AAMech--
I understand the thought behind your post but wanted to throw another point of view into the mix.
You are absolutely correct: David and Dave''s first responsibility is to the airline and stockholders. What is different about this place is that the methodology for dealing with this management issue is based on how the employees are being treated.
In other words, both CEO and Pres are absolutely convinced that if you take care of your people, they will in turn take care of the customer. The first and primary difference between JB and the competition is the people; by and large our people treat customers with a bit more humanity than normal. Customers respect that concept. DirecTV is only a nice addition to our mix--it is not the "silver bullet" that slays the other carriers.
In short, what dgs and the others mean is that if you buy into the concept that our management actually intends to run the company to take care of our employees (read: crewmembers) as well as the customer, it is not a big reach to say that a union on premises could be considered a failure. Do it right and one will not be necessary. David has stated that he would consider establishment of a union as an admission of failure on his part.
Now, the more cynical of you would cast this comment off as a cynical management practice. I don''t buy that view, however. This company is not based on a messianic prophecy; management has earned my respect by following through on their promises. While I regret that the original poster of this threat felt as if he/she were lied to, I cannot say that I''ve ever seen ethical/moral failures of that nature in my time at the company.
I agree that certain unions have served a valid purpose. Some were extremely flexible during the post-attack period. I admire AirTran''s union for their fiscal stand; it enabled that carrier (I love AirTran, by the way) to make it through the tough times. I just don''t see a need for one at JetBlue.
Thanks, AAMech, for your reasonable comments though.