Putting aside the issue of the one-year expiration on points (the most common complaint), one thing that I would like to see is an added incentive for using B6 for 1-stop flights when you have other reasonably priced options.

Example: PIT-JAX. Its base point value is 4 points for this leg. There are plenty of options to fly other carriers, since it does not offer a N/S option, and B6 is not always the least expensive option. I think its base value should be 5 points, recognizing it as a "medium haul flight with the added hassle of making a connection".

I wonder if the bean-counters would see value in making some 2-point legs 3 points as well, simply recognizing that not all 2 and 4 point legs are really the same.

I agree that there should definitely be an "incentive" to make a connection...however, keep in mind that it costs an airline more money to connect pax than have them fly nonstop. Would jetBlue (or any airline) want to reward a customer MORE points when the cost of flying them increases and the fare pretty much stays the same or often even less than a nonstop?? I think it's a 50/50 situation.

While I'm not sure that the proposal to reward more points for 1-stop flights would be feasible or prudent with JetBlue's frequent flyer program, it is actually done this way on some major airlines. On airlines that reward passengers for miles flown, 1-stop flights (with a connection, plane change) often result in earning more miles than nonstop ones.

Also, though it seems to defy common sense, it is sometimes "cheaper" for an airline to fly someone with a stopover. Once a plane takes off, it is pretty much a fixed cost to the airline, whether or not seats are occupied. Getting some money to put a butt in a seat, even if it is a connecting passenger, is better than earning no revenue at all. While I'm sure jetBlue would love to fill all its seats on a nonstop basis (i.e. PIT-JFK, JFK-JAX), sending someone PIT-JFK-JAX, even on a cheap ticket, costs the airline less than not selling the seats in either or both of those legs. Plus, many airlines will argue that hubs give them economies of scale that they wouldn't achieve from flying lots of point-to-point flights in smaller markets (though others will argue this is not the case).