All morning long on Imus, they kept referring to the successful crash-landing (Crooks and Liars has the video) of the Jet Blue plane yesterday as a ‘commercial for Jet Blue.’
I thought that was a touch odd, as I was not sure how crash-landing one of your planees inspires confidence. However, I do get their point in that the pilot did, rather adroitly, pull off a difficult maneuver.
So- does this help or hurt the Jet Blue image?
I like it:
“Fly Jet Blue — because our planes crash, but our pilots are GREAT!”
I think there’s a whole ad campaign there.
OK, I’m reaching here but maybe they figure:
A) Their name has been mentioned all over the place all morning, and there’s the whole thing about “no publicity is bad publicity” (although i don’t know if that applies to a plane almost crashing)
B) People might think “hey, it happened once, what are the odds of the same thing happening again to the same airline. They’ll be on top of it and fix the problem”
C) the already mentioned “Our pilots are REALLY, REALLY good” angle.
Like I said, they’re all reaches.
Another explanation is that Imus is drinking and doing blow again and he’s totally nuts and off the deep end.
Net plus for Jet Blue.
The real question is what this does for Airbus. I have never trusted those planes, as the autopilot is allowed to override the pilot (making extreme evasive maneuvers impossible). This is the number one design difference between Boeing and Airbus: Boeing trusts the pilot, Airbus trusts the plane.
The Airbus record is okay, because the planes are all new. But as these planes start to get old, they are going to have some interesting problems.
We don’t have Jet Blue in Minneapolis… so a little name recognition isn’t a bad thing. Especially since we’re looking for replacement airlines since Northwest went belly up.
Regarding the Airbus issue, on the up side, it shows a robust airframe particularly the landing struts. But not being able to dump fuel, and having the front wheels initially fold is not good.
Additionally, had the fuel been dumped, the media probably would not have had time to get in place to make the landing such a big story…
Walker – I think there’s something to be said there for replacing planes more than once every 40 years.
Wouldn’t it depend ultimately on why the plane had troubles? If it is a fault attributable to poor maintenance standards at Jet Blue, then I would think this is bad for the airline. Now, if Airbus is found to have some flaw, in say, their landing gears, then I think this would look more favorably for Jet Blue and poorly for Airbus.
Personally, I still feel safer flying than I do in a car. But that’s because I’ve always been told that my chances of dying in a car accident are higher. Of course, the market isn’t logical — regardless of the assumptions made by economists.
Since it was fairly spectacular and seen live on national television, and noone was seriously injured, I think most people will look favorably on Jet Blue at least in the short term. If an investigation turns up negligence on Jet Blue’s part, I think it might hurt them in the long run. Other wise, I think they will benefit long term.
First of all, this doesn’t qualify as a “crash”, in my book. Second, it was a textbook busted-gear landing. When the nose gear controls go, this is exactly what ought to happen. The alternative is to have the jet touch down and then immediately swerve in some random direction; not a good plan. That said, bains’ point about the lack of fuel dump is an excellent one. Sure, it’s an environmental problem, but it’s less of one (IMO, anyway) than having a whole cabin full of synthetics burst into flame.
Good point jmh, maintenance records will be key.
But either way, it’s a question of how bad it is for both of them, not whether it’s bad. Even if it’s entirely an Airbus design problem (not a stretch at all, they’ve had some serious problems, including rudders falling off), JetBlue is still flying the planes and people will look for a Boeing carrier.
That may be true if people look at accident rates by airplane model.
However, I think people will tend to pay heed to accident rates by carrier, and JetBlue is still one of the few without any fatalaties.
Trying a little too hard to pimp your crummy blog this morning, Dave. Do you have any evidence that any significant percentage of airline travelers ever goes out of its way to choose a particular aircraft manufacturer?
Anything at all, Dave? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass, as usual?
Can you state the comparative safety records of the current Boeing and Airbus fleets, Dave, without spending all morning Googling them? Or is your “serious problems” blurb just another hunka burnin love you pulled out of your ass?
So long as we don’t see another similar mechanical snafu on another JetBlue flight, it helps.
Thanks for another barrage of garbage totally unworthy of response.
I agree, most people are not that discerning by model or manufacturer, absent a series of public problems. But they generally aren’t discerning enough to look up stats, either. Most likely people will just say “Oh, JetBlue, didn’t their plane just crash? Hmm, I’m staying away.”
Yeah, uh, you’re welcome.
But to the point, did you have any data, evidence or facts at all to go with the horse manure you posted earlier?
Oh, sorry Dave, I see you already backpedaled:
Your earlier blurbomatic:
I like this strategy! Just post two opposite points of view and let the readers choose the one that makes sense.
So now that you are on a roll here, what percentage of travelers do you think “chooses” travel options on the basis of either carrier or manufacturer/model safety records? Dave?
By the way, Dave, when did we start referring to landing gear malfunctions as “crashes”?
People respond positively to competence and heroism. I think this will be a plus for JetBlue.
I’ve always preferred Airbus when traveling. Newer and nicer inside. IMO. That said last nights incident reinforced my faith in our pilots. We have qualified men at the controls. Softest landing ever some passengers said.
I think it will help. Hell, now everyone knows that JetBlue planes all have DirecTV. I didn’t know that before, and I’d want to fly JetBlue. Unfortunately, I live in Chicago, and they apparently really take the term “flyover country” to heart.
Isn’t “successful crash-landing” an oxymoron? Exactly how is that done?
I work adjacent to LAX, and I joined my colleagues from my 11th floor office to view the landing. It was quite a sight, when you take into account the emergency vehicles making their way to the airport, the news choppers hovering around, and the immense crowd that drove from miles around to watch the end; you’d think it was fucking 4th of July with everyone parked on the side of the freeways and jamming streets to see this.
But I digress…….people will forget about this before the weekend’s done. Rita will make sure of that. This emergency landing is right out of the pilot’s playbook, and emergency that is planned and prepared for during any training. If they can’t do this, why are they flying a plane to beging with? I would expect the same of any pilot on any commercial airline.
Remember, EVERY landing is a controlled crash.
And yup, a large percentage of one’s flight training is spent dealing with possible emergencies. Electrical system goes out, what to do. Dead engine, what to do. Fire, what to do. And I’m training on a Cessna.
With Big Stuff like jets, training is done through simulators, which means you can simulate all sorts of emergencies without actual danger to the pilot. And they do. Practice, practice, practice.
Patrick Smith of Ask the Pilot over on Salon has talked about flying from the boring to the wish-it-wasn’t exciting. I look forward to his writing on this subject.
I think overall it’s a net plus for JetBlue so long as the media doesn’t decide to go on a mad babble about “ancient” airplanes and ignore the realities of airline maintenance and lifecycle. They seem to have handled a difficult situation well.
Knowing that they did not turn off the DirectTv until the final seconds of the approach is a big plus to me. Think I would have been a lot more comfortable circling around if I knew as much as the average viewer did – that, to many experienced pilots, this was no big deal.
Kudos to JetBlue for keeping the TVs on.
Well, I still think that JetBlue is the Best. Airline. Ever. And I still think it claims that title by a wide margin, albeit a slightly smaller wide margin now.
I like them overall but I’ll hold out on giving that award till I find an airline that respects my privacy while giving me good service and fares.
Hmmm. By those standards, I guess the fictional Oceanic is a great airline too.
“Sure, we might crash on a mysterious desert island, but you’ll miraculously survive! For a while, at least, until you’re eaten by a smoke monster.”
the friendly grizzly
I thought it might be a commercial for the Flying Renault.