Talk:JetBlue/Archive 1

Correct Number of Destinations served
As of November 2009, JetBlue Airways operates to 60 cities, NOT 64. Rutland, Hyannis, Provincetown, and Martha's Vineyard are serviced by Cape Air.

Focus City vs. Ops Hub
Boston has officially been given the title of a JetBlue operations hub, including basing of flight crews and a significant increase in flight operations (increasing operations to 70-80 flights a day starting this September). As of now Boston's operations are only surpassed by JFK. Should we change BOS from a focus city to an operations hub? The link is somewhere on the internet, but I'll find it it you guys want. User:Neo16287 16:00 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Airlines Infobox
I'm creating an airline frame and infobox for this article --mitrebox 01:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 

Regarding JetBlue Airways there was trouble on the 9.45 (?) flight from Long Beach, CA to JFK, NY on 3rd December 2005. The flight had to circle over Long Beach to dump fuel and after 3 hours landed back at the airport. This was supposedly because of a switch/button malfunction. The passengers were given food vouchers and taken to hotels nearby and to catch an 8am flight the next day. There is more info on this on Long Beach's news sites but I was wondering if anyone had more details and could write it up following the LAX incident in September 2005. --Mistyjane 01:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lowercase letter
Other than in the logo, I see no other uses of beginning JetBlue with a lowercase letter. On the title bar of the JetBlue website, JetBlue is capitalized. Therefore, I will be removing the template. Andros 1337 18:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Stock chart?
The stock chart as currently displayed is quite out-of-date. Since it shows fairly unremarkable performance and is not specifically referenced in the text, it's not clear what real value this adds to the piece. If there's a way to dynamically update the chart, then maybe we should keep it. Otherwise, I'd suggest dropping the stock chart altogether. JXM 20:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed it - Adrian Pingstone 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete??
"209.6.182.19 (Talk) (→Foundings - DO NOT DELETE, THIS IS A TEST TO SEE IF AIRLINERS.NET WILL PICK UP ON THIS. IT WILL BE DELETED IN 24 HOURS. THANK YOU.)"

What is the purpose of inserting this baiting test for airliners.net? How is including this type of POV material furthering Wiipedia's goals and vision? Seems to me that doing this sort of thing as an anonymous contributor debases the usefulness of the WP entry. JXM 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it - if somebody wants to do some sort of test they they should at least discuss it first. They're trying to prove a WP:POINT somewhere... /wangi 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not bait. It is not experimental. It is verifyable fact. I can provide a link should anybody want it. But it is verifyable material, and thus belongs here. I am returning it.
 * If it is verifyable, please provide the link. It all seems a little but suspicious to me... --KPWM_Spotter 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link. http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aviationdaily_story.jsp?id=news/JBLU06296.xml
 * Okay, thank you.  The question still remains, what was the edit explaination for in the first place?  If it was valid information, why did you take such drastic action towards having it not deleted (and then promising deletion at a later time?) --KPWM_Spotter 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It was only meant to spark discussion. After reading how people wanted it discussed beforehand, I'll discuss it in a more appropriate way in the future. My apologies.

Deleted future routes
I am replacing the routes removed by user:Arpingstone, as they are announced and verifyable on the jetBlue website. See. --KPWM_Spotter 17:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did remove all mentions of Columbus Ohio.  There has been no mention of Columbus in any official jetBlue press materiel, or on their site.  --KPWM_Spotter 17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Daily nonstop service between New York, NY/JFK and New York, NY/LGA begins August 17, 2006.
Where is the source for this information? JFK and LGA are located a few miles from each other, so I am not sure that such a route is practical. After all, a JFK-LGA flight would probably be shorter than the time it takes to load and unload the plane. --user:mnw2000 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't a source. This flight doesn't exist.   For some reason, un indentified IPs seem to enjoy adding new routes and airports to the jetBlue page as of recently.  --KPWM_Spotter 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. As a JetBlue Crewmember I can safely say there are no plans whatsoever to fly between JFK and LGA. User:neo16287 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Paperless Cockpit
In response to the message left in a comment on the main article by user:DG, a "paperless cockpit" is just that. A cockpit in which the pilots do not need to carry any charts, books, maps, or other paper resorces. Everything is managed through the autopilot and FMC. While this breakthrough is more due to the digital displays of the avionics of the A320 rather than any decision of the airline's, it is a first none the less, so I will replace it in the article. --KPWM_Spotter 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NTG701 to tower. I just spilled my coffee. Could you tell me where I am? If I look out my window, I can see a blue building that looks kind of like a shoe... uh, which way is north? Fr ac tu reTalk [[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|18px|]] 14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

IAM Vote did not pass
I received an email (I am a JetBlue Crewmember in BOS) today stating that the National Mediation Board denied the IAM their election because they did not get the required 35% of JetBlue crewmembers needed to call unionization to a vote. However it has not been listed by any agencies, and so I don't know where to cite the information, thus I am not listing it until such a time. I just wanted to say that as of today, JetBlue is still non-union, and the IAM vote is off. User:neo16287 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible International Relations
The article verifying the possible international relations is available here. http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834649007 User: neo16287 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

JetBlue not jetBlue
I reverted the edits by 72.153.220.61 because while the logo is "jetBlue" JetBlue in text refers to itself as "JetBlue" -- pull up their website. —Cliffb 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also done a reversion. --Nelson Ricardo 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Discontinued Routes
An anonymous editor continues to cite JetBlue's discontinued routes as being due to poor flight times. As a JetBlue Crewmember, I can say that flight times were not an issue. There was simply no customer demand on some routes. It doesn't mean that nobody wants to visit these cities, rather the routes did not generate enough attraction to be profitable. So, it is only lack of demand. Flight times are not a part of this. Please stop listing poor flight times. It is incorrect. --User:Neo16287 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable Cities Not Served by JetBlue
If anybody read the part about JetBlue not wanting to contend with other major airlines, they would know this section is pointless. For those of you who feel it has a point, I will explain why JetBlue does not fly to these cities:
 * Atlanta (ATL) Served at one point, but no demand. Also Delta's largest hub city.
 * Minneapolis (MSP) Hub city for Northwest Airlines.
 * St. Louis (STL) Hub for American Airlines (formerly TWA's)
 * Kansas City (MCI) Hub for Midwest and Southwest.
 * Milwaukee (MKE) Hub for Midwest
 * Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) Hub for American. This city is also addressed in the article.

Now, I hope this helps the people who feel the world needs to know that JetBlue does not fly here. Now you know why. --Neo16287 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Founding?
The info box states that Jetblue was founded in 1998. Yet the very first sentence of this article states that "CEO David Neeleman founded the company in February of 2000." Either one or the other is incorrect (I am guessing the info box is wrong). Flyerhell 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * David Neeleman created the company in 1998, under the name NewAir. Over the course of 2 years, the airline infastructure was built up, and the airline's name changed from NewAir to Taxi, and then finally to JetBlue. According to CFO David Barger, they were originally planning to call it Bluejet, but in wanting to avoid the negative association with Valujet, they changed the name to JetBlue. The airline was 100% active in 2000, however it was created in 1998. I know this because I am a crewmember for JetBlue, and we covered this in our training phase. Neo16287 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No Hubs?
Thank you for citing this source. I worked at JetBlue BOS, and it was drilled into our head that BOS was a hub that was aimed at mirroring the JFK operation. While this area is gray, this source appears valid, and I agree with what it says. Thank you. Neo16287 17:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok guys, once again. JetBlue uses a point to point system. They do not use a hub and spoke system. You don't need to fly to a certain airport to go to a certain city. Sure you have to fly through JFK to reach Bermuda, but you don't have to go through JFK to go to Florida, or San Jose, or Austin TX from BOS. This is a point to point system. Not a hub and spoke system. 134.88.170.250 07:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ummm jetblue is hub and spoke as much as any other airline...JFK and BOS are just like DFW or ATL are for any other airline. sure, not every flight involves one of jetblues hub, and no, you dont have to go through jfk to get to florida, but thats because its florida. I guess what im saying is...jetblue is a hub and spoke airline, not to say that they dont have a few point to point routes... just look at their website and route map, and click on JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.8.57.2 (talk • contribs)


 * Unsigned, you've got a point, but this discussion was aimed at eliminating the "Hubs" list from the infobox. Also I don't see what Florida has to do with it. Neo16287 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to eliminate it? I don't understand... --Makaristos 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I've never quite liked the term point-to-point system.  It doesn't really apply to SWA anymore (they were the ones to keep the term through the hubby 80s and 90s), and I'm not quite sure it applies to JetBlue anymore.  I'm not sure what the appropriate term is for SWA and to a smaller extent JetBlue -- perhaps decentralized network carriers?  There heavy point to point operations, but even Neeleman has said JetBlue is going to go after some more connecting traffic.  But this also isn't the spot for original research.  Getting back to the original point I think having "Focus Cities" first then secondary hubs in the infobox is the correct approach. —Cliffb 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This was solved a few months ago, after heated edits about whether or not JetBlue only had one hub (JFK). After arguments ranging from how JFK was the only hub to hubs being BOS and JFK, we decided to do what editors did for the Southwest page, and list them all as focus cities. This was sorted out in early December. Neo16287 03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Cliffb- I could live with Focus Cities, and then secondary hubs. I know I'm not the only editor/reader, so I'm not trying to offer consent or anything. I can see BOS, JFK, FLL, and LGB being hubs (since B6 had them listed as crew bases) and OAK, IAD, and maybe MCO (due to traffic volume) being listed as secondary hubs. I would have no issue with such a setup. Does anybody object? Neo16287 03:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy Neo. I think the problem we get into is JetBlue seems to hub differently than other airlines.  While I'll agree BOS, JFK, FLL, and LGB (what about IAD B6 flags it the same on the route map as the others) are hubs, given that JetBlue operates the least number of planes per hub, therefore I think their hubs tend to be a little less busy than other hubs.  Take a look at the comparison table I put together with Wikipedia info.  (Note: System planes include all airplanes flying under both the mainline airline and the regional partners)
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

!Airline !System Planes !Hubs !Planes per Hub
 * JetBlue
 * 119
 * 6
 * 19.8
 * SWA
 * 484
 * 10
 * 48.4
 * NWA
 * 523
 * 7
 * 74.7
 * US Airways
 * 600
 * 8
 * 75.0
 * AA
 * 1034
 * 9
 * 114.9
 * Delta
 * 942
 * 8
 * 117.8
 * }
 * Delta
 * 942
 * 8
 * 117.8
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * So while JetBlue does utilize hubs by the definition "an airport that an airline uses as a transfer point to get passengers to their intended destination" they don't use them in the same way. By the table below B6 is more of a point-to-point carrier than even SWA.  I advocate that we just list BOS, JFK, FLL, LGB, and IAD as Key Cities.  This is the same language JetBlue itself uses in customer facing materials. —Cliffb 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Why not do it? Neo16287 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it.. I've put in a request for the template to be modified.. —Cliffb 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its done... —Cliffb 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of you must be joking. JetBlue it the epitomy of a hub and spoke airline: 70% of all flights are embarking or returning to one airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonorakitch (talk • contribs)

There's absolutely no doubt that JFK is JetBlue's hub. 70% of the flights use it and all of their destinations, with the obvious exception of other NYC airports, serve it, which none of the focus cities can claim.--69.123.112.18 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not you feel JFK should be denoted as a hub on this page, we have reached a consensus on the issue, and any changes to such consensus should be discussed on the talk page first. Thank you. Neo16287 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, we are discussing ithere. This is the talk page, no? --69.123.112.18 (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That it may be, but the consensus has been reached. This discussion has happened multiple times. Neo16287 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we've more or else resolved this discussion before but given the added service to BOS and the fact that the major centers for upcoming growth are BOS and the Caribbean, it seems like we could now call BOS a secondary hub.98.229.215.43 (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. It's not up to us to determine what the hubs are, it's up the airlines. If JBU says it's a hub, fine. If not, then it's not. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Stranded in NY
Can someone add the whole New York "stranded" fiasco to the article? I would, but I'm not so skilled at writing "news style" things. I added the tag as well. CNNMSNBC[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_re_us/weather_jetblue Yahoo! News] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicore (talk • contribs)


 * I don't see how a stranding is noteworthy in an encyclopedia. Note that American Airlines' page does not have any mention of their recent stranding. Neo16287 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. If one wanted to use it as an example of how JetBlue is different. AA didn't give any compensation (as far as I know.)  JetBlue on the other hand refunded ticket prices and gave away free roundtrips to everyone who was on a plane for more than 3 hours on the tarmac. —Cliffb 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well in this case I would agree. At first it seemed like a move to bash JetBlue, so I didn't think of it that way. Good point. Neo16287 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I got this really sincere letter from Jet Blue in the email regarding the whole incident...seems like they're trying to patch-up their reputation: Dear JetBlue Customers,

We are sorry and embarrassed. But most of all, we are deeply sorry.

Last week was the worst operational week in JetBlue's seven year history. Following the severe winter ice storm in the Northeast, we subjected our customers to unacceptable delays, flight cancellations, lost baggage, and other major inconveniences. The storm disrupted the movement of aircraft, and, more importantly, disrupted the movement of JetBlue's pilot and inflight crewmembers who were depending on those planes to get them to the airports where they were scheduled to serve you. With the busy President's Day weekend upon us, rebooking opportunities were scarce and hold times at 1-800-JETBLUE were unacceptably long or not even available, further hindering our recovery efforts.

Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that we caused. This is especially saddening because JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making the experience of flying happier and easier for everyone who chooses to fly with us. We know we failed to deliver on this promise last week.

We are committed to you, our valued customers, and are taking immediate corrective steps to regain your confidence in us. We have begun putting a comprehensive plan in place to provide better and more timely information to you, more tools and resources for our crewmembers and improved procedures for handling operational difficulties in the future. We are confident, as a result of these actions, that JetBlue will emerge as a more reliable and even more customer responsive airline than ever before.

Most importantly, we have published the JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights—our official commitment to you of how we will handle operational interruptions going forward—including details of compensation. I have a video message to share with you about this industry leading action.

You deserved better—a lot better—from us last week. Nothing is more important than regaining your trust and all of us here hope you will give us the opportunity to welcome you onboard again soon and provide you the positive JetBlue Experience you have come to expect from us.

Sincerely,

David Neeleman

Founder and CEO

JetBlue Airways

Jumping cheese  Cont @ct 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

JetBlue/Aer Lingus
Will someone please stop saying that JetBlue and Lingus have an agreement! Nothing has been finalized and no agreement has been made. Please delete!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.140.90 (talk • contribs)
 * 64.131.140.90, do you have any proof of this? If you have legitimate proof, we can adjust it accordingly. Neo16287 05:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The very article that is cited for proof of the alliance says in it's last sentence "The alliance is expected to be put in place this summer". I know this may be a minor point, but there is no alliance in place, they are still in talks and they hope to complete a deal, but a deal has not been done. Try to go anywhere on the JetBlue site to find anything about a deal. You won't find it. No deal has been signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.140.90 (talk • contribs)
 * 64.131.140.90, do you suggest removing the entire listing, or rewording it to reflect correct information? Neo16287 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph states that on February 6th, Jetblue announced an alliance with Aer Lingus. Where is this press release issued by JetBlue? The paragraph should not state that JetBlue has announced this because they haven't. It is factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunyon (talk • contribs)
 * If B6 didn't put it out, why does Today in the Sky say they did? Neo16287 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Today in the Sky is citing various media reports, not JetBlue. Again, show me JetBlue's press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunyon (talk • contribs)
 * I never claimed to have the press release. I cited Today in the Sky, not B6. You assumed I had the press release when I never said I did.Neo16287 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not assume that you have the press release, I know that you don't, because one doesn't exist. You know why? Because Jetblue hasn't announced anything. Again, the paragraph on Wikipedia that states "Jetblue announced an alliance with Aer Lingus" is factually incorrect. Various media reported an alliance, not Jetblue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunyon (talk • contribs)

JetBlue/Airblue
Having worked for JetBlue, I can not tell you how many people I had come up to me in the terminal asking "where is Airblue's check in desk?" When I told them Airblue did not fly there, they assured me they did, that they had a reservation with them. When I asked to see their ticket, they had a JetBlue ticket. People have called JetBlue many things out of confusion, one of which is AirBlue. As we have a redirect on Airblue's page, they put one on our page. Neo16287 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just cannot see how someone can confuse "Jet" with "Air". However, it looks like a few other people agree with me - perhaps you can reconsider? :) -- RattleMan 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not have an issue with reconsidering, but I'm not the one who put it there. I had restored a redirect on Airblue's page, and one of their user put it here. In the interest of not having the other removed, I left it there. Neo16287 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On checking the Airblue page, I noted the same editor who had removed the redirect from this page also removed it from that page. I will remove the redirect from this page, however if somebody sees fit to restore the redirect to Airblue, in the interests of cooperation, I will discuss restoring it to this page. I have removed the redirect from this page. Neo16287 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't need a disambiguation. Plenty of people confuse easyJet with ValuJet but that's just because they're being daft - we shouldn't be adding disabmiguations to the tops of these articles. If there was another airline operating somewhere under the name JetBlue or Jet Blue or jetblue etc. then that's the time to add a disambiguation link to the top of the article. Otherwise every article where people often confuse the subject of the article with something vaguely similar but with a different name would need a disambiguation link at the top and the whole enyclopedia would be one big mess. I mean, thousands - if not millions - of non-Brits think that Tower Bridge is the Tower of London. But just try adding a link to the top of the Tower Bridge article saying For the other major London landmark with the word Tower in its name and which is commonly confused with this one, please see Tower of London and see how long it stays in place! Metro Mover 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey give me a break man. I left it in in the interest of cooperation, and removed the article after people asked me to. I don't need wiki-101. This isn't my first time using this site. I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me as if it were. Neo16287 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Did the company write-up the 07 story?
Some people were in planes eleven hours and they could see the terminal. The bathrooms were out of order and there was no heat or fresh air. Why is this outrageous abuse being sugar coded?

And what was your story? That you were helplessly kept on the plane with threats of prosecution and destruction if you looked outside, but braving that you single handedly fought off the flight crew and drove to the terminal yourself? Read the article then read the post. Note similarities. And learn to spell.

Why was the story on the Feb storm essentially gutted? Brevity is a laudable goal but not a reason to rewrite history. Direct quotes from Neeleman re:"shoestring communications" and an "undersized reservations system" were removed even though they were part of his explanation of why the incident occurred.

This sentence: "An absence of interline agreements prevented JetBlue from accommodating its passengers on other airlines" was removed despite it's factual nature and how it helps the reader understand a major difference between Jet Blue and the legacy carriers.

The way the article currently reads, it appears only the flight to Cancun suffered extraordinary delays.

The Revision  by KPWM Spotter at 20:40, on 29 May 2007 would make a JetBlue PR flak proud. In the interest of impartiality, I suggest the entire edit be rescinded.

I don't agree. Neeleman's releasing was never admitted to be related directly to the incident. The interline agreements sentence may be useful info, but I don't think the entire edit should be rescinded. Impartiality aside, the edit, I presume, was shortened for space saving purposes. Maybe a cut down version somehow incorporating the facts is in order. Neo16287 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't the jetBlue board specifically site the February incident as being one of the causes? NcSchu 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If they did I must have missed it. I could be wrong. Neo16287 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected
How long will the page be semi-protected? and why is it being protected? Sox 23 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The semi protection was implemented following vandalism from anonymous editors following the Feb. 14 incident. According to the edit summary, the protection will terminate March 9. Neo16287 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ok- I was just wondering Sox 23 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No Hubs?

 * JetBlue has lots of flights and destinations out of JFK. It may have point-to-point service, but Jfk is undoubtebly a hub.  BOS, havng the number of b6 flights and destinations that it does, could be called a secondary hub.  MCO, yes, could be called a focuus city because of traffic volume.  BTW, I changed the infobox.
 * Well, if you read the previous discussion on this, we decided to keep it at all focus cities. Whether you think it is a hub or not, there are people who disagree, as well as thse who agree. Please stop modifying the infobox without discussing it first. Neo16287 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Logo?
What happened to the JetBlue logo? It doesn't appear anymore... Sox 23 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason, the image file seemed to be blanked. I've reloaded it and it looks ok now.  JGHowes talk  -  20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OAK vs MCO focus city
I was looking at the Oakland International Airport page and noticed that JetBlue only has 5 destinations from OAK vs 11 destinations from Orlando International Airport...shouldn't we make MCO a focus city over OAK - they have more than double the destinations than OAK. I know JBLU has OAK highlighted on its route map but clearly MCO has become bigger than OAK for JetBlue...any suggestions? Sox 23 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversies
What the hell? Does this need to be in here...I don't even know what it's getting at... Sox 23 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The story is about the company's alleged sponsoring of hate groups. Let's get real, we all know that if it had sponsored a KKK convention no one would object to noting it here. Hate is hate, regardless of it coming from the left or right. Arnabdas 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is non-notable at best. While perhaps a single mention of the controversy could add to the article, the current section draws the event out far too much, and in my opinion, I find it very poorly written. If I hadn't already known of the event, I would have no clue of what actually happened. I vote for either a total removal, or a complete scaling back of the section. Opinions? --KPWM_Spotter 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * removal; extremly hard to follow. Sox 23 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Companies every now and then will do some incredibly stupid things. A one time sponsorship I can see how that might have slipped through without a lot of oversight. The KKK is a little to infamous to pretend no one has heard of it. Daily KOS is not as well known. Now if they continue to sponsor them or other hate spewing groups, regardless of their location in the political spectrum, it would warrant inclusion then. Skywayman 01:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument of not having a controversy section, but this is something that definitely deserves mention. Companies make mistakes all the time unknowingly sponsoring events they have no clue about. Most of the time, they retract the money and sponsorship and issue an apology. I am not out to get JetBlue (in fact they have been my favorite airline...so much that I have their credit card) but from the video of the interview and browsing JetBlue's site, I do not see any apology letter or retractment of the sponsorship. It should be known that they seem to be sticking to their guns.Arnabdas 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for KKK notability vs the Daily Kos, it really shouldn't matter if people heard of the KKK more than the Daily Kos or not. The reason of notability is support of a hate group. Ideology should have nothing to do with it.Arnabdas 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get political in this issue, but from secondary reports and statements coming out it seems as though the whole issue was blown out of proportion anyway. I don't think it's meaningful enough in the long run to deserve mention. NcSchu 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Have any of you who are criticizing DailyKos actually spent any time on the site? It is a political site and as such there will be a few nut jobs, however it is far from a hate spewing group. Typical of Bill O'Reily to take a small sampling of the comments and make them representative of the whole site. This non-controversy is nothing more than O'Reily criticizing a site that doesn't agree with him and trying to take out the sponsors as well.67.53.88.160 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although you are correct in that there will be nutjobs everywhere, websites and forums have complete control over what type of content can be posted and all responsible sites do not allow defamatory remarks. The website cannot control what their posters say, but they can have (and responsible ones do) rules and regulations that users may not post defammatory remarks or hate speech. By not stopping hate speech on its site, the Daily Kos passively agrees with the point of view. I doubt you would be so quick to defend the site if it was supporting the KKK.Arnabdas 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed JetBlue about the situation. Received an e-mail signed by the CEO stating that the situation was blown out of proportion. Apparantly, according to Garber, all the company did was issue 10 free tickets to be auctioned off at the event. He also said in the e-mail that the company doesn't condone or support any group spewing hate speech and they have no affiliation with The Daily Kos (officially). This was a private e-mail to me, but still didn't see any official press release.Arnabdas 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TrueBlue Section
Is it just me, or is the section on the TrueBlue program practically a word for word advertisement for the program? I reccomend it for removal. Agree? Disagree? Neo16287 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I put the template there. I see no reason for a separate section, but if it's not mentioned in the article it probably should be. NcSchu( Talk ) 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. But saying "you have earned yourself..." sounds like an ad. Rewrite maybe? Neo16287 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. Particularly troublesome given that a lot of people are worse off after the changes (after all, who would expect JetBlue to overhaul its frequent flyer program if it was better for all customers?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.240.111 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

JetBlue And Orlando
JetBlue has a bigger presence at Orlando than at their Washington-Dulles and Oakland focus cities. Why shouldn't it be considered a focus city. I know that JetBlue doesn't consider it a focus city but I think it should be added to the list of focus cities. Suggestions/Opinions are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.108.9 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: External links
Per WP:CITE, WP:SOURCE and elsewhere, "External links" are "for further reading" sites ONLY. "References" are general sources used to support facts in the article itself, such as the official site, which confirms basic information such as spellings, cities served, etc. "Footnotes" are footnotes. Also, Wikipedia policy is one main link per site; therefore, no separate links to interior JetBlue site-pages if we're linking to the main page. --209.125.153.34 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

passengers
First of all I would like to know hoe many passengers were carried by JetBlue in 2007. Besides I want to know if revenue passengers in the traffic reports of JetBLue means passengers boarded/carried. Dagadt (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Largest Operator of the Airbus A320"
When the last user reverted one user's edit "Largest Operator of the Airbus A320," he probably meant the Airbus A320 itself, not the family. According to the article List of Airbus A320 operators, it says that JetBlue has 107 A320s, which is more than any other carrier. Therefore, it's true that JetBlue is the largest operator of the Airbus A320, not the family.

--Limaindia (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Correct, I assumed the entire family. I was transiting several time zones then and must not have been that awake! Neo16287 (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bathroom (Pending Litigation)
Surprised it's not here, but under incidents, should it list the man who was forced to sit in the bathroom for 5 hours due to the Flight Attendant being uncomfortable, and is now suing for 2 million dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.80.190 (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was. However according to WikiProject: Airlines, a valid incident/accident involves aircraft damage, injury, loss of life, etc. Litigation does not apply, and in this case is not notable. Neo16287 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With a recent revert on said incident, and to avoid breaking 3R, I propose a compromise. The pending litigation does not follow WP Airlines suggested guidelines for an incident. Why not list the article elsewhere on the page? That would satisfy me, and I would hope it would satisfy the other side as well. Thoughts? Neo16287 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I'm a year late in joining the discussion, but wouldn't the logical solution be to create a "controversies" section? Many other articles have such a section.  The bathroom incident could be listed there, instead of in the incidents (crashes) section. —BMRR (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We had one for a while, then as the case slipped below the radar the section disappeared for some reason. Not sure why though. Neo16287 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be added back into the article, wouldn't you agree? Just because something isn't currently in the news headlines doesn't mean it should be deleted from an encyclopedia article. —BMRR (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau Rating - section issues
I've tagged this as unbalanced because of several problems with it:
 * No reliable secondary source is provided, therefore it completely lacks analysis and context. For example, how do other airlines rate? What is it based on and why would this be used instead of the U.S. DOT official rankings of on-time performance, etc.? As it stands, just using BBB reports is WP:OR.
 * Other ratings should also be provided for this section to be npov. Googling "JetBlue ranks..." provides reliably-sourced articles concerning the ranking of B6.
 * What is the validity of BBB rating of an airline, based on small sample size, especially since the USDOT Div of Consumer Affairs is the official agency charged with handling consumer complaints about airline service.  JGHowes talk  -  21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is this section in the article. Who cares if JetBlue has a bad rating with the Better Business Bureau...half the people don't even know what that is...and is it "notable" to be included in an encyclopedia? I don't think it is...especially considering that an entire section has been made for a one sentence fact stating that JetBlue has an unsatisfactory rating. Sox 23 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment on Sox23's Talk Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.54.208 (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to section below. Sox 23 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that you tagged the Better Business Bureau Rating portion as unbalanced. The grounds provided are:

1. "No reliable secondary source is provided, therefore it completely lacks analysis and context. For example, how do other airlines rate?"

Yet, the Awards section contains the following:

"In October 2007, JetBlue was named the number one U.S. domestic airline by Conde Nast Traveler magazine's "Readers' Choice Awards" for the sixth year in a row."

"On June 17, 2008, JetBlue ranked 'Highest in Customer Satisfaction Among Low Cost Carriers in North America' by J.D. Power and Associates. A Customer Satisfaction Recognition Received for the Fourth Year in a Row."

"Jetblue is currently ranked as 4-star low-cost carrier by Skytrax."

The first two accolades cite to JetBlue press releases, obviously an unreliable source, the last to Skytraxx. None are supported by secondary sources. Please note that the five Bureaus are independent. Moreover, none of the sources cites for the awards maintain the database that the Better Business Bureau has (please see the Better Business Bureau Wiki entry for more details).

2. "Who cares if JetBlue has a bad rating with the Better Business Bureau...half the people don't even know what that is...and is it "notable" to be included in an encyclopedia?"

That is a subjective judgment on your part. Is it your position that Skytraxx is more objective and reliable than the Better Business Bureaus of 5 states, or more widely known? I am sure you will concede that is not the case. If the awards are notable enough (particularly where two are reported by the subject itself and are therefore inherently subjective and unreliable) for an encyclopedia, then certainly data compiled by five impartial consumer protection agencies certainly are.

I have no axe to grind; I don't work for a competitor, I have no connection to the BBB. I've been researching airlines and found, to my surprise that JetBlue had an unsatisfactory rating in all of its hub areas. This certainly seemed to contradict "common knowledge" and what had been reported. It is my position that these public reports are notable, or, at least as notable as (and more strongly supported than) its accolades which have been deemed to be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.54.208 (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Wikipedia was also a consumer reports website. What does this have to do with a factual encyclopedic profile of the airline? QualityControl3533 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the sarcasm? I must say I'm disappointed by and did not anticipate the hierarchal bureaucracy behind Wiki. It is hardly, "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Clearly, all editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others. To answer your question, to the extent it was genuine, factual recordkeeping concerning customer satisfaction cuts both ways: if awards are deemed "factual" so must documented criticism. To allow the former but omit the latter is to demonstrate bias, which has no place in an encyclopedia. 74.75.54.208 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, Sox23's message to me, "I did not tag the section as "unbalanced" Maybe if you learned to use the history part of wikipedia, you'd have seen that JGHowes did" is certainly off-putting and unfriendly. Does Wiki truly seek outside input or have some entries been set apart? 74.75.54.208 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, let's try to remember WP:BITE. Valid points have been raised which we can discuss reasonably, after all.  JGHowes talk  -  13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When I get a message on my talk page accusing me of something I didn't do, I'm going to respond "off-putting" and "unfriendly." I don't even know what we're arguing about here anymore. In my opinion, a bad rating from the BBB is not deserving of its own section; maybe an insert in a different paragraph, but definitely not notable enough for its own section. Sox 23 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the "discussion" results in unilateral deletion, rather than reinsertion. And yet, the self-reported awards remain.  This entry is biased although, perhaps, the editing is as well.74.75.54.208 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that there might not be any reason to include awards on this page, I definitely think that if awards are included, the BBB rating should be. 74.75.54.208 has convinced me that its rating is more objective than self-reported awards. Either the awards section needs to be removed, or the BBB info inserted. That's just fair. XqRG (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

JetBlue, Acxiom, Torch Corp. and the TSA
Any reason why the data privacy issue of 2003 isn't mentioned on this article? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Last line in the "Developments 2005" section
Why is this sentence there, and what does it mean? "The first flight arrived from Burbank (B6 #358) at 5:06am followed by arrivals from OAK & LGB respectively.[22] The last flight to operate out of T6 was a departure to Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (BQN) departing at 11:59PM." I think it should be removed. XqRG (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that is totally irrelevant just including the last flight the time and date is more than enough --@Discover10 23:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

JetBlue Airways and the JFK Airport hub.

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've noted you guys had a earlier discussion on this. However, the recent press releases from Jetblue's OWN site had stated that JFK is the main hub of JetBlue Airways. Personally I'd be more inclined to believe the website than people's own hearsay. Perhaps it's time for people to hold off their personal opinions and list JFK is the main hub, every recent press release states this is the case.

I've also posted this discussion in the WP:Airlines discussion page. I would like to hear people's thoughts. Cheers. --Sb617 10:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of how the airline identifies with an airport as a main hub. Every airline has it's own home airport. The consensus reached on this issue addressed whether JetBlue operated under a point to point system versus a hub and spoke system. The airline may call it what it wants, but the fact remains that under a point to point system, people are shifted away from connecting through hubs, which is what JetBlue attempts to do. Simple. 173.76.13.163 (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, you cant deny the fact that the airline themselves had stated that JFK Airport is the hub of JetBlue, even through recent press releases. Also consensus can change as past decisions are not binding.  Provided that there is discussion, with arguments/evidence for change or discussing editor consensus against suggested Wikiproject guidelines. --Sb617  15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then given the number of operations from Boston and Orlando, you would need to classify them as hubs as well. It's only logical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.134.57 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But as was stated above, and in the previous discussion, JetBlue may be claiming JFK as a hub, but that doesn't make it a reality. Their operations at JFK are large, but not to the amount that defines a true hub. JetBlue still operates primarily on a point to point model, not a hub and spoke model. For instance to fly to a NE airport from the west coast you do not have to go through JFK. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. An airline hub is a transfer point between two routes, where the hub has significantly large numbers of connections than other stations. JFK was JetBlue's home airport, and will always be their hub to them. But in reality, JetBlue follows the model of point to point flights. Like Gateman pointed out you do not have to connect at JFK to fly to Boston. Another example is JetBlue's service from Austin to San Francisco, which does not require a connection, despite AUS and SFO not being JetBlue hubs. The concensus reached above indicated a decision based on JetBlue's departure from Hub and Spoke to point to point. While a concensus can be overturned, re-opening the battle to name JFK a hub versus a focus city will only re-spawn the battle to add BOS and MCO to the hub list (as indicated by the anon above). If you name JFK a hub, you may as well name BOS and MCO as hubs, and leave OAK/LGB/FLL and IAD as focus cities. Are you prepared to do that as well? Neo16287 (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the Jetblue route map, and to be honest IMO (though a number of you may disagree) I believe its too similar to hub/focus city and spoke.
 * Even though there may be some flights where you dont need to go through a hub/focus city to get there, other airlines worldwide also provide that type of service as well, either through a combination of their mainline aircraft and their regional affiliates and/or subsidiaries (though on a lesser scale of 1-3 flights a day). I've drank quite a bit tonight (gathering this evening, and drinking does that to ya) so I'll have a look through your other points when I recover :P  --Sb617  12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh leave it the way it was. What possible harm could it do? 193.24.32.51 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly someone is trying to advance some kind of hidden agenda, so as to somehow legitimize thing X. 24.11.75.172 (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, assume good faith instead of jumping to conclusions. I am genuinely disputing the infobox to the article, so I would still like to hear other's thoughts (even 3rd parties) rather than regular IPs/editors jumping to conclusions and accusing me of bad faith and/or having agenda.  Perhaps a few IPs are starting to skirt on the borders of WP:OWN with failing to assume good faith --Sb617  09:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JetBlue_Airways&diff=prev&oldid=327877527 has been reverted by an IP editor. I am totally agnostic on whether JFK is a hub or not for JetBlue, but as I stated in the comment of my edit it doesn't make sense to say that "JetBlue's main hub is JFK" and then list JFK as a focus city in the info box. So either change both statements or none. If in recent press releases JetBlue calls JFK a hub, I would prefer to use this information rather than relying on original research by editors here who think otherwise. I have for now reverted back to my change so that there is at least no inconsistency. Before re-reverting, please discuss here. --SmilingBoy (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look through Jetblue's website and the press releases of 2009 clearly states the JFK is a base (Source: http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-news&nyo=0), rather than a hub or focus city. As I'd be more inclined to believe their website rather than a few editors original research, I've changed "hub" to "base" and moved JFK under the "base" heading on the infobox. Sb617  (contribs) 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To further on my sources of this, I've pulled out a few releases of 2009.
 * Here's one example. . It refers to their Boston operation as a Focus City, whilst at the end, the "About Jetblue" signature Refers to New York as a "Base"
 * Another example here: refers to JFK Airport as a "base".


 * I think the official press releases are enough proof to say that JFK is a base, not a "focus city" or a "hub" for that matter. Sb617 (contribs) 14:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JetBlue and the B'dos govt holding a Rihanna concert.
Due in part to the success of the Barbados route, JetBlue and the Barbados Government (Barbados Tourism Authority - http://www.visitbarbados.org/ ) will be holding a Rihanna concert in New York City. They are also kitting off a contest for the best photos of Barbados on both Twitter and Facebook. Source -- CaribDigita (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Accidents
Just removed two accidents from the article neither are particularly notable. Aircraft sliding of runways in bad weather is not notable. And I cant find any references that show the Nassau evacuation was notable if the cause or situation were importants then we would have more than just the news reports from the few days after the accident. Not sure that the snow delay bit that is left is particulaly notable either, not an unusual occurence for an airline to suffer bad weather delays. Looking for comments. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A agree. In fact, I am hard pressed to understand why the "Accidents incidents" section should be there at all.  If you applied that same standard to United Airlines, you would have page after page after page of similar if not identical incidents.  Passengers being stranded on an airliner on the ground, has happened many, many times at UAL as well as with the other Legacy Airlines.  And UAL has had wheels fall off of planes, and one 747-400 even had to land with only 1/2 of the main landing gear coming down, and has had other planes land with partial gear or had the gear collapse while taxiing. My guess for the double standard here, is that Jet Blue is a non-union airline, so that means it is fair to make "notable" about jet blue, what has occurred many times at other, larger, but also union airlines, which is deemed not notable. EditorASC (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has anything to do with unions. At least one of the remaining accidents Jetblue had is notable in that it was one of if not the first occurrence of victims of an air emergency watching their event unfold real time on the onboard TV system. As for the second incident it was one of the major catalysts for calls for a passenger's bill of rights and the recently passed changes regarding time on the tarmac and fines issued by the US gov't. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which again comes back to my suspicion: Why now?  What happened to Jet Blue (stranded passenger on the tarmac) has happened many previous times to Legacy Airlines, who have always been unionized.  But now that it inevitably happened to Jet Blue too, suddenly the powers-that-be are very concerned about passenger rights.  This a classic case of the present pro-union govt using its power to pay back labor unions for supporting it in the last election process.  The airline unions hate any kind of competition, because such gives other choices to the customers.  That is why they are doing everything they can to impose economic burdens on Jet Blue. EditorASC (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well conspiracy theories aside it doesn't change the fact that the Jetblue strandings were very widely covered and did lead to industrywide changes. That alone makes the incident notable for inclusion in the article. If you can find similarly notable incidents that effect the legacy carriers feel free to add them to those airline's articles. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuff to archive
Files of the http://experience.jetblue.com/ page include: WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://experience.jetblue.com/main.swf

Notable Incidents?
How come most of the incidents are gone? At the very least, we should put back the Steven Slater incident. Airplanegod (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because they are not notable. For accidents these are the rules: AIRCRASH. Customer service problems etc are generally not notable. --JetBlast (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not "the rules" (i.e. policy). I have added back the Slater incident as it is clearly notable per WP:GNG.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys! Airplanegod (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although neither of the two incidents in the article at the moment are really notable, a few minutes of news does not really create notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:AIRCRASH, one of the permitted criteria for including an incident is "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". Why don't you believe this applies, JetBlast? --Pascal666 05:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it didnt affect the industry, just the airline. Therefore it isnt notable. MilborneOne (a wikipedia administrator) also agrees (see above) --JetBlast (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been a common practice in the recent past to add (yet dump might be the correct word) events with a wide coverage in the media into airline articles. It is true that there are no firm rules for that, but guidelines exist and have been written with consensus of the wikiproject members. They state that an event should only be included if it was a deadly or a hull-loss one, or if it changed in any way the regulations of the industry. Just five minutes in the media does not mean that it is a notable event. Therefore, I completely agree with JetBlast and MilborneOne, and not notable events should be removed from this as well as from many other articles.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material
Below information was tagged since September 2011 for needing sourcing. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

JFK Airport a Hub or Base?
Its been too long since the last discussion on this topic and many things have changed. We need a review on whether JFK is a Hub or Base. Please leave your comments below, Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's changed since the prior discussion? Doniago (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well lets see... the fact that they consider JFK to be a Hub now and not a base. Cali4529 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's they, and do you have a reference? Doniago (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And do you have any reference to "they" discussing it? Gateman1997 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only source is to go to JetBlue headquarters and ask because they call it a base and they is everyone in JetBlue.Cali4529 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having seen similar situations myself it is possible that the staff call it that even the it is a base. What the staff say isnt a good source to be honest. An official press release is another matter though. --JetBlast (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at online sources and Jetblue's website, it is considered by them to be a base. Jetblue just has focus cities and bases, not hubs. Airplanegod (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

San Juan as a focus city
A past couple of months, San Juan was listed as a focus city for JetBlue with sources but it was then removed. Can anyone find verification whether San Juan is a focus city or nor. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is simply not a focus city. There is no press release, not even a crew base. Cali4529 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of J.D.Power standing
In the current iteration (as of 7/12/12), under the 2010's section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetblue#2010s the following notation links to an out of date source

On June 13, 2012, JetBlue ranked 'Highest in Customer Satisfaction Among Low Cost Carriers in North America' by J.D. Power and Associates, a customer satisfaction recognition received for the seventh year in a row.[45]

Reference [45]links to a JetBlue post from 2011 (http://blog.jetblue.com/index.php/2011/06/08/jetblue-awarded-seventh-consecutive-customer-satisfaction-j-d-power-and-associates-honor/) which doesn't accurately reflect the statement within the article. A currently acceptable source for the article statement would be this article from 6/13/12: http://blog.jetblue.com/index.php/2012/06/13/jetblue-airways-awarded-eighth-consecutive-customer-satisfaction-j-d-power-and-associates-honor/

It may also be worth noting, while the statement as printed within the article is accurate, the post from JetBlue reflects eight consecutive J.D. Power and Associate recognitions. JetBlue's first recognition in 2005 was inclusive of all major carriers in North America. MHJohnston77 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Move?
Does anyone have any objection to moving the article to JetBlue as per WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it seems fine to me. &mdash;Comp dude 123 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation check requested on Partnership information
Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetBlue#Partnerships the entry claims CEO Dave Barger says JetBlue is "currently considering becoming a member of a global airline alliance." and openly speculates (unverifiablly) that a partnership with Star Alliance is likely. This is inaccurate. The citations given are dead links to sites with questionable authority and appearing to be from 2009.

For an actual citable source regarding Dave Barger's and JetBlue's view on partnerships and alliances, you might want to look at more recent interviews like: http://www.travelweekly.com/In-the-Hot-Seat/JetBlue-Dave-Barger/ which features a Q&A with the CEO: '' Q: Is JetBlue at a disadvantage because it's not in an alliance?

A: We love open architecture. We are partnering with 25 airlines. We have a two-way codeshare with South African Airways. We will roll out a codeshare with Emirates. We can partner with unaligned airlines like Emirates. We can partner with SAA, which is part of the Star Alliance. Korean Air is part of SkyTeam. Alliances are complex. They add cost. And, in an alliance, if you're the short-haul guy, you're penalized.''

(JetBlue has since ratified the codeshare with Emirates, and has added additional partnerhsips: http://www.jetblue.com/airline-partners/ )

MHJohnston77 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hub vs Focus City
Aren't BOS,SJU,FLL,MCO also hubs. They are the main bases (Other than their home @ JFK) of operations for the airline - It even funnels passenger through them. So again, shouldnt they be hubs rather than FC's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.122.241 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on JetBlue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929011548/http://www.productplacement.biz/news/television/jet-blue-product-placement-20070806-2276-84.html to http://www.productplacement.biz/news/television/jet-blue-product-placement-20070806-2276-84.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080906125550/http://www.azstarnet.com:80/sn/fromcomments/256059.php to http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/256059.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to add special livery list
JetBlue has a very unique list of special liveries such as the FDNY plane, Bluemanity, and Vets in Blue. Can anyone add a table showcasing these liveries? Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Airline Quality Rating (AQR)
The Airline Quality Rating is a faculty research project of two major universities which does a great deal to help consumers make informed decisions about air travel.

A discussion has been requested by MilborneOne.

I added AQR information to the articles for both high-ranked and low-ranked airlines, because those are the places where the information will help consumers the most.

MilborneOne says that "adding it to multiple articles" is "almost spammy" behavior. But I doubt he would think it fair if I singled out a single low-ranked airline, and added the information to that article only.

Is there anyone who would prefer to have the information added to one article only? Novel compound (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As has been mentioned on the articles where your addition was challenged it may be best to start a discussion at WP:AIRLINES rather then at each talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And just to repeat as already mentioned to help consumers make informed decisions about air travel. is not what wikipedia is for, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines for discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on JetBlue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718235652/http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1404544 to http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1404544
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718235652/http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1404544 to http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1404544

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus (non-admin closure).--Frmorrison (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The child article JetBlue Mint is only 4K of text, some of which could be trimmed out as it looks a little too promotional. This article is only 27K of prose, so could absorb the information about the Mint brand easily without losing focus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it "looks a little too promotional". It looks a lot too promotional. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For I definetly think that the 2 pages should be merged. KDTW Flyer (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:GNG-meeting topic long enough for a standalone article. SST  flyer  03:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly for merge and also strip out the promotional parts. I am not doing that now because that would be like trying to destroy the article to build up a case for merge. Admiral James T Kirk (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a substantial GA written by . It even had a DYK. It seems informative, in depth, and well cited. If there is any promotional-sounding language, that should be dealt with via normal editing processes. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible for GAs and DYKs to be pulled after substandard reviews (indeed, for DYK this is semi-regular). Looking at the relevant conversation we find comments such as "I'm not entirely convinced it's even a notable subject" and "DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation". Paging, , , , , . Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The target article is quite large already and I prefer our articles to be brief rather than compendious. The coverage indicates that the Mint service is quite innovative in its market and so there's some sense in giving it this attention. Andrew D. (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge but hack to pieces the promotional tone. My concern at the time was purely about the poor choice of DYK hook. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For It seems a bit ridiculous to have a separate article about an airline's first class cabin. Etihad's Residence doesn't have a separate article and that seems like a much more notable cabin than Mint. tonei 00:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS SST  flyer  02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For The Mint article can be significantly trimmed as it includes a lot of frivolous information that is not considered encyclopedic. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not shocked that company offerings get their own page Maxime Vernier (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question JetBlue Mint is a good article (and not an ancient one, of archaic standards). How is an article simultaneously a good article, yet so poor that it's not even worth keeping as a standalone article? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For The JetBlue Mint page is completely unnecessary. It would do fine as a section here. Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose JetBlue's Mint has literally disrupted the US Transcon industry. It's brought down first class ticket prices by over half . It's put Delta in a position of having to offer free meals on transcon routes . In order to complete United has had to change to a wide body configuration . With everyone having to cut their ticket prices in half it obviously ate into everyone's profits. It's speculation but I do think Mint was one of the driving factors for the sale of Virgin America. Virgin America was a pretty small airline and having to take half the profit on its most profitable routes was probably detrimental to its bottom line. Virgin was also the only airline that flew those routes that didn't have a Lie-flat seat and there were no plans for it change the product because it would be too expensive for the virgin to retrofit. It still managed to post its best profit ever but that was mainly due to a large tax break it received that year so it was the most attractive time to sell and they got an offer they couldn't refuse.  Milomumbles (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JetBlue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/may2007/pi20070510_255541.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_investing
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215014149/http://blog.jetblue.com/index.php/2010/03/22/leave-new-york-city-fuggedaboutit/ to http://blog.jetblue.com/index.php/2010/03/22/leave-new-york-city-fuggedaboutit/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

JetBlue is Not a Low-Cost Airline Anymore?
In the Wikipedia article about JetBlue, it is quoted, "JetBlue Airways Corporation (NASDAQ: JBLU), stylized as jetBlue, is an American low-cost carrier, and the 6th-largest airline in the United States.". That basically said JetBlue is a budget airline. However in my opinion, JetBlue was only a low-cost airline at its beginning. It has recently began to break the 'laws' of low-cost airline. Most low-cost airlines have no hubs, however JetBlue has hubs at JFK, LGB etc. Most low-cost airlines airlines have only one type of aircraft, however JetBlue has the A320 family, and the E190. Most low-cost airlines give less legroom than usual in order to fit in more seats, however JetBlue has above average legroom. What I'm trying to say is the statement above should be written as, "JetBlue Airways Corporation (NASDAQ: JBLU), stylized as JetBlue, is a major American airline, and the 6th-largest airline in the United States.", or in a way similar to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperlativePizza (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the term "low-cost airline" gets bandied around too loosely. It's used to describe any airline formed after deregulation, regardless of whether they use low fares as a selling point. "Low-cost" airlines like JetBlue and Virgin America have premium cabin products in addition to the things you mentioned. The only true low-cost airlines in the US are Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant, and maybe Sun Country once Jude Bricker gets his way. Feel free to remove any reference to low-cost in the article.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

JetBlue Mint Page.
Should the JetBlue Mint Page merge into this one? That article is very small, and I do not think it needs a Wikipedia Page. Tybomb124 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It certainly makes sense to, since there usually aren't separate pages for other airlines' premium products (Delta One, United p.s.). Also, it does read a bit like an advertisement. However, the JetBlue Mint page is a "good article", so I don't know if we should move without general consensus.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

False Alarm Incident
I put in content related to the recent flight 1623 incident, but someone reverted it. Apparently it is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't think so. I've seen similar incidents listed in other airline articles, and I added it a day after the incident took place. Funplussmart (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not particularly noteworthy, 7700 is only on digit different to 7600 on the control panel and this sort of stuff happens. MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If anything the fact that it was in the news only a day after the incident took place makes it seem even more like WP:NOTNEWS to me. Will people still be talking about it a month or a year later? DonIago (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. I think I understand now. Thank You. Funplussmart (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Logo
The JetBlue logo with "Airways" is not part of the current branding, as seen on the airline's website and current aircraft. The logo version with "Airways" is apparently an older logo, and should not be used in the infobox. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not a former name. Seeing the copyright symbol, it clearly mentions ©2021 JetBlue Airways. And also their branding on their site: and the aircraft liveries always had JetBlue on them and not JetBlue Airways. Username006 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * So I think you are agreeing that the branding without airways is the better image.  Please note branding and name are not entirely the same thing - logos tend to represent brands. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I never said that. I just proved that BilCat was not correct. I myself said that brands and logos are not the same earlier. Username006 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I then suggest you read what you wrote above as all you proved was that he was correct. Andrewgprout (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Really? Okay then!


 * BilCat: The logo version with "Airways" is apparently an older logo
 * Me: Seeing the copyright symbol, it clearly mentions ©2021 JetBlue Airways.


 * BilCat: The JetBlue logo with "Airways" is not part of the current branding, as seen on the airline's website and current aircraft.
 * Me: And also their branding on their site: and the aircraft liveries always had JetBlue on them and not JetBlue Airways. Username006 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * And for that where template you added: JetBlue on them and not JetBlue Airways. This is why I want it to be JetBlue Airways and not JetBlue. Username006 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The logo was uploaded in 2005, not 2021. BilCat (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't understand a word you are actually saying  you clearly say and agree that the branding is JetBlue and then say the logo should be Jetblue Airways, that makes no sense.  Logo's by definition define a brand.  We have been here before - and I really do dispair at the ill-logic being displayed.  Where is the copyright 2021 in the old image - it isn't - not that it really matters.  And where did you say name is not the same as brand - your answer does not answer that or anything else for that matter.  Just as another similar example Qantas does not have a logo that says "Qantas Airways" even though that is the Airline's name. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I concur completely with Andrew on this. The logo doesn't have to be the full name, and in this case it isn't. The "JetBlue" logo is what is currently used on the website and aircraft, and that's what we should be using in the infobox. BilCat (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I sense confusion...
I think there's some confusion here. JetBlue is the airline brand, while JetBlue Airways is the name of the company that runs the airline and its non-airline subsidiaries – here are its subsidiaries. This is similar to how Meta owns the Facebook brand. The airline's name is JetBlue and the article should reflect this. <small style="background:#162b65;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#ffffff;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">Quandarie <small style="background:#fff;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#000000;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">05:41, 2022-08-9


 * What your reliable sources for that claim? BilCat (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * JetBlue's own website. "Robin Hayes is chief executive officer of JetBlue Airways Corp., which encompasses JetBlue – New York’s Hometown Airline® – as well as subsidiaries JetBlue Technology Ventures and JetBlue Travel Products." Also note MOS:BOLDLEAD. <small style="background:#162b65;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#ffffff;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">Quandarie <small style="background:#fff;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#000000;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">21:15, 2022-08-09


 * So we should change the name to "JetBlue – New York’s Hometown Airline"? Hardly. The article cover both the company and the brand, and we use the company's name in such cases. Please don't edit war without a consensus to change this. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, the boldfaced should match the article title in this case. The article title is JetBlue. <small style="background:#162b65;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#ffffff;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">Quandarie <small style="background:#fff;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#000000;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">23:57, 2022-08-09


 * The trademarked slogan, "New York's Hometown Airline," is in a parenthetical and clearly not part of the brand name. <small style="background:#162b65;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#ffffff;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">Quandarie <small style="background:#fff;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#000000;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">00:49, 2022-08-10

It's guideline, not policy. BilCat (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The airline's name is JetBlue. The statement in the article, "JetBlue Airways is a low-cost airline," is factually inaccurate as the airline doesn't go by that name. There is absolutely no reason to go against that guideline to preserve a factually inaccurate version of the article. The airline's name is JetBlue. <small style="background:#162b65;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#ffffff;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">Quandarie <small style="background:#fff;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#000000;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">00:49, 2022-08-10

Obviously I disagree. Don't revert back without a consensus. BilCat (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Noted. I'd love to hear why you disagree, though. <small style="background:#162b65;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#ffffff;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">Quandarie <small style="background:#fff;border:#162b65 1px solid;color:#000000;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">03:14, 2022-08-10