New Hire Flight Attendant Questions...

"to fly these cramped pieces of crap? And don''t think for a minute that the flying public enjoys a Regional jet. I''ve NEVER heard anyone say a positive thing about them to my face."

The EMB-190 is no more an RJ than the F-100 or the B-717. You might want to visit and investigate further.

I have to ask though, why such anger.
I applied to jb in june and still waiting to hear from them for the phone interview. Anyone waiting to hear from them or have heard from them recently. Is it true they are rejecting furloughed f/a''s applications. What''s the phone interview process about.
Yes they do reject furloughed flight attendants! No not everyone!!
I know of several that have applied that have been furloughed and
their application was rejected. Some with college degrees and
on top of that can even speak another language. Im sure its in
their minds that the only reason they are getting so many applications
is because of everyone that has been furloughed.....another words..
Would the applicant be applying with "jetblue" had they not been
furloughed from another airline? Probably not!! So with all of
the applications that have been sent in...they can afford to be very
picky and selective!! But just rememeber....Whats meant to be is
meant to be!! Good Luck!!
Hey cltflyguy. Thanks for the info. I was furloughed from usairways on june 4 too. I applied with jb in june. I hear they are about 1month or so behind reviewing application. Did they contact you for the phone interview or send you an email saying they will call you. I''m just excited about the prospect of working for them. Hope to see you in the friendly skies.

Sorry, but it may be the semantics. They do not discriminate against people on furlough, but not all with previous experience gets hired.

In other words, since not all people without previous experience get hired, does that mean they reject people without experience? Well, no!

They hire a mix of the two, because they seek the best people for the job.
That would only be considered prudent and normal, in any kind of business.
On 6/18/2003 2:26:24 AM dgs wrote:

BlueFlyer21 -- I absolutely read what I wrote and believe it. I think you couldn''t be more wrong about our management. David said the other day that, "He will know he has failed as a CEO if the day ever comes that we unionize." I truly believe he IS concerned about our well being. He believes happy crewmembers are the key to our success--in good times and bad. It''s also about being part of the team. If you believe our management is evil, you are welcome to leave.

First of all let me make it clear that I''m not some JB hater or someone who sits around knocking everything it does. I think they have had a great startup plan and some really sharp managers. This is no Vanguard or Legend. That being said I am truly amazed at how desperate people have become looking for an airline Messiah. For people to buy that crap that "Dave will know he''s failed if we unionized" is unbeliveable. I''m sure Dave really wants to make JB a great place to work and he''s smart enough to know it makes for productive employees. Your very lucky to have a guy like that, but COME ON!!! Dave''s responsibility is to the Airline and its Stockholders FIRST!! There WILL be times where the Company''s and Employees interests differ. Not all unions have to be militant and combative and run by jerks. Did you see how Airtrans Unions quickly volunteered to give up a days pay each week after 9/11? Look at how well its worked at Southwest. Also the car company Saturn. A union will give you a LEGAL seat at the table. I''m quite sure Dave himself uses or has used Lawyers and/or Agents to negotiate on his behalf. How could it possibly be bad to have an Agent to negotiate for the employees collectively?

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.