Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

Post by dingaling » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 6:58 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #207

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 t…

Post by sershe » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 7:26 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #207

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 t…

Post by M95D » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 8:42 AM UTC

whamlastxmas wrote: post #206

johnbatch wrote: post #72

This was canceled 21 minutes after it was issued. https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_list?whichAdvisories=ATCSCC&...

[flagged]

Post by nobody9999 » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 9:34 AM UTC

macinjosh wrote: post #143

Buttons840 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I do think the Democrats should just let Republicans ruin themselves on this issue. Make a fuss, make it clear you're worried about increasing health costs and are trying to stop it, but eventually, you might just have to let people experience the consequences of the party they elected.

The Democrats care about healthcare costs increasing like remember when Obama caved on the public option because he sold out to the insurance companies?

   The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option 
   or the public option, is a proposal to create a government-run health 
   insurance agency that would compete with other private health insurance 
   companies within the United States. The public option is not the same as 
   publicly funded health care, but was proposed as an alternative health 
   insurance plan offered by the government. The public option was initially 
   proposed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but was removed 
   after the independent US senator for Connecticut Joe Lieberman threatened a 
   filibuster.[1][2]

Post by qcnguy » Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 9:44 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #63

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clean CR So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.

'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown. Republicans have proven they won't follow the same rules and aren't negotiating in good faith. They'll do whatever they can get away with, and if bad things happen (whether they are opposed or not) then it's anyone else's fault.