Boycott Jet Blue

[sleepy]

Won't you have to add United, USAir, and American to your boycot since they all fly the Airbus. Also, don't forget all of the Canadian RJ's at Delta, American, USAir, United, etc. You had better start taking Greyhound (unless they operate French buses).

 

[busdrver]

And don't ship any packages via UPS, Fedex, or the Post Office.

 

[135fr8r]

So, the big Emb-190 order at Jet Blue didn`t bother ya?

 

[General Lee]

Brazilians don't count----and by the way the women there are HOT. No, really.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JayDub]

There were three...

countries that we counted on for support that let us down; France, Germany, and Canada. There was talk of boycotting all three, but I think France is just an easier target.

With that in mind, look at this:Boeing Job

Boeing makes a big deal of buying American, then passes up Gulfstream for Bombardier.

Hey Bally,

No PM yet. What gives?



JayDub

 

[KC-10 Driver]

Bally-

Airbus is not a French company. It is a consortium made up of companies from various European nations. While the A320 may be assembled in Toulouse, the profits from the sale of each aircraft go in some proportion to each of the consortium's member companies.

Consider that both British and Spanish companies are members of the Airbus consortium. So, by purchasing Airbus aircraft, JetBlue is doing business with companies from two of the United States' strongest allies of late.

And, yes, the Libya raid was carried out by F-111's (as well as Navy A-6's), not F-16's.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Bally-

And, yes, the Libya raid was carried out by F-111's (as well as Navy A-6's), not F-16's.

It was Operation ELDORADO CANYON. Our iritation with France is a culmination of a few such "non-supporting" roles played by France.

 

[jaxgus]

Business Decisions in 1999

When Dave Neelman started jetBlue I wouldn't be surprised if he approached Boeing for an aircraft purchase. Mr Neelman seems to be the type not to leave any stones unturned and ideas unexplored. I am very confident if Boeing would have offered 73's at a similar price, jetBlue would be flying a Boeing product. The fact of the matter is, the A320 made better business sense starting a new airline from scratch for economics. Don't forget, starting a new business you buy everything from airplanes to staples (MUCHO $$$$).

Today, I wonder if the executives at Boeing wish they would have made jetBlue a better offer? Looking at business history, when jetBlue turned on the "Open for Business Sign" the industry was booming. Boeing was seeling aircraft left / right at premium prices. They may have not been looking long term and this cost AMERICAN workers, I think about 30,000, their jobs.

So, if we want to get on the buy AMERICAN bandstand, maybe we need to force some values back into business leadership so management looks how to grow the company they work for and workers they represent. Too often management take care of themselves which only hurts America in the long run, Terry McCauliffe (sp?) for example. I hear (read) so many posts on this forum expressing disgust in their management, the fact jetBlue is flying A320's is influenced not only by the purchase offer made by Airbus, but also by the poor purchase offer made by Boeing.

 

[BMD]

jb

If I ever get an interview with JB, I'll be sure to read the my interviewers the riot act about foreign aircraft before we get started.

 

[jarhead]

I guess the censored stuff gets by on the avitars

 

[jetblue320]

Re: Business Decisions in 1999

When Dave Neelman started jetBlue I wouldn't be surprised if he approached Boeing for an aircraft purchase. Mr Neelman seems to be the type not to leave any stones unturned and ideas unexplored. I am very confident if Boeing would have offered 73's at a similar price, jetBlue would be flying a Boeing product. The fact of the matter is, the A320 made better business sense starting a new airline from scratch for economics. Don't forget, starting a new business you buy everything from airplanes to staples (MUCHO $$$$).

Jaxgus,

Be surprised no longer. The fact of the matter is that DN and Crew was courting Boeing to go with the 737-800 right up to the end when a decision had to be made for time constraints, having a announced start-up date of Feb. 2000. Both the 737 and A320 offered us what we needed so the choice was indeed difficult. And yes, leave no stones unturned is paramount at JB. I won't swear to it but the basic outcome to go with the A320 is said to be $$$. And no, it's not because we don't pay for them versus having to pay for Boeings. But that's another re-surfacing thread!

Here's another interesting point: the man who lead the crusade for Boeing to entice us to go with their product (name not important, but you can get it if you look) is a prodigy who now is our Senior VP of Tech Ops. When we made the decision to go with the A320, DN solicited him with an offer, and he crossed the border from Boeing to JB. That says a lot to me. He is head of our aircraft delivery and acquisition team and a lot, lot more.

And yes, he is an American, drinks Budweiser on occasion, and has never been seen smoking a flag.

C Ya.

 

[Dizel8]

While you are at it Bally, take a look at the Boeing partners on the new 7E7.

Thanks and enjoy. Now go get a nice big mug of ............................

 

[atpcliff]

Bally:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the wealthy people in America, overall, don't care about their country, they just care about making $. Globalization has overwhelmed us, and the richest people in America, those that control the government and our everyday lives, are overwhelmingly all for it.

There is a pending bill in Congress that everything the Pentagon buys must contain > 50% made in America parts.

Who's objecting?

The PENTAGON.

THe Pentagon says that the 50% made in America requirement is impractical, as basically all the major weapon systems that they buy contain over 50% of their parts from foreign countries.

If the Pentagon doesn't buy American, why should anyone else?

Cliff
DTW

PS-Do you advocate boycotting the Pentagon?

 

[Juan Tugo]

Southwest and Airbus...

Interestingly enough...back in the day when the -300's were just coming on the property, Airbus invited WN's chief pilots to come over and see what they thought about the A320. The chief pilots were wined and dined, allowed to fly the aircraft as much as they wanted, plus Airbus was going to throw in MX, sims, training, etc. But, in usual Southwest style, it was decided that a total fleet change would be too expensive (i.e. purchasing new gates, support equipment, etc.)...plus imagine how livid the folks on the Lubbock or Amarillo flights would have been when they found out they were on a "Free-yunch Aeroplane."

I think WN made the right decision.

Keep it real,
Juan

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Bally:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the wealthy people in America, overall, don't care about their country, they just care about making $. Globalization has overwhelmed us, and the richest people in America, those that control the government and our everyday lives, are overwhelmingly all for it.

There is a pending bill in Congress that everything the Pentagon buys must contain > 50% made in America parts.

Who's objecting?

The PENTAGON.

THe Pentagon says that the 50% made in America requirement is impractical, as basically all the major weapon systems that they buy contain over 50% of their parts from foreign countries.

If the Pentagon doesn't buy American, why should anyone else?

Cliff
DTW

PS-Do you advocate boycotting the Pentagon?

atpcliff,

I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to point out that the Pentagon's position is Sec. Rumsfeld and maybe General "Jackass" (or Admiral "Dork" for you Navy folks). It is certainly not the opinion of the average soldier, airman, or seaman.

If you care about the average working stiff in America you will try to buy American as much as possible.

 

[WillFlyforFood]

Actually, I hope they acquire (by whatever means available) the best equipment to give our soldiers, airmen, etc. the best protection and firepower available -- no matter where it was made.
The equipment is merely equipment, BUT it's protecting American lives.
I, for one, am thankful for their perspective.

 

[jinxy]

Todays USA Today has an interesting article about French wine sales in the US being down around 18% from the last year. They attribute this to several reasons, but one major one is cited as political stife between the two coutries.

I don't know if this sentiment could translate to the airline industry though. Only time will tell.

 

[WrightAvia]

BOYCOTT ARMED AIRLINE PILOTS!!!!!!

They will be carrying the GERMAN made pistol by Hechler and Koch. Meanwhile Germans probably can't own a pistol made in their own country.

 

[radiofly er]

A quick note

Down South we went with the A-320 at Mexicana to replace our 727's and Fokker 100's to total 80 by 2005. Just seemed like the better of the two(737-700,800 or A320 ). It's all in the numbers for us and it didn't have to do anything with our disaproval of the war wich our constitution prohibits. One other note, Aeromexico went with Boing ordering 40 737-700's and 800 with options of 20 more by 2006, maybe their kissing up to the U.S. maybe.........or maybe that's just the airplane that suits them well. I'm sure JetBlue choosing the Airbus doesnt mean anything by it besides they had all their plans laid out before Sept 11th.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

American jobs going overseas

Actually, I hope they acquire (by whatever means available) the best equipment to give our soldiers, airmen, etc. the best protection and firepower available -- no matter where it was made.
The equipment is merely equipment, BUT it's protecting American lives.
I, for one, am thankful for their perspective.

WillFlyforFood,

Hopefully no one in you family will be carrying a "will work for food" sign after corporate America moves more jobs overseas--


USA's new money-saving export: White-collar jobs
Tue Aug 5, 8:01 AM ET Add Business - USA TODAY to My Yahoo!

By Stephanie Armour and Michelle Kessler, USA TODAY

White-collar employees have long believed their jobs were safe from the economic forces that have shifted millions of factory jobs to foreign countries in the last 30 years.

Not anymore.

It's not just clothing and electronics being made by workers in India, China and similar places. Now, office and professional jobs are being shipped out raising the specter that skilled white-collar workers could face the same devastating job losses that decimated the manufacturing industry.

Almost any professional job that can be done long-distance is suddenly up for grabs. Jobs done by financial analysts, architectural drafters, telemarketers, accountants, claims adjusters, home loan processors and others at higher levels of the labor food chain are being farmed out to workers in other countries.

"We're not just talking about call-center jobs, but all kinds of jobs," says Deloitte Consulting analyst Christopher Gentle. "It doesn't leave any part of the corporation untouched."

These include high-paying, highly sought-after jobs that often require advanced degrees and years of study to attain. But instead of paying six-figure salaries to trained workers in America, more companies are shelling out $10,000 to $20,000 to get cheaper employees an ocean away.

Major U.S. companies, including such giants as IBM, Microsoft and Procter & Gamble, are leading the pack. Tens of thousands of jobs already have been shipped out, and analysts project that millions more will go in coming years.

Employers say outsourcing jobs to foreign countries makes them more competitive because they can reap enormous savings in labor costs. They argue that most of the jobs now going abroad are positions many Americans snub, such as telemarketing. Farming out that work leaves better, higher-paying jobs for American employees to do.

The trend represents a potentially seismic shift: In the next 15 years, American employers will move about 3.3 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion in wages abroad, according to Forrester Research. That's up from $4 billion in wages in 2000.

Financial services companies alone plan to move more than 500,000 jobs offshore in the next five years, says consulting firm A.T. Kearney. Deloitte Consulting expects 2 million jobs worldwide to eventually move to countries such as India.

A warning from organized labor

To labor unions, farming out white-collars jobs is more than just another way for businesses to cut costs. They say the trend has the potential to plunder American jobs, prolong the weak job market that has characterized this jobless economic recovery and pose a long-term danger to the employment security long enjoyed by white-collar workers. Critics now are trying to mount an offensive.

"We see it as a threat to America's middle-class workforce, in terms of wages and benefits," says Marcus Courtney, president of Washington Alliance of Technology Workers in Seattle. "The service sector is not immune to the forces of globalization. We're talking about highly skilled, best-paying jobs. It's raising the concern of workers."

The Communications Workers of America this spring began pressing Congress to authorize an investigation into the growing number of jobs being shifted abroad. High-tech workers have handed out leaflets and held demonstrations protesting the trend in states such as Texas, Washington, Massachusetts and New York.

Critics are pushing for legislation that would halt projects from being sent abroad if they're funded by tax dollars. Others want tax incentives to help keep business on U.S. soil.

The worry: Increasing profit pressures and the ease of information exchange provided by the Internet will turn the wave of companies shipping out work into a tsunami potentially affecting every sector of the white-collar labor force.

Among concerns:

Benefits and pay. Secure in the knowledge that they can get cheaper workers abroad, American companies might begin slashing benefits here, critics say. Even U.S. workers who get jobs could see wages slashed because of the competition posed by their counterparts abroad, they say.

Companies have already been curbing benefits as labor costs driven largely by health care costs escalate.

Pay has also suffered as companies cut back on raises in a sluggish economy. As more companies start tapping workers abroad, critics say, U.S. workers will lose the last vestiges of their bargaining power.

At 123jump.com, a Miami Beach provider of investment advice, the company's 32 financial analysts live in India, Bulgaria and Argentina, earning $15,000 to $20,000 a year.

CEO Manish Shah says he could shell out $150,000 or more to hire analysts here. But why? His analysts usually have MBAs and speak fluent English.

Loss of American jobs. Labor unions and consultants fear a repeat of what happened in the manufacturing sector, which has lost more than 2.6 million jobs in the past three years.

The scope and type of jobs being farmed out show how vulnerable many professional positions are. J.P. Morgan Chase expects to have 40 research analysts in Mumbai (formerly called Bombay), India, by year's end. Deloitte Consulting has about 1,000 employees in Mumbai and Hyderabad, India, many handling research work. A.T. Kearney uses workers in New Delhi for research and office support.

IBM has expanded offices in Bangalore, India, to handle engineering work, and is reportedly considering a big offshore push. Hewlett-Packard has 5,000 employees in India, doing research, developing software and staffing call centers. The companies say they've had Indian workers for years.

Already, major companies are able to work around the clock because of their presence in other countries.

Oracle has two big development centers in India, and 4,000 employees will be stationed there by year's end. Programmers there pick up projects when their American counterparts leave for the day, and vice versa. That way, Oracle is working 24 hours a day.

The numbers are continuing to swell. Consulting firm Brulant recently surveyed 38 large companies about outsourcing plans. While only 18% were seriously considering it, "100% of them were evaluating it," says CEO Len Pagon Jr.

Once gone, jobs won't return

If outsourcing takes off, it's unlikely to stop, experts say. "The jobs aren't coming back, that's for sure," says Forrester Research analyst John McCarthy.

While the trend has been underway for years, only now as the pace of outsourcing picks up and new projections show its use continuing to grow is debate about the practice increasing. One reason for the attention is the recent economic doldrums. With unemployment at 6.2% in July, more white-collar workers are becoming anxious about job security. While many have been shaken by layoffs, workers' new concern that jobs could be lost permanently to other countries is sounding an alarm.

Says Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington: "This will cause more churning and concern higher up the professional food chain. Blue-collar workers have been used to this for years."

Since the first migration of white-collar work involved tech jobs, other employees in professional jobs thought they were immune. Now, office jobs many thought could never be done abroad are being farmed out.

In recent years, the Internet has made it easy to pass data and documents around the world. In India, deregulation of the telephone industry has caused rates for some international calls to fall as much as 30%. That's made it possible for telemarketers and customer service agents to work seamlessly with U.S. customers. Many assume an American name and take training in U.S. customs, making it hard to distinguish between a call from Houston or Hyderabad. "In India, it's a very respectable job," says Chaitra Aiyar, 23, who works at Cellbion, a call center near Mumbai. She goes by the name Cindy Newman when making calls.

Is all the hand wringing overblown? Labor groups say no, but companies and some analysts argue that shipping white-collar jobs abroad is hardly a menace to American jobs.

"The recession is making all sorts of people insecure. I don't see this as a huge threat to the U.S. economy," Bivens says.

Since labor and land in countries such as India can be cheap, the cost savings can become "extraordinary," says A.T. Kearney Vice President Andrea Bierce.

An MBA with three years experience in India will make about $12,000 a year, compared with $100,000 in the USA, she says; a programmer will make $5,000, compared with $60,000. "There are an awful lot of companies thinking about this," Bierce says.


David Stixrood, president of Dallas-based Corp-Wireless (news - web sites), which provides broadband wireless connectively to the Internet in truck stops, opted not to use an overseas help desk even though it was cheaper partly because he's concerned about what outsourcing will do to American jobs.

"We're going to lose all those jobs," Stixrood says. "People are losing their jobs to overseas markets. Unfortunately, we live in a very competitive world, and sometimes competition is very cruel."