Hot or not? JetBlue decides for flight attendant

JetBlue may not comment on litigation, as it told USA Today, but clearly flight attendant attire is fair game. The airline is being sued by Karin Keegan. In what appears to be the friendly skies’ version of “put out or get out,” Keegan was not allowed to board a JetBlue flight because she wasn’t dressed provocatively enough. After ditching her threads for something she felt would be more consistent with JetBlue’s unusual “standards,” Keegan was told that she had missed her flight … and that she should have dressed the part of a sexy flight attendant from the start.

Keegan was flying JetBlue because of an agreement the airline has with her employer (Delta), under which Delta employees are ferried among locations. The altercation occurred in October 2007. The flight attendant complained to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which gave her a “right to sue” letter late last year. Though not an employee of JetBlue, the law gives her the right “sue over workplace harassment even when they are not directly employed by the alleged harasser,” according to reporting by USA Today.

JetBlue’s recent spanking in Connecticut small claims court is nothing compared to this debacle, which is headed for federal court. If the airline is looking for some form of precedent to cite, it may want to consider France’s advances in attire and accommodation.

Maybe a scantily clad workforce is JetBlue’s way of making a nine-hour stint on the runway more bearable for passengers, but c’mon guys, there has to be a better way.

[Via USA Today]

[Picture via The Sun]



Keegan wasn’t provocative enough. Check out the stories from these women — who were all too provocative!


Why Nicholas Kristof is right to defend “sweatshops” in his recent New York Times op-ed

Who can be in favor of “sweatshops”? The word brings to mind images of hundreds of workers from a poor country hunched over sewing machines for fourteen hours a day in stifling heat and with no bathroom breaks. Any person who cares about human dignity must be opposed to sweatshops, right? Well, not so fast.

New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof, well known for his dogged reporting on the genocide in Darfur, wrote a column on January 14 in which he defends sweatshops, saying that while the working conditions in many third-world factories are deplorable, the alternative is much worse.

What’s the alternative? For many Cambodians living in Phnom Penh, it’s rummaging through a garbage dump in what Kristof calls a “Dante-like version of hell.” Some Cambodian families even live in shacks scattered among the garbage.

Writes Kristof: “[W]hile it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough. Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty, the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children.” Moreover, Kristof writes, sweatshops are “only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty.“

It’s important to remember that large corporations bring manufacturing jobs to, say, Southeast Asia, not because they have any desire to lift the region out of poverty, but precisely because the labor standards in that part of the world are lax. Because the employees will work long hours for little pay, they get the jobs. If it were suddenly mandated that all workers should receive a “living wage” or get weekends and holidays off, the manufacturing jobs would disappear to other parts of the globe. Or they’d simply come back to the US.

Everyone believes people shouldn’t have to make the decision to work in a sweatshop. They should have better alternatives. But right now they don’t, and insisting that Cambodian factory workers are paid more will actually make their lives worse, because their jobs will disappear. As Will Wilkinson writes: “I am constantly dumbstruck that so many who profess to care about ‘social justice’ do little more than complain that desperate people have really terrible options and then work to take away the best options.”

Over ten years ago, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman made a similar defense of sweatshops in Slate, writing: “The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved.”

The living conditions for the average Indonesian or Bangladeshi or Vietnamese person, over the last 30 years, have improved, and as Krugman points out, this hasn’t been because of foreign aid from benevolent governments, but rather because of “soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor.” But whatever the motives that brought jobs to impoverished parts of the world, the result has been “to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better.”

But over at her his Where am I Wearing blog, Kelsey Timmerman is not as sanguine as Kristof about sweatshops. Kelsey writes that his quest to see how and where his clothing was made– which resulted in his visiting factories in places like Cambodia, China, and Honduras– has led him to believe that the argument “sweatshops are good” over-simplifies just as much as the opposite argument. Though he agrees with Kristof’s central premise, Kelsey sees the op-ed as “encouraging apathy” and writes, “As consumers, we should care who makes our clothes and what their lives are like.” [Edit: Sorry, Kelsey!]

Read Kristof on sweatshops here. Here‘s Krugman. Here‘s Kelsey Timmerman’s post at Where Am I Wearing? Here‘s Will Wilkinson’s post, appropriately titled “Helping = More Options”

Lawsuit leaves airline feeling blue

Bill Baker was mad. This crotchety blogger was so pissed at JetBlue that he took the airline to small claims court. On January 16, 2009, victory was sweet, to the tune of $494. The money, he says, will be donated to charity.

Clearly, one lone nut blogger can make a difference.

JetBlue delayed Baker’s red-eye flight from Portland, OR to New York for five hours, before announcing the cancellation of the flight. The passengers were offered flights out three days later. Meals, accommodations and earlier flights were not offered. So, Baker took JetBlue to Connecticut small claims court. He asked for damages of $722.50 (per his blog, $687.50 per the court record). The airline apparently took the lawsuit seriously, actually sending a representative to the hearing. This was not enough, however, to sway the events to JetBlue’s favor.

The airline has developed something of a reputation for canceling flights and pushing passengers days into the future. When I went to the Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, JetBlue canceled my flight and simply said that I wouldn’t be able to get into JFK for another two days. I pushed, asking about the many other airports in the New York area – small spots, like LaGuardia and Newark. Finally, I got them to put me on a flight for the next day. Like Baker, JetBlue offered nothing to make my trip easier.

I just sent a letter to JetBlue, which garnered a very weak response from the airline. Baker aimed high, and it worked.Litigation was not his first choice. In fact, he offered to let JetBlue donate the $722.50 for which he was suing to the ASPCA or the Humane Society of America. The airline did not respond to his offer. They did offer some vouchers as compensation, which he refused to use. But, the judge seemed to consider them in his final award, as they account for the difference between the damages requested and those rewarded.

I guess the moral of this story is that airlines should realize that even the smallest complaint can snowball. I found out about Bill Baker’s story on his blog, which was linked to his Twitter account, went to his blog and was entranced. That’s all it takes, sometimes, for one company’s bad news to gain a hell of a lot of attention. One person cruising a series of links at the right time can turn a small story into a big one.

For travelers, the message is that we need to continue to talk to each other. Start your own blogs. Use sites like Twitter. As we saw earlier this week, with the use of the Hudson River as a runway, citizen journalism has become a powerful force. Let everyone know about the best and worst you see on the road. We’re all in this together. Also, the airlines and hotels are starting to pay attention. One tough tweet will be noticed.

And, Baker leaves us with his battle cry, “Ask not how airlines can screw you; Ask how you can screw the airlines back!”

Read about Bill Baker’s lawsuit against JetBlue >>

View the official results of the Connecticut Small Claims Court >>

Learn about blogging, microblogging and travel >>

Read about a suit against Easyjet in Europe >>

Start your own airline lawsuit >>

[Thanks, Bill]

Hawaii goes digital early for an endangered bird

While Hawaii tends to be behind the trend when it comes to technological advances, the state’s digital TV initiative is ahead of the curve, thanks to an endangered bird. The Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel, a volcano-dwelling bird that makes its home on the slopes of Maui’s Haleakala, is quickly approaching its nesting season, which prompted rangers to request an early analog to digital TV conversion date so that analog transmission towers can be taken down.

On Thursday, January 15 all analog-based televisions on Hawaii were deactivated and now require digital converter boxes. Hawaii and the rest of the nation is changing over to an all-digital TV system because of a mandate issued by Congress to free airwaves. The rest of the nation will go digital on February 17.


Click the images to learn about the most unusual museums in the world — from funeral customs, to penises, to velvet paintings, to stripping.



Enjoying the ocean means taking care of it

A recent article in The Economist outlines how man is destroying the ocean. It reports, “Man has changed the landscape and the atmosphere. It would be odd if the seas, which he has for centuries used for food, for transport, for dumping rubbish and, more recently, for recreation, had not also been affected.” Despite being an avid ocean-goer myself, I have to agree with this assessment. Furthermore, it should not be too surprising that as man continues to utilize the ocean’s resources, whether it be for food, transportation, waste disposal, or recreation, the ecosystem below is changing.

The recent shark attacks in Australia and the shark sightings in Hawaii back in October clearly parallel this hard reality. While it’s important to enjoy our waters, it’s equally important to do our job as citizens in this world to protect them. That means doing small things like not touching the reef or getting in close contact with marine life. It also means choosing cleaner modes of water transport like sailing. It means being vigilant about where we throw our trash, and most of all it means we have to educate ourselves and understand the conditions of the sea.

With proper care and vigilance, the ocean can be a place our future generations can enjoy as we do. Otherwise, as The Economist article puts it, “The possibility of widespread catastrophe is simply too great.”