customers want to hear an explanation from the corporation's leader. They want to hear what happened and how he personally plans to fix it. The crisis, however, puts the CEO at an initial disadvantage. There is a preconceived notion of JetBlue as an organization and if there was a failure of this magnitude it is a reflection of the corporation's leader. The initial ethos of David Neelman is suspect merely because of his either involvement in the problem or his inability to resolve it quickly. This is the beginning of Luntz's Rule three, credibility is as important as philosophy, being broken. There is no way around his initial credibility failings, so by his casual dress and plain speaking, JetBlue attempted to gain some positive derived ethos. The speech is not poorly written, but its delivery does not inspire confidence. There are an abundance of verbalized pauses and places where Mr. Neelman stumbles over his words. This is not endearing, it reflects an image of insecurity and insincerity. Even a well-crafted speech can be ruined by poor delivery.
Another failure of JetBlue was in the drafting of the Customer Bill of Rights. It was an original idea, a positive aspect in regard to Luntz's rule five, offer something new, but in regard to Luntz's rule one, use small words. Using bulleted and numbered lists gives the illusion of simplicity, but the driving force behind the Customer Bill of Rights is the term Controllable Irregularity. Ten syllables. Two words. Not only is the meaning of this phrase unclear, the reference to its definition in another corporate document is equally unclear. The definition uses the French phrase "Force Majeure" to explain Controllable Irregularity. This may be legally expedient and safe, but it does not engender good will in the reader.

I do not think that JetBlue handled the crisis in an effective way because they focused more on how to compensate customers in case for inconvenience rather than analyzing the causes of the problems. As a customer, I do not care how much money I could earn if my flight is delayed or cancelled, I just want to arrive on time safely.

The Bill of Rights for JetBlue customers and the video message of the CEO just reduce the credibility of the company. It looks like they are trying to convince their shareholders that they work hard, as a kid reporting to his parents for school homework. Moreover, David Neeleman has a bad communication in the youtube video: he lacks simplicity (rule number one according to Luntz), uses long and not very clear sentences about operational issues that only affect the employees (no brevity as rule number two of Luntz), and finally the sound and texture are terrific. He seems not even convinced by his speech, he is finding his words, and does not appear to be sincere with the customers. This is a breach of rule number six of Luntz.

If we try to answer the question: has JetBlue done the right thing (in an ethical way) ? we can look at it in three different perspectives: for the company, for the customers, and for the relationship between these two.

From the company point of view, the solutions considered will never help to reduce costs or achieve more efficiency in flying. I would say that rather than trying to improve the operations of this corporation, they prefer to target small goals and focus on the consequences of their mediocrity. This is not very ethical.
From the customer’s perspective, this is totally out of place as mentioned earlier. No passenger cares about the fact that the CEO is moving some offices in the headquarters. We just want to hear their apologizes, and expect that they will learn the lessons from this mess. I want to hear the representatives describe how good they would be handling the next even. I want to listen to them explain carefully what their emergency plan is and how humanity is brought to me to make my flight more enjoyable (mission statement of JetBlue).

The unethical ways JetBlue handled this crisis will have a negative effect on the relationship with the customers because it seems that what you can expect from this company is not efficiency or humanity, but money for delays or cancellation. And this is exactly the wrong thing to do.

We can learn from the reading some basic rules that will be useful when crafting our documents for the project and in a broad perspective, we learn a lot about past experiences and mistakes that we should not repeat.

I think JetBlue handled the crisis fairly well, considering everything that happened was indeed, a "crisis." They issued the Customer's Bill of Rights, which promised compensation, mostly in the form of fifty dollar vouchers, to their customers. Although compensating with money does not resolve all of the anger customer's felt waiting in terminals and airplanes for hours, it at least shows there's someone behind the scenes at JetBlue who is trying to correct what had gone wrong. In making this Bill of Rights, it also shows that JetBlue was trying to handle the crisis in an ethical way. In the "Ethics and Public Relations" excerpt, it says "ethics is not merely a question of figuring out what you can get away with." JetBlue, in compensating their customers, is losing millions of dollars. They are genuinely attempting to regain the trust of their customers, and doing so in an ethical way. The Customer's Bill of Rights is clearly not just what JetBlue "can get away with", it's an honest attempt at an apology. The blog about the 10 steps JetBlue could have taken will be extremely helpful when doing the corporate crisis project, because it gave ideas for things to include in the press release. It gives a lighter spin in handling a crisis, especially when it talks about setting up food venders, games for children, etc. It shows that even mid-crisis, you can find a way to make things lighter and dissolve some of the anger customers are feeling as a result of your corporation. Also, "Be the guy with the megaphone" will help with the project, because it shows how necessary it is to have a voice from the company. When issuing the memo and press release for the project, it will be crucial to have someone stand out as a voice that bridges the gap between the corporation and the people. Without that voice, many angry customers still feel lost and have no idea what's going on throughout the crisis, which is what happened with JetBlue.

What more can you expect from JetBlue? There is no question that there was a severe lack of communication that produced an media uproar from their downright unethical treatment of their customers. But, they are certainly paying the price. JetBlue will lose millions and millions of dollars from severed customer relations, the $50 vouchers they are offering affected passengers, and fines that have incurred. They created a Customer's Bill of Rights, promising financial compensation. It reached out to every JetBlue customer and especially the victims of this crisis. Clearly they are committed to righting their wrongs and I believe this proves they handled the aftermath of this crisis effectively.

In the very beginning of Chapter 5 in our Technical Communications Today textbook, ethics are defined as "systems of moral, social, or cultural values that govern the conduct of an individual or community. For many people, acting ethically simply means 'doing the right thing.'" Not only has JetBlue taken steps to financially compensate those affected but they also issued a Customer's Bill of Rights and even released a YouTube video to address the situation. To me, this is doing the right thing.

As far as our project goes, we can take one major lesson from this particular situation. We can imitate JetBlue's tactic of using a man with a megaphone to relay information within the terminal. This guy would periodically update passengers with any information, good or bad. This is useful because it is an attempt to have clear communication with everyone. It is also pretty admirable to have someone out there in the "heat of the battle" if you will. To stand up and address an angry mob of men, women, and children with more disheartening news takes guts. But sometimes it just has to be done in order to be clear and upfront with your audience.

JetBlue did a great job with trying but failed in the execution of their poorly thought plan. JetBlue had the right idea on what to do but not on how to do it. They sent their employees out to deal with the to-be passengers at the airport to inform them about their flights but the JetBlue employees were ineffective because they knew little or no more than the passengers. JetBlue was largely unprepared for this crisis and acted unethically. They did not even try to assist the passengers on the airplanes that were grounded before takeoff on the runway. Several airplanes were grounded for almost eleven hours. Then there is the information which was not up to date on the delays and cancelations of the flights for the next few days. Like with the author of “Be the Guy with the Megaphone” his flight was to be delayed for about two hours, or so it said online, but he wound up staying almost twelve hours at the airport trying to get a flight to Chicago only to go nowhere but back home. The article “10 Steps to Recovery for 'Jet Black and Blue'” said almost perfectly what JetBlue should have done but failed to do such as reach out to and help the customers. Like Ruff’s and Aziz’s “Managing Communications in a Crisis” excerpt stated, it is important to keep updated lists of who may need to be informed and dealt with such as the passengers with JetBlue. JetBlue failed at this by not keeping the flights up to date and delaying the passengers’ flights as much as a few days without a fair reason or informing them.

The biggest thing that I learned is that no matter what may happen to your company you need a trained group or team that will know how to handle and respond effectively and quickly to a crisis no matter how big or small it is. Also is very important to make your messages believable and confident. The management and spokes people must inform and insure their audiences that there are plans in place and action are taking place to end the crisis as quickly as possible. In the YouTube video CEO David Neelman does a poor job by stuttering and not explaining how he is going to fix the problem. And it is critical for management to be seen as doing a great, effective job because the crisis can cripple or even end the company if it is not taken seriously.

According to TCT, ethics is based off the very principle of “doing the right thing”. In the retail world, that slogan should be changed to "Doing the Right Thing by the Consumer". JetBlue reacted to a crisis, like any typical corporation would when trying to keep their customer. I commend the new incorporated Customer Bill of Rights, taking actions like these; assure customers that future compensation from JetBlue will be provided. However, these are only solutions to when crises occur, not how to avoid them. JetBlue will still be criticized of being personally and socially unethical, when they still keep passengers onboard for 3:59hours and all the customer receives are a sorry and a $50 travel voucher only valid with JetBlue. JetBlue Bill of Rights claims they will take future action to deplane passengers who have been grounded onboard for more than 5 hours. But then one may ask, how can you constitute it right being onboard for 4 hours with no attempts for JetBlue to deplane them?
From the article “Be the guy with the megaphone…” I think JetBlue could take some real pointers on how handle the situation if a crises that this should occur. Customers just want to have their questions answered and no that someone cares about their situation. Having more JetBlue officials on the scene with accessible information to the public would have helped the confusion and madness. If JetBlue had been prepared with information, then all of those people who waited for hours just to find out their flight was cancelled could have made different arrangements (if provided/possible), instead they were delayed even further. I imagine myself in this situation, and I have to remind myself that although JetBlue did handle the entire situation incorrectly, they responded with the only way they knew how.

In the JetBlue crisis situation, I feel that the company addressed the issues facing them in a mostly acceptable way. It was obviously not something that could ever fully be expected, but I do feel they had at least a small plan of action prepared for any crisis.

Not really knowing anything about the situation, I got a lot especially out of reading the article “Be the Guy with the Megaphone.” I think JetBlue did a good job with trying to keep customers in the terminals updated on all new information through roaming employees and a man with a megaphone, but failed to answers their questions by way of phone operators. I feel like for the chaos that could have erupted, the company did the most they could on short notice to calm the crowds in a way that was not radical, but effective. They kept the peace as much as possible for the moment. JetBlue’s creation of a Bill of Rights I made the ethical treatment of passengers more of a forefront issue than it was before, but was still not a perfect solution for the problem and just patched up the situation and pushed JetBlue more in the right direction.

The reading I selected to study was the Ruff and Aziz “Managing Communications in a Crisis” excerpt. This talked about the specific levels of information that should be released to members involved with the crisis. It is important to assess which parties have stakes in the company and which are still connected, but outsiders. Parties in the internal audience including shareholders and employees need more detailed information about the issue and actions in place to fix the situation than the media who only needs to know the bare essentials. If too much information is leaked out to the wrong parties, it could be highly detrimental to the company. I don’t think JetBlue released anything that should not have been public knowledge, and they did a good job knowing how to phrase things.

When creating documents for the class I think it will be important to realize the exact audience we are writing this information for. The amount of details and information withheld will depend on if it is going to the external or internal client. Reading these documents about JetBlue have also explained pretty clearly what worked and did not work in dealing with the crisis, which can be used in our own assessments and writing for the class.

While JetBlue handled the entire crisis incorrectly and unethically, it was the only way they knew how. They were not prepared for the crisis. In the Managing Communications in a Crisis reading it says that, “It is the way in which you treat these audiences before, during and after an emergency that might have a crucial impact on whether or not you remain in business.” JetBlue really acted unethically in their treatment of their customers during the emergency. Leaving them on planes and in the terminals for as long as they did was unacceptable, and goes against their promise to “bring humanity back to air travel.” The reading also says that some audiences need to know that there will be a more detailed explanation after the crisis. This audience, the important members in this audience was the customers and they did not receive a good explanation. CEO David Neeleman did make a video that explained, what the company was doing to better equip its staff, incase another emergency occurs. The Bill of Rights for JetBlue customers and the video message by Neeleman was a good idea but was not executed correctly by JetBlue. Both reduce the credibility of the company because even though they appear to be directed to the customers it is the shareholders that they are trying to convince. They offer vouchers to customers in their customer Bill of Rights, but what customers are concerned with is how they will be treated by the company in the future. According to Luntz, Neeleman has bad communication because he lacks simplicity, when discussing the issues that will affect employees. Also, he is not very believable. There is no sincerity in his words. The video does not provide an explanation for the customers and Neeleman did not do a good job at making the customers believe that he cared about their well being. We can learn about past mistakes and how to not repeat them.

I feel that JetBlue did a reasonably satisfactory job handling the crisis after it happened to try and retain customers. I can’t really say they handled it well at the airport and in the planes. Obviously not so well since they had people sitting in planes for up to eleven hours and people having flights cancelled for the next few days. I can however understand that with all the regulations at airports these days, it was difficult for JetBlue to properly handle the passengers. JetBlue’s Customer Bill of Rights does a good job showing customers that if the company screws up, JetBlue will pay for customer’s inconveniences. JetBlue CEO David Neelman was very sympathetic and used the circumstances to reach out to new and existential patrons. If Neelman had not been enthusiastic in showing he cared, something similar to what happened in the example from the excerpt from Ruff and Aziz Managing Communications in a Crisis would have occurred. Townsend Thorenson was a ferry company that went out of business because there management reacted chaotically and half-heartedly to a tragic accident of one of their ships. Like it says in the Ruff and Aziz Managing Communications in a Crisis excerpt, all organizations should have a plan to cope with a crisis. JetBlue didn’t have a plan to really efficiently take care of the problem. They have however made a plan and presented it to the public to re-instill confidence in the company.
When we are doing our projects we need to make sure we respond quickly to our crisis and when we make our video/sound recording we need to be on the same page as the customer would be. We need to be able to relate with the patron, sympathize with them, and show energy. A unique plan of action that will set us apart from other corporations may help as well.

Based from the text out of "Managing Communications in a Crisis", JetBlue tried to recover from their crisis at a satisfactory level. Obviously, JetBlue management was not prepared to handle the situation. If employees had been properly trained and prepared to take care of complications, the JetBlue crisis may have not extended to the point it did. The broad perspective of fixing the problem was vaguely rendered. The public, present costumers generally, were addressed with the YouTube video and the Customer Bill of Rights which promised reimbursements and excellent service. The excerpt I choose emphasized on a company’s audiences. It said that in a crisis situation, the company should have a current list of internal and external audiences to be dealt with in their different needs of information. The YouTube promise, which addressed the customers in an external source sort of manner was ethical and comforting in the fact that it seemed to be a casual and friendly apology rather than an over-worded formal excerpt that seems to blame divisions of the company while not developing techniques to prevent event from happening again. The Customer Bill of Rights is not as ethical as it is a bribe to overlook mistakes. Giving customers more movie options, vouchers, and free flights will not repair the ethical aspects of the situation as much as needed. Something that should be learned from my reading and the JetBlue crisis is communication is very important when overcoming a corporate catastrophe. When crafting the documentation for the project, showing the consumer that the company has the resources and capability to handle the situation is vital. Also, it should be known by the consumer that the corporation has good internal communication, showing that trouble can be easily overcome. Without trust and faith in the company to fix problems effectively brought about by great communication, a consumer is not persuaded that future business ventures are safe.

As a corporation concentrating on the sometimes life-threatening airline industry, JetBlue should have had a clear-cut formula for crisis management. These crises, by definition, are unexpected, but in this age of terrorism the unexpected has become the norm. That being said, I believe that JetBlue did what they could logistically, but their main problem was in communication during the events. No customer of any airline should have to wait around for twelve hours to learn that his or her flight has been cancelled. Customers faced long lines and almost no reassurance of refunds or rescheduling of flights, adding to their frustration. One positive aspect of JetBlue’s communication during the crisis, the “man with the megaphone,” was probably not planned at all but rather an inspired employee or executive stepping up to try and help the situation. As a whole, JetBlue did not do much to help reassure their customers during this crisis, but they did slightly redeem themselves in their actions after the chaos.
JetBlue did something that is honorable and surprising for a corporation: took full responsibility for their mistakes. The company’s CEO broadcasted a heartfelt apology and basically bashed his own company, saying that they would punish themselves financially (also rewarding the consumers) if anything like it happened again. I like this because they could have easily blamed Mother Nature and said it wasn’t their fault but instead they showed characteristics that are admirable in not only a corporation, but in an individual. JetBlue promised to issue vouchers for future delays in their new “Customer Bill of Rights.” This document was simple and fairly effective in restoring faith in their promise to put the humanity back in the airline industry. Although JetBlue did not react ideally during the crisis, it was their actions after the fact that kept them from losing too many customers and put them in the category of what Ruff and Aziz would call the “recoverers.”

The video message from the CEO, David Neeleman, explained the changes that JetBlue is going to make in order to ensure that his customers’ future travel plans will not be interrupted again. It is easy to tell that his message is heartfelt; he is trying to inspire the confidence of his the public in his company. The changes that JetBlue will make are an important thing for the public to know. What's more, he presented his speech in a successful way. Although he isn’t the best speaker and tended to stumble over his words, I think it would have been less effective if he had been dressed in a suit reading from a teleprompter. He utilized one of the most important points from "The Rules of Effective Language." That text said that in order to be heard by customers, one has to use language that the customers understand. He spoke in an easy-to-understand way that his customers could relate to, without any jargon and fancy words making confusing promises.

My problem with his message is this: If I were a customer that had to wait on one of JetBlue's planes for eight or nine hours, I would not be interested in what they are going to do to change their policies, because I would never fly with JetBlue again. Neeleman did not do enough to explain why these events occurred in the first place. As a matter of fact, none of the articles had much to say about what actually happened. After all of the hassle and confusion, I would want answers, not promises. Why did I just sit on a plane outside of my gate for hours? Why did I have to wait in the terminal overnight to get rebooked? Apologies are great, but I would be willing to say that most people don't want to hear about a company’s promises for the future; they want answers about exactly why their day was ruined. Neeleman's message did not have the right focus, and that reflects poorly on the efforts of the entire corporation.

We will be able to use JetBlue’s example to better our corporate crisis projects because we can learn from their mistakes. In my opinion, giving the customers the answers they want is more important than making promises for the future. Maybe my group members won’t agree, so it will be interesting to see how we will work together.

We can learn a lot from “The Rules of Effective Language” to make our projects better. It seems to be a great beginner’s guide for anyone working in public relations, because it preaches telling the truth, speaking in plain language, and basically telling the public what they want to hear the way they want to hear it. I think “The Rules of Effective Language” will be a great guide for me throughout the entire project since I haven’t worked in crisis management before.

I feel JetBlue managed their 2007 corporate crisis as effectively as possible. Not being prepared for such an emergency, the only lacking element was a switchboard with enough operators to handle the massive call volume. This may have been an oversight by the company, or simply an error on their part to predict the number of calls they would receive during a major crisis.

According to TCT, Social Ethics mandates that the rights of the individuals flying JetBlue were the most important to be considered. JetBlue did everything possible to ensure the safety of their passengers, which is what caused the massive flight delays. Better to keep a flight grounded for a few hours and assure the safety of it's passengers than neglecting some detail which would then result in potential hazardous crashes.

Care was given to consider the passengers during this particular crisis. JetBlue sent as many employees to JFK as representatives who could listen to customer complaints and try their best to find solutions to all customer issues. I think that goes a long way in ensuring a company's dedication to customer satisfaction.

Neeleman quickly responded to the crisis by creating the Customer Bill of Rights and making a public apology addressing the issue. He assured that Justice would be provided to customers to rectify the problems caused by his company in the most Utilitarian way possible.

With TCT's chapter on Ethics, we can ensure proper handling of all ethical aspects in the course of crafting any documents for our forthcoming project. As representatives of the company we choose, we must be absolutely sure that all statements made in our documents are ethically sound.

William

I believe that JetBlue handled their crisis in a somewhat effective manner. Besides the initial delays due to the snow storm, the extended backups and delays could have been prevented had JetBlue been prepared and had handled the situation differently. But, as a company only can do when they make a mistake, JetBlue worked hard to rectify the situation. Creating the Customer Bill of Rights was an effective measure to take because it shows the customers that JetBlue acknowledged that they made a mistake, and are willing to make it up to the people who were hurt by it. The bill of rights offers compensation for customers based on the number of hours their flight is delayed. Of course, this compensation does not make up for the fact that the customers were detained at the airport and on the runway, or make up foe the pain or frustrations this crisis may have caused, but it shows that JetBlue knows what they have done wrong and that they are trying to fix it. As for the apology video given by the CEO, I think that that could have been prepared in a more professional manner. It seemed as though he did not have all of his thoughts on what he wanted to say to the public in order before he started the video. But, nevertheless, the company was still reaching out to the customers to once again acknowledge their wrongdoing and rectify the situation. In Parsons Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice excerpt, public relations ethics' are defined as "the application of knowledge, understanding and
reasoning to questions of right or wrong behaviour in the professional practice of public relations". I believe that JetBlue handled their situation in an ethical way because they realized that they wronged the customers, but, like this definition,they utilized an application of knowledge, understanding, and reasoning to better the company, make it up to the customers, and look inside the company for things that they could improve.

The company Jet Blue found themselves in quite a dilema after their major crisis. I believe they handled everything ethically to a certain extent. there were aspects of their responding to the crisis that could have been handled more appropriately, but overall they did everything they were suposed to.
In the Jet Blue CEO video, I find it interesting how he is so casually dressed, almost as if he didnt know he woudld be making this video prior to filming. his casual language is not inspiring and comforting to the customers at all. This video would have been an effective technique if it had been done correctly. He does say what he, and the company, are currently doing to prevent this crisis from ever happening again, but the suggestions he has doesnt seem like they would be effective. For example, providing vouchers for future jet blue flights probably isn't the best idea since most of these people probably won't choose to fly jet blue again. Basing this off of Luntz reading, the CEO did a few things that he touched on. He came up with a customer bill of rights that included customer compensation in the form of these vouchers. the bill of rights was him offering something new. That was one of Luntz's rules. Was it effective? I dont think so jsut because of the solution they came up with for compensation. Jet blue did everything that they were suposed to based on these readings, they just didnt do it correctly or to the best of their ability.
With any crisis that involves a lack of communication, the main thing that people want to hear is that there will be more communication and information in the future and they wont be left out to dry.

Jet Blue definitely has a tall mountain to climb for a company who works towards such a bold statements as "dedicated to bringing humanity back to air travel". To drop the ball on such a crucial and fundamental lack of communication was by no means a small mistake. For a company who claims to be so committed to customer satisfaction getting planes in the air and passengers to their destinations safely and efficiently should be their number one concern. Accidents do happen however. I feel that Jet Blue has taken appropriate actions to try and regain the trust of their clients. However, I feel the most important course of action to take on their behalf is make sure something like this never happens again. They have claimed to have "beefed up" their organization that is responsible for the coordination between crew and airplanes. This is a good first step. During the incident Jet Blue claims this organization was overwhelmed. Any system running at too high of a capacity is bound to fail sooner or later.

I feel they did handle the situation pretty well on the ground. Bringing those employees in was definitely a smart (if not obvious) move. Even though most of these representatives did not know much more than the passengers themselves having someone there to scream at would definitely be a relief. Letting these passengers know that they are currently working on the problem is one of the first actions the company should and did take.

The customer bill of rights was also a good move in my opinion. Reassuring passengers that nothing like this will even happen again by imposing financial penalties on the company to the passengers benefit will hopefully help regain trust from now weary flyers. In the end though its ultimately not about who can give out the most $50 vouchers. People fly to get where they need to go quickly and and hopefully easily. Efficient and consistent performance on jet blue's behalf is what will keep their customers coming back for more "happy jetting".

JetBlue made a few strides toward recovery, but their approach in doing so was a reflection of the sloppiness that got them into trouble in the first place. The blog post, written from a customer's perspective, showed a major flaw that cannot go unnoticed. JetBlue's website seemed, as Matt wrote, "disconnected from reality." That was my first issue with the scene. Secondly, the video posted by Neeleman gave JetBlue a face; however, that face was nervous, afraid, and unsure. The unscripted approach taken by PR managers did portray Neeleman as genuine, but if genuine is also meek, perhaps JetBlue should be represented by a different face.

Luntz provides the framework for an acceptable reply to the public after a corporation like JetBlue experiences such a devastating blow. His tenth rule is to provide context, which rings true to me. I'd like to know what is really going on, as I'm sure all of JetBlue's customers do. Neeleman promises they are doing everything they can to assess the situation, but imagine the chaos and confusion (like Matt writes about) of being stuck on an airplane or in an airport in line after line for twelve hours. Before apologizing, explain. Now explaining the crisis offers an opportunity for a lot of "mumbo jumbo"--big words that Luntz says will sail right over the heads of the audience. This is his number one rule--use small words. His second rule is quite similar--be brief. The two compliment each other. In addressing the failure of JetBlue's design and organization and providing context, I would advise Neeleman to make the problem as clear as the solution, rather than force the affected to search for answers elsewhere. Ethically, JetBlue is on the right track in offering monetary fixes that, as Neeleman says, will also cripple the company financially. "You sacrificed your holiday, I am willing to sacrifice also" is the message that knocks JetBlue down a few notches so that it is no longer an untouchable corporation, it can feel and suffer just like a person can.

These materials will be quite useful in structuring a customer address and a press release. I understand the format now and know what's expected. I also understand how an public address can be a failure and only add to the woes of a company.

I'm thinking Jetblue dropped the ball on this one, but that's hardly a new problem. The real culprit here is the bureaucracy of the corporation, trying to follow protocol for a problem not covered by the protocol. Rather than analyze the situation like human beings, Jetblue treated the people inside the planes like objects, and left them out there for hours. If somebody had stepped forward and said "I don't think following protocol is a good choice, here," a lot of problems could have been avoided. Instead, the bureaucracy made sure that the responsibility fell on nobody, and the result is a corporate disaster.

A lot of crises could be avoided if corporations weren't so rigidly bureaucratic and inflexible with their protocol.

I think that JetBlue's attempt to handle their crisis appeared very feeble in the eyes of "stakeholders", or clients and shareholders. They most likely felt they did the best they could in the short amount of time they had to react, but as stated in Ruff and Aziz's excerpt, you rarely have much time to handle a crisis, and there is a big difference between handling it effectively and less than effectively. The Youtube video was not very convincing and it was obvious it was thrown together to appease angry customers. Unfortunately for JetBlue, it seemed to have the opposite effect.

According to Luntz’ Words that Work excerpt, we would all ideally know exactly how to handle situations, already know everything we need to know, and be born with the capacity to comprehend a crisis and deal with it effectively. This is something we all need to implement in class because even though we are not born with an innate ability to reason things out and react to them quickly and efficiently, we do have the capacity to learn to do these things. We will have to put ourselves in the shoes of JetBlue or a similar company in crisis, and use all of the knowledge we acquire in this course to build up our projects and make them successful.