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

201–210 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#201

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

Another fun "quirk" of Hacker News: this post has been unlinked from all front pages (you can't find it by hitting "More" from front page) even though it was on the front page very recently.

What I was going to say before was: Remember when air traffic controllers went on strike, and Reagan killed the future of unions in the USA by firing all the striking workers and banning them from ever having a government job? This is the legacy of that action. Never underestimate the lasting impact of an incompetent entertainer made President.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#202

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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…

It won't happen that way because in a couple of years they will give Trump unlimited power the same way they did Hitler in the 1930s. From democracy to dictatorship in less than a decade.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#203

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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…

> soldiers are pretty well trained to follow the chain of command

Actually, soldiers mostly follow the money. In Rome the the Praetorian Guard realized their power and started installing leaders. In developing nations with military coups, the soldiers back whoever will pay them. Yes, ideologically soldiers will follow a chain of command and conservative-anything; but practically speaking, they will follow whoever lets them rape and pillage and retire to a villa.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#204

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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]

Are they all of a sudden powerless? "Oh noes! we control the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government, but those meany liberals won't let us balance the budget" ?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#205

Post by UzPPw337CtTbKQd »

jaredklewis wrote: post #190
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.

> Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It’s not remarkable. Now cite even a single case where shareholders sued and won. In reality, the “obligation” you are referencing has basically only ever been relevant in situations where the board or management is taking bribes. I’m not aware of any cases where shareholders won because the compan…

The Dodge v. Ford case is known for just that.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#207

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

sershe wrote: post #195

Why are ATC paid by the federal government anyway? As far as I understand airports are separate private heavily regulated entities. Seems like thus should be trivial to solve by having airports/municipalities pay for their ATC. Might also improve the pay if they have to compete and take blame for this kind of stuff, instead of passing the buck.

Simple: even in the 1930s, it was obvious that a private corporation would prioritize profit over safety. At the time it was mostly rich people who could afford to fly. So, miraculously, the government decided it needed to ensure the safety of air travel.

Trump famously wanted to privatize the ATC in his first term. But now all the industry veterans are saying they'd much rather have the modernizations proposed for the government system (https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5442651/privatizing-air...) than switch to a private model.

What's funny is, we're gonna fuck it up either way.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#208

Post by JohnTHaller »

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?

The Republicans are working on not paying many of federal employees. Plus, the federal employees that use them will lose SNAP benefits/food stamps tomorrow.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#209

Post by Ekaros »

imperfect_light wrote: post #37
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…

You should ask BigCo if they're only providing goods/services to their customers "for the money."

If they are not doing just for money. Surely you should be able to give very good discounts to customer. After all why are profits aka. money needed?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#210

Post by jgil »

thephyber wrote: post #120
colechristensen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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).

The First Reconstruction was a very different civ-mil scenario. The military protected freedmen from the various insurgent and paramilitary groups that sought to deprive freedmen of rights.
Post reply on HN