ENG 204-002

After reading the Parsons Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice excerpt I drew a lot of similarities between the instructions the excerpt gave on addressing moral issues in PR work, the media and in professional situations, and the way that JetBlue handled it's corporate crisis. The excerpt gave specific emphasis on the steps it claimed were necessary for identifying the moral issues when making decisions on a public matter and how to best go about doing it in a manner that satisfies the party that is most important to satisfy in the situation. It explains first that one must research, get the background information and identify specifically where the error occurred in a situation regarding questions of value and morality, which is exactly what JetBlue did. The CEO came out publicly in a video stating specifically what some of the issues were that they faced in that week of chaos and took blame for them along side expressing sympathy and concern for the issues the dilemmas caused it's customers. The CEO was open with the magnitude of the issues the airline had and came out with solutions for ways for those things to never occur again which included making financial repercussions for the airline if those situations were to ever arise again. The reading discusses having to identify what kind of a person you want to be and want to be portrayed as. Is money and wealth the most important thing? Or do you value honesty most? In JetBlue's case the CEO clearly chose honesty and it's customers over profit as he worked out the JetBlue customer Bill of Rights stating the financial backing the customers would receive from future incidents.
The reading provides information on a way to gather information, analyze it, make decisions based on a personal system of values, and double-check your decision before it is made. This method of decision making during a critical time will help when writing from a company's perspective for the project and solving a crisis from their point of view.

After having read over the details of the Jet Blue Crisis and learning all that the corporation did during the meltdown of their once well running system I have come to the conclusion that this company is ultimately concerned with their internal ethics. I have come to this conclusion based on the definition and explanation of ethics as described in the article Parsons Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice excerpt. One of the requirements the article mentioned as being key to practicing an ethical business was to be open and to not disclose information from consumers. Jet Blue certainly followed through with this code of ethics. They openly communicated with their passengers the technical issues that were occurring and at no point tried to cover up or hide the truth that they were flawed and that all that went wrong was in fact their responsibility. Not only did they recognize their responsibility but also took action by having "every soldier on the front lines" they called in workers.. all they had to come in to talk to confused, disgruntled customers who's fights were delayed or canceled. The company not only tried to communicate their message but also took actions to show their buyers that Jet Blue cared about their wasted time. Jet Blue accomplished this by letting out a "Passenger's Bill of Rights" that penalized jet blue for every large amount of time a passenger's fight was delayed by taking money from the company and giving it to the buyer. This sacrifice makes the consumer have faith and take comfort in the fact that even if their flight is delayed at least their time won't be completely wasted and that Jet Blue will be hurting themselves by not having their system of operations running smoothly and effectively. The idea that one should do unto others as they would have done unto themselves is one that is obviously adopted by the company and this should seem appealing to anyone. "There are few clear-cut solutions to ethical dilemmas but as a professional it is your responsibility to determine what might be the right place to draw that line." The CEO and other leaders at Jet Blue had some lines to draw and weather they drew their lines correctly is up to the individual.. but at least they picked up the pencil and made a decision. I was personally impressed by the passenger's Bill of Rights. It is close to impossible to find a company that sets up reprimandations for themselves based on a job poorly done. By making this bill Jet Blue has put themselves into the situation of the passenger who has just been told they will be stuck in a terminal for any length of time longer than they were expecting and Jet Blue has decided to take action. Action is a major step in ethical proof! you can make promises to customers all day but it's the promise playing out that the customers want.. not just your kind or hopeful words.

Taking into consideration the numerous guidelines set forth in the articles, I do believe that JetBlue handled their crisis ineffectively at first but had a strong enough comeback that it lifted them above the turmoil. In Ruff and Aziz’s Managing Communications in a Crisis excerpt, they stress the importance of keeping the audience updated with the latest information at all times. It was stated several times in articles assessing JetBlue’s performance that phone lines to the company were so jam packed that information was hard to come by and resulted in people having to wait hours in line to find out something that could have been handled in a couple of minutes. Also, one reviewer of the crisis referenced JetBlue’s website and their lack of current news on the entire situation unfolding. In an age where technology is power, JetBlue should have had a better understanding that their website would be key to keeping both customers at the airport already and those who may go there relatively soon informed. The CEO should have immediately gotten in contact with whomever runs his company’s website and have them post a formal letter from him dictating what was currently happening and what they were doing to fix the problem.

Despite these setbacks that would have otherwise made the crisis situation run smoother, the JetBlue Corporation did ethically handle the situation in the end, and that is what kept customers coming back. David Neeleman did exactly what Ruff and Aziz suggested in their article, perhaps even skipping a step to accomplish this. They state that any crisis communication strategy formed must deliver its plausible and believable messages with a clear manifest backing from senior management (5). By having Mr. Neeleman issue the video apology himself, he successfully got across his message with sincerity and his promises were made all the more plausible for customers by having the words come directly from his mouth. He also addressed the key concerns of passengers by confirming the implementation of a Customer Bill of Rights for future incidents, should they ever occur. His target audience was reached by this method, along with several appearances on television to spread word of his new crisis plan, and they were reassured that their ordeal was not going to be overlooked. JetBlue was able to successfully recover from this incident by making their ethical decisions the most important thing that people remembered from this situation.

From this crisis we can learn that a minor hiccup at the beginning can be saved by simply knowing to put the people who are affected first when issuing any formal statement or apology. We can also learn that staying on top of information as it becomes available and in turn making it available to the media outlets is what will help recover the company. These all can be used when creating the crises documents by noting how the company relayed its pertinent information and who issued the statements during the course of the crisis.

In comparing Ruff and Aziz’s suggestions in Managing Communications in a Crisis and the way that JetBlue handled their situation, I find many common attributes that show that the airline company was ethical for the most part in the way that they communicated with their customers. JetBlue admitted that they had made a mistake and made sure that their customers understood what error was made. This helped the company assure their customers that they would remain truthful and attempt to help and inform them through every step in JetBlue’s road to recovery. This particular text by Ruff and Aziz identifies the importance of stakeholders in a time of crisis and how their reactions are a very important factor in the company’s recovery or non-recovery. However, Ruff and Aziz stress that a technical plan must also exist in case of a crisis, and a company should not rely solely on being able to communicate effectively with their customers. JetBlue failed in this because they did not have a plan ready when crisis struck. I think it was a poor decision on the company’s part when planes were boarded and on the runway before the weather had cleared up. This forced customers to wait on runways in uncomfortable conditions, which was obviously bad for the company. If JetBlue had already planned for such a crisis, the situation would probably have been handled better.
A company must know exactly which audiences it must communicate with in a time of crisis, and also what information or reassurances those audiences need in order for them to stay vested in the company. I think this is a very important note that can be applied to the Corporate Communication Project because we must be able to identify the stakeholders and affected audience in the crisis we study.

After reading "Managing Communications in a Crisis", I was able to relate the information discussed in the reading to the reaction discussed in the article on JetBlue regarding their crisis. In relation, it seemed as though JetBlue took appropriate precautions both during and after the crisis occurred. The reading described ways in which one should address a crisis and it used the example of the media. The article describing JetBlue’s crisis stated that David Neeleman, JetBlue’s CEO, spoke with CNBC television to announce that it was a mistake upon the airline and not its customers; and that the customers had a right to be upset. In relation to the reading, it was also stated that it is important for management to be seen having done well during times of crisis. Having the CEO step up and take charge showed that something had been done to solve the issue. JetBlue also later introduced its own Customer Bill of Rights. The airline properly identifies its mistakes and makes a promise to ensure that no similar mistake will occur and if it does, it will be dealt with immediately to ensure its customer’s safety and security. The Customer Bill of Rights is JetBlue’s way of trending to its audience after a crisis in order to possibly keep the airline in business and also keep its customers. Ethically, the Bill of Rights was definitely the right move. This shows that the airline was doing its best to put a positive message out to its customers. Both the reading and the JetBlue article gives advice on how to manage a crisis in a professional way; mainly to stay in business and provide a safe and secure product. In conclusion, JetBlue was able to resolve the crisis professionally following most of, if not all of the “guidelines” discussed in the reading.

1.10.10
Eng. 204

Jet Blue
February 15th, 2007, was not a fun filled day for many people traveling with Jet Blue airlines. Because of a winter storm, many people were “stranded” in their seats on an airplane for up to 11 hours. This bad weather took days to recover the airlines normal schedule, and still than passengers were angry and “disgruntled” by the bad situation and problems. Did the people of Jet Blue handle this situation well? Could they have perhaps taken actions differently?

In an article that MSN put online, Jet Blue CEO David Neeleman told CNBC reporters, “It’s going to certainly impact us, and it’s going to be many millions of dollars that we’re going to lose from this… I don’t blame our customers for being upset with this.”

In the article by Parons, they discuss eight steps in taking action over hard decision making problems. They say the best practice in public relations is to gather all pertinent information, define the problem, identify the professional values, apply the principles of ethical decision-making, analyze your loyalties in that decision, make a decision, second-guess your decision and than take action.

I believe that the CEO at the time, David Neeleman, addressed the issue well by realizing there was a problem and taking the appropiate steps to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. He also ensured their passengers that they are doing all they can to comfort and make better the accomidations they already have. He also pointed out that they don’t plan to have any sort of event happen again. He made three promises right than, three promises to make sure his passengers were happy with their work. He said that all non airport crew members who worked with Jet Blue would be given a badge and be trained to help at the airport when needed. He also added that there would be revisions made with the reservationist, making it heaps easier to get threw on the phone during delays and canselations. His third, and last, promise was to triple the size of the organization to make things go quicker when booking and planned flights.

Overall I believe he did well in apologizing to his costumers for their delay, but I feel maybe he could have handled things the day of the incident a tad better. In a way that people didn’t have to spend 11 hours on a plane just waiting.

Overall I feel JetBlue handled the crisis in an effective manner. Of course those passengers should never have been left on the runway for such an extensive period of time and in the midst of the chaos mistakes were definitely made, but after the fact the situation was handled fairly well. The CEO was quick to apologize for the event and made it very clear that his priority was to repair the damage done and take steps to prevent something like this from ever happening again. After reading Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice, I would also say that the crisis was handled ethically. Just as the reading recommends, there was no effort to hide any of the facts; the company was very open and owned up to the mistakes that were made. The reading also lays out how to best handle issues in public relations in an ethical manner, with the first step being research. Research helps to better understand how and why this event occurred. Jetblue appears to have followed this step; the CEO discusses their findings in the video and explains how numerous factors contributed to the crisis. After careful study your research should be used to formulate how to best respond to and prevent the same sort of situations in the future. I feel that JetBlue did a good job with this particular step by creating their Customer Bill of Rights. The company will actually compensate customers in the event that their flight is delayed, canceled, or overbooked, which from personal experience I can say is not something that every airline does. The CEO also mentioned other steps that were being taken like bringing in more JetBlue employees when a crisis scenario takes place.
I like that the reading lays out step by step how to handle a crisis situation, which will be helpful as the project is put together. From research to decision analysis this will help us to better evaluate and understand the gravity of the crisis.

After reading these documents and watching the video address “Our Promise To You” given by David Neeleman, the founder and former CEO of JetBlue, I think the situation was handled in a fairly effective way, but there is always room for improvement. I think his video was sincere but could’ve been structured more professionally. It seemed a bit casual and I think he could’ve been more confident. However, I do believe that the situation was handled ethically. It seemed as though they were open and honest with their customers about the error of their ways and their promise is to change that in order to prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future.
As mentioned in the Ruff and Aziz Managing Communications in a Crisis excerpt reading, planning for a crisis situation prior to the actual occurrence of a crisis is necessary in order to better handle the situation. If JetBlue had better planned for the possibility of a crisis situation at all similar to the one they experienced, the problem might have been handled better. For instance, The JetBlue Customer Bill of Rights was created and went into effect well after many customers were stranded and grew irate. The plan to penalize JetBlue and reward their customers in the event of delays, cancellations, overbooking, etc. as much as $1,000 (given the appropriate issue) is promising for customers in the event of a problem with their flight. I think it was a nice touch that in the event of a problem with the in-flight entertainment, passengers will be given a $15 flight voucher. Because this has no direct interference with the passenger getting from destination to destination, it’s smart to reward the customer in a situation where their traveling experience was still successful but perhaps wasn’t as pleasurable as JetBlue intended for it to be.
As far as crafting our own documents for this project, I think one of the best pieces of advice I read for this assignment was also from the Ruff and Aziz Managing Communications in a Crisis excerpt reading, which was “Plan how you will deal with their concerns – how you treat them may decide the future of your organization.” The more sincerity and concern we feel from the apologies from those corporations who have wronged us, the more likely it is that we will be a returning customer despite previous issues. That is the key to winning back the hearts of your customers, and if you have that in mind, you should be able to put a more precise plan into effect for the future.

In my opinion, JetBlue handled the crisis in a quite effective way but it could have undertaken better actions. Obviously, the communication was not that efficient and it seems it was the major problem that affected the customers. Hereafter are some facts from Be the Guy with the Megaphone that can justify my statement:

• The customers tried to find more information about the delays and cancellations of their flights by calling JetBlue but the phone lines were too jampacked so they had to wait in endless lines
• The volume of the PA system was too feeble so the announcements were hardly conveyed
• The CEO’s response was unobtainable on JetBlue’s website.

Besides, I am convinced the company’s workers were not trained enough to experience such a crisis. It is not normal that the customers had to suffer from waiting too many hours on board of the plane or within the airport.

However, I believe JetBlue ethically handled the crisis. Because of the icy weather and the related problems such as congestion or frozen equipment, cancellations and delays were unavoidable, and it triggered off not only anger, but also panic among the customers and JetBlue’s workers. But at that time, people’s lives were at stake and JetBlue was aware of it. Based on what I learned from TCT Chapter 5: Ethics in the Technical Workplace, rights prevailed. In this case, JetBlue considered its customers’ lives (which is a right) as the most important thing. “We need to make sure that it’s always safe for the customers” JetBlue spokesman Bryan Baldwin said (see: JetBlue Apologizes after Passengers Stranded). David Neeleman, the CEO of JetBlue, experienced an ethical dilemma: he put the interest of JetBlue’s customers above profits by making financial sacrifices. As we can read in JetBlue's Customer Bill of Rights, he offered the customers some vouchers and/or services that have monetary value as well (which was harmful for the company) for any delay or cancellation. Moreover, he publicly apologized and recognized the company’s mistake (see: Our promise to you).

Obviously, the readings and the JetBlue’s crisis provide us a useful guideline for crafting our documents for this project. I believe it will enable us to:

• Effectively and correctly address a message to our audience (be it internal or external or both)
• Consider the ethical issues and make the right decisions, bearing in mind the impact it might have on people (and possibly the environment).

No matter the actions we take to avoid bad events, they do happen in both personal and professional life and we always have to be more than prepared / trained. This can be illustrated by what Bryan Baldwin said in JetBlue Apologizes after Passengers Stranded: “It didn’t work as well as we planned. It’s going to take longer than we anticipated to do that.”

In light of Luntz Words that work excerpt, JetBlue Airways seems to have handled the crisis in a satisfactory manner communication-wise.

Successfully reaching out to an audience is crucial for any given organization at any given time. But this is even more true when the latter is undergoing a crisis. In such a case, effective communication is key to recover from it. Communicating effectively in the midst of difficult times requires great proficiencies as this type of situation often generates information overload.

JetBlue communicated during the crisis by deploying off-duty staff and personnel from their nearby corporate headquarters in the JFK airport to help out on-site employees spread out information and listen to passengers’ concerns and complaints. The carrier communicated shortly after the peak of the crisis as well. David Neeleman, founder and CEO of JetBlue Airways, recorded a five-minute long video message which primary audience was the airline passengers. The format and content of his message followed numerous rules mentioned by Luntz. Indeed, his address was brief and made of simple words, keeping it clear and suspicion-free. By making references to the company’s history, core principles and values, he aimed at reasserting what had set the carrier apart from competition from day one; thus playing the consistency card. He admitted the mistakes made in handling the ice storm aftermath, apologized and took immediate action to improve the situation and ensure it would never happen again. He also made the message visual by having written half way through the recording the phrase ‘our promise to you’. Those four words constitute a good illustration of simplicity and brevity, two essential qualities of effective communication according to Luntz.

Yet, words alone are not everything. What one undertakes matters just as much. That is why JetBlue took immediate action, restructuring its operating systems and company structure as well as writing a Passengers’ Bill of Rights with precise financial sanctions in case passengers suffered from flight delays and/or cancellations that did not fall under the force majeure events’ category. The fact the voucher policy is retroactive demonstrates a sincere will to repair the damage caused to the stranded passengers. The company holds itself accountable for any inconvenience caused, be it past, present or forthcoming. The carrier’s credibility and survival were at stake. By applying their values and principles to the situation, they came out with something new that proved their commitment to customer satisfaction. What was implemented prevented the firm from losing all its credibility as it acted according to this rule: say what you mean and mean what you say.

After reading “Ruff and Aziz Managing Communication in a Crisis,” I believe it is fair to say that JetBlue’s crisis recovery was effective, as well as ethical. When a crisis occurs, it is important for company involved to take immediate action. Failure to do so can result in distrust from customers and other parties involved in the matter. When a company demonstrates immediate action, customers will feel more confident and assured, and they will be more inclined to trust the company. This is seen in the Zeebruge tragedy. Townsend Thorenson was not prepared to deal with the crisis, and as a result, their customers and other stake holders lost confidence in the company, which eventually led to the company’s downfall and disappearance. JetBlue, on the other hand, was more prepared and willing to deal with their crisis. They immediately responded by apologizing and ensuring the customers that precautions would be taken in order to assure them that something like that wouldn’t happen again. Because they were empathetic towards their audience, customers and other stakeholders were more inclined to listen to their response. Not only did they release an apology shortly after the delays occurred, the CEO at the time, David Neeleman went so far as to make a video to address the issue. The company also came up with a “Bill of Rights” that would ensure the highest level of safety and security for their customers. I think it was also important for Neeleman to understand that the customers had a right to be upset over this crisis. “I don’t blame our customers for being upset with this,” he said in addressing this matter. I think two very important factors led to JetBlue’s effective and ethical response: the attitude they had in response to the crisis, and the actions they took.

After reading Parson's Ethics in Public Relations I do believe that JetBlue handled this crisis in a somewhat effective way. I feel like they went through the decision steps talked about in the article, such as gathering and analyzing data, making a plan by deciding what outcomes they wanted, and implementing this decision. From the articles I read I feel like JetBlue did all they could at the time of the crisis to meet the needs of all the unhappy customers as well as making up for their mistakes aftermath by pretty much paying off the unhappy customers. The man behind all this catastrophe who runs JetBlue even said himself that talk is cheap and they will follow through with their actions to make it up to their customers. I also feel that JetBlue acted ethical after the crisis. They were sending employees around to talk to customers one on one and diffuse the situations as well as answering any questions customers had. They did not lie or hide from the customers what was going on, there was even a man with a megafone to let the customers who could hear well over the intercome know what was going on. I think the way JetBlue reacted to thier crisis could be useful, when looking at the situation and analyzing it. JetBlue took a step back and saw all that was wrong and what they had to do to fix their mistakes and keep the customers calm and somewhat happy. I could also take away the plan of action taken by JetBlue, they had many employees working to fix and clean up what was happening.

After reading through the articles: the first addressing the JetBlue crisis, and the following ones on the ethics of crisis management and decision making, I think that JetBlue handled its crisis in a way that made it possible for the airline to recover. Granted, the campaign to apologize to their customers was not 100% perfect (the CEO could have rehearsed a little better and tried to take out all his vocalized pauses), but it appealed to the public in a lot of very crucial areas. As Luntz' article points out: "consistency matters", JetBlue has been able to capitalize on the fact that they have been effectively in service and "crisis-free" for seven years. Although it probably would have been to their benefit to adhere to Ruff and Aziz's advice in their "Managing Communication in a Crisis" excerpt (communication seems to have been a key issue in their crisis in the first place-it was the reason they had such trouble recovering from weather back ups in the first place), they did manage to have as many personnel on site trying to help their customers and at the very least provide them with someone to talk to, so they could "feel as though they were being heard". Then, in an effort to recover and gain their customers confidence again, they came out with new and :novel" things for their customers. Initially they published their own "Bill of Rights" - a document spelling out the monetary punishments the company would suffer for future inconveniences to their customers.
JetBlue has done a good job, with the combination of apologies by the CEO and numerous apologetic press releases, at appealing to the humanity of their customers. They have shown that they realize that people suffered, they acknowledge that it was their fault, and finally they have sympathized with their customers and tried to compensate them for their ordeal. Now, the thing that will be key in their recovery is if they can quickly respond to customers' needs by providing their promised refunds and reimbursements. JetBlue is not quite out of trouble-particularly with the instability of the economy as it is-but it looks to me as though it is at least on its way.

After familiarizing myself with the organizational meltdown that JetBlue experienced a few years ago, I believe that JetBlue, in accordance with Parson's Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice, handled the situation ethically and appropriately.

The unfortunate situation that JetBlue and its passengers found themselves in was undoubtably an ethical issue, if one makes this decision based on the PR Pillars mentioned in Parson's text. It is very clear that JetBlue made the necessary efforts to figure out how the situation developed in the first place by pinpointing the problem to the company's inability to quickly and appropriately move the required pilots and flight attendants to the particular airplanes in need when swamped with numerous flight cancellations. This issue was not only made public, but so were the means by which the company plans to remedy the problem in the future. Furthermore, JetBlue rapidly responded to both involved parties and, as described by a passenger who was stuck in a terminal for 12 hours, “brought in a bunch of people who normally work [at the corporate office] to help out at the terminal.” Although these employees didn't know much more about the situation than the stranded passengers, the mere effort made by the company to empathize and reach out rang positive in the minds of the passengers, indicated by the same traveler's statement of, “hey... at least they were there.”

Also, The CEO of JetBlue's press release through the use of YouTube was a quick and necessary means to address the situation and treated its relevant viewers as humans deserving of a sincere apology. The company even went as far as to set up a bill of rights granting monetary compensation to future customers in the event that any similar meltdown were to happen again in the future. Based on my research of the situation and JetBlue's prompt, sincere response through various outlets, it is my belief that the company handled the situation effectively and ethically.

After reviewing the details of the Jetblue crisis in 2007, I believe that the Jetblue airline company did handle the situation ethically and to the best of their ability. In TCT Chapter 5: Ethics in the Technical Workplace, the ethics Scholar Manuel Velasquez gave a four part categorization for social ethical situations (Johnson-Sheehan 97), Rights, Justice, Utility, and Care.

-Rights: the rights given to a citizen by the country and rights that are unconditional to all humans.
-Justice: fairness among equals and the laws. For instance our laws (U.S.) are made so that everyone is treated ethically and equally.
-Utility: Interests of the Majority should outweigh the interests of the few.
-Care: Compassion and tolerance takes precedence of rigid and absolute rules.

Jetblue acted ethically in the four categories above. No one was harmed during the delays and cancellations throughout the winter storm. People were not mistreated or striped of any rights given to them by the U.S. The unfortunate fact was Jetblue was unable to manage a situation like this properly because they were a rather new airline and they did not ever experience such a breakdown in management.
In terms of justice the customers were treated correctly. Their was a formal apology given out by the C.E.O. of the company David Neeleman immediately after the incident and vouchers and refunds were given out to all the effected parties. Proper steps were taken to appease customers with the creation of a Customers Bill of rights. On the webpage from Jetblue.com different steps are outlined and addressed. For example on the page it says that if your flight is delayed, "Customers whose flight is delayed for 6 or more hours after scheduled departure time due to a Controllable Irregularity are entitled to a Voucher good for future travel on JetBlue in the amount paid by the customer for the roundtrip (or the oneway trip, doubled) (Jetblue.com)". This shows that they did have the customers in mind because they were going to openly take away from there own profits if things did not go according to plan.
In terms of Utility the company handled the situation well. In the situation with the Jetlbue crisis, I think a majority of the people felt the same way. Customer satisfaction dropped greatly and this led to creating a bill of rights for the majority of fliers rather then the few who had they're own separate concerns. Dealing with the majority was the smarter because by attempting to appease the larger group of customers they had a greater chance for customer retention.
In terms of care, they did do everything they could. The video from C.E.O. David Neeleman showed the customers that they were being looked out for and people were working even the higher ups. The main thing that showed they cared was the instant apology and the development of the Customer Bill of Rights which outlined what would happen in different situations. Although they could have made more efforts to notify passengers what was happening and even could have cancelled the trips earlier than making people wait, they can walk away from this crisis knowing that this will not happen again. Lesson learned on the part of Jetblue but overall they acted ethically.
After reviewing the different articles I have a better grasp of what techniques to use to appease the customers. By looking through this and having a great example of a crisis, you can plan out a strategy of what to be ready for in the unfortunate situation that this would arise. This assignment has helped me understand what is to be done in these situations and what can be done to prevent them from ever happening.

In the reading excerpt, Words That Work , by Parsons, he used a combination of the philosophers’ definition and his own to form the definition of public relation ethics of, “the application of knowledge, understanding and reasoning to questions of right or wrong behaviour in the professional practice of public relations” (Parsons). Jet Blue acknowledged they were wrong for putting their customers through this ordeal. They could have shaken it off and just ignored the events ever occurring. However, they realized that this was unethical and followed through with a plan to win their customers over again. Parsons also had a definitive process of PR decision making which JetBlue seemed to have followed. They gathered research and saw the videos of the planes on youtube, and they saw the publics’ mass disapproval of an act such as this happening. They then decided to place out a video by the CEO of JetBlue on youtube since many of the people that disapproved of what happened first saw it on there. The CEO of JetBlue, David Neeleman’s video did a good job in expressing his remorse for the events occurring. He didn’t read off a teleprompter so it gave his speech an extra sense of sincerity. He didn’t seem like a robot in a suit telling the public what they wanted to hear. I therefore think that yes, he did handle this in the most ethical way possible. He made a sincere speech speaking of the problem that occurred, and then his solutions and rededication to making his customers feel that they are of upmost importance. Also, what can be learned through this reading and the way JetBlue handled it is to continue being sincere, and truthful. Don’t try to hide it or ignore the events that occurred. Treat the customer with respect and admit when you are wrong and tell them the way in which it will be handled so another event like this could not happen.