Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

fly.faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#111

Post by SlightlyLeftPad »

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!

It is a failed state, and we have seemingly overnight given Russia and China the biggest beautiful gift they could have asked for.

Our military is over extended, science has been flipped over and defunded, and that alone will settle it.

Now add unreasonable volatility from tariffs, and wait, give it time, wait some more until it’s impossible to unwind, then if we’re not in a major war, economy crashes, chaos ensues.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#112

Post by hshdhdhehd »

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?

Why work in current job when you cant pay your rent today. Why not get a different job so you can.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#113

Post by jmtulloss »

macinjosh wrote: post #74
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]

And the republicans could just vote to change the rules of the senate.

The out of power party gets a little veto power here. The republicans know the day will come they want that, so they won’t change the rules even though they have the power to do so (theoretically… there are republicans that will never compromise on this). Unfortunately they can’t get on the same page with their lame duck leader

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#114

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

johnfn wrote: post #43
tombert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mean, if I heard you say that, I would probably think you had a "bad attitude" as well. Yes, getting paid is an important part of your job, but presumably you could get paid at many different places, and you choose the one you work at because it has additional benefits on top of a purely transactional relationship. It's like telling your girlfriend you're dating her because she's really hot. I'm sure that factored…

Would you have have chosen to work at your job if you were never going to get paid?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#115

Post by estimator7292 »

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…

Short term profit extraction for the already obscenely-wealthy.

That's it, that's the only goal.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#116

Post by hshdhdhehd »

fracus wrote: post #106
egonschiele wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citation? Who is giving unsecured pay day loans on unknown payday? If they did what would the interest be? 1000%?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#117

Post by hshdhdhehd »

moelf wrote: post #108
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)

Why hire private? Why not fund the existing federal ones?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#120

Post by thephyber »

colechristensen wrote: post #79
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…

>Someone tell me why this couldn't happen. Beware the ides of march. During a constitutional crisis that doesn't seem to have an immediate resolution political violence should be expected from the inside as an attempt to reach a resolution. The last line of defense is that military leadership actually do have a pretty solid loyalty to the constitution and soldiers are pretty well trained to follow the chain of comman…

It’s hard to foresee how close to accurate your forecast is.

But we are in a de facto junta if the military refuses to take orders from a president, at least for the duration of the presidency. It’s pretty hard to run a free and fair election under those conditions (we dealt with that in The South in the early Reconstruction years).

Post reply on HN