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

221–230 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#221

Post by mlrtime »

qcnguy wrote: post #219
paulryanrogers wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.

No replies but you're right. All top comments are blaming Republicans, but the the Republican part has passed. If the Democrats sign the budget it passes. Depending on which "side" (I hate that term) you view this from, the other side is holding it up.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#222

Post by hshdhdhehd »

nobody9999 wrote: post #220
hshdhdhehd wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Citation? Who is giving unsecured pay day loans on unknown payday? If they did what would the interest be? 1000%? I'm not a Federal employee and I don't know the details, but there's a banner on my bank's (Chase) website (after you log in) suggesting that they have mechanisms to assist those who aren't getting paid. What those are, I have no idea. It may well be high interest loans or no interest loans. Or it may wa…

I see. I imagine its good PR like that cafe giving free lunches in DC.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#223

Post by mlrtime »

cwillu wrote: post #76
johnfn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The company is not family, will never be family, and will chew you up and spit you out the moment it is better on net for them.

And so will a SO if they're needs are not being met anymore. Family has to be family by definition if you're using blood lines. But families can often be MUCH worse than a company.

Try talking to a kid who used to be beat by their parents, at least the company is up front (usually).

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#224

Post by mlrtime »

dpe82 wrote: post #45

ATC is severely understaffed nationwide and it's particularly bad in the New York area even without a government shutdown. It's a difficult, stressful job and was already even harder because mandatory overtime has been the norm for quite a while. So it's not surprising that when you stop paying people... some of them will start finding reasons they can't make it to work. This has been a known problem for a very long…

Not paying is just 1 of the reasons. There are many stressful important jobs in America. ATC is in a unique position of getting squeezed at all ends.

There are 1000's of qualified people wanting to apply but the government bureaucracy halts it.

What is the median time from application to FTH for a ATC?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#226

Post by paulryanrogers »

cogman10 wrote: post #101
paulryanrogers wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point isn't that shareholders have pure motives. It's that they are not obligated to harm society in the name of profit.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#227

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

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…

If they don't do it for the money, then presumably the execs won't mind if you swap your pay package with theirs.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#228

Post by paulryanrogers »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #200
svnt wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We passed clean government funding that cost 20 million people their health care coverage.” You are falling for semantics games.

It’s the CR that Dems passed last year. Stop. You aren’t even falling for it. They’re using shutdown as leverage to try and get something they couldn’t get when they had all three houses. You can agree or disagree that is a good idea or that it will work, but can’t pretend it isn’t what it is.

Dems voted for the BBB under threat of worse cuts coming with a shutdown. The cuts and illegal actions continued. Going along with the bullies only proved that the bullies can push further.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#229

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

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.

How about management suing the shareholders that want less climate destruction?

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234358133/exxon-climate-chan...

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#230

Post by ethbr1 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #187
mindslight wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When about half of congress is more okay with the executive collecting power than with impeaching the executive, that threat is meaningless.

The balance shifts after the midterms, even if the Republicans win big.

Then the president is on his way out, and Republicans start looking for and building favor with the next person.

(Which is really what all the "third term" BS is about. Trump has no intention, age-wise, of running for a third term, but talking about it keeps the lame duck calculus on ice. Hence why there aren't any details about "how", just a vague "we have a plan")

Post reply on HN