Ground stop at JFK due to staffing • Hacker News Board

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#101

Post by cogman10 » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:35 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #84

deepsun wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just wrong, if a company is registered as "commercial" (as opposed to non-profit or public-benefit), then "for the money" is a legal obligation. Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.

Profit is not the only obligation. We all exist in a society. Poisoning the water can be very profitable, and yet shareholders cannot sue to force management to do it.

Management is often shareholders themselves and you can bet that if the fine is lower than the money saved they'll poison the water for 1000 years.

We've had rivers catch fire because poisoning the water is profitable.

We all exist in a society. However, the people most likely to own businesses and be successful at it seem to have no moral qualms about harming society so long as it personally enriches themselves.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#102

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:35 AM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #85

Pxtl wrote: post #83

Do Americans know that other countries don't have this wierd "government shuts down if we don't pass a budget" thing?

The ground stop was due to an aircraft emergency [0] and lifted within 21 minutes of being announced [1]. There are plenty of reasons to call out the shutdown, but using disinfo is the wrong method. [0] - https://pix11.com/news/local-news/ground-stops-at-jfk-due-to... [1] - https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_list?whichAdvisories=ATCSCC&...

[deleted]

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#103

Post by ipython » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:35 AM UTC

billy99k wrote: post #65

ipython wrote: post #30

My concern is that we will end up in a state of perpetual government "shutdown". The republicans, instead of reopening the entire government, will simply choose agencies to fund in order to keep the pain felt by the American people just low enough so they don't get fired (ala office space). Once that happens, Congress has basically iced itself out. Oversight from unfriendly government agencies? No worries, they're sh…

[flagged]

https://youtu.be/_QL7G9_GPaE?t=410

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#104

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:35 AM UTC

johncolanduoni wrote: post #87

shadowgovt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens if they don't show up? Are they at risk of jail or at risk of being fired and replaced by the new recruit, Michael McDoesnt-Exist ( https://www.aviationtoday.com/2025/07/25/americas-atc-meltdo... )?

I could imagine some sort of loss of seniority or pay level, even if they’d hire them right back because we already have an ATC shortage.

Well, that's certainly a negotiation standpoint the government can start from.

... But they're hurting for recruits in a big way so even at their size their negotiating position isn't as strong as they might want.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#105

Post by hshdhdhehd » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:36 AM UTC

tombert wrote: post #21

yndoendo wrote: post #12

Who knew electing shitty representation leads to a shitty environment and economy? I wish those effected by the shitty government the best Forcing people to work and not pay them is slavery!

I got in trouble at a BigCo because I said "we all do this for the money", and they claimed that I had a "bad attitude". But I don't think I was wrong. Work is fundamentally a business transaction; I sell my time and expertise and they give me money and benefits. Ultimately for any job I've had, even jobs that I really loved, if they stopped paying me I'd stop showing up [1]. It's nothing personal, that's just the tr…

Bad attitude != incorrect, of course.

Actually good attitude often == not honest.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#106

Post by fracus » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:36 AM UTC

egonschiele wrote: post #55

zermelo wrote: post #40

To most of the commentators saying "why work when you're not getting paid", please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't federal employees not paid during a government shutdown getting retroactive pay once funding has been restored?

Yes, but if you decide to leave your job during the shutdown (say to find more stable work), you do not get paid for the unpaid hours you worked. And as others are saying, plenty of people can't afford to work for no pay indefinitely.

Of course they can. A bank would have no problems giving out loans given the pay is coming eventually.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#107

Post by bryant » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:37 AM UTC

donmcronald wrote: post #86

ares623 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed running to become an actual developing nation. This is what millions of migrants are trying to escape from. Ironic, for all parties involved (well, except for the ones on top of course)

> Speed running to become an actual developing nation. That's what it looks like from the outside, but I can't understand what the gain is. Who benefits? The result of the middle class was massive advancement and an equally massive increase in standard of living for the wealthy who captured most of the gains. What do they gain from stagnating innovation and a lack of education, services, etc.? It makes me think of th…

"better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" is the expression and idea you're looking for.

Alternatively "better to rule among the miserable than to serve among the great."

It's a consistent theme with most autocracies.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#108

Post by moelf » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:37 AM UTC

whatever1 wrote: post #92

Why can't the airlines pay the air traffic controllers? They pay anyway for airport fees, it should be a minimal difference in the ticket cost.

IIUC they legally can't do that. ATC are federal employees, you can't just have private companies pay off federal workers. (Well, I know Trump's friend is literally doing that for the military so idk, maybe laws are just words these days)

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#109

Post by dionian » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:37 AM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #81

rogerrogerr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if this was the plan, the right would be insisting on something more outlandish than a clean CR.

It's double speak to call it a "clean CR" when there was just a huge bill changing a ton of tax code, budget, and increasing ICE's budget by 10x.[1] Passing the CR would have approved those spending changes as if they were in an appropriations bill. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act

with a clean CR we can open the government temporarily and pass a budget, right? the whole CR thing is terrible, we need single subject bills

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#110

Post by mindslight » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:39 AM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #89

pfooti wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think the actual underpinning support that broke this time is recission. In the past, of congress passed a budget with money for the some department or line item, that money would be spent. Now the president has claimed that he doesn't have to spend money he had been directed to spend by finding bills, and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance. This means that there is no longer the ability t…

Yeah, that seems like a pretty major problem. It isn’t even clear really how negotiations should start, without any ability to make binding deals.

Impeachment. Negotiations should start with impeachment. The President is not faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress, and the Supplicating Council has decreed that the only remedy is impeachment. It's time to impeach and convict.