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

251–260 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#251

Post by qcnguy »

danaris wrote: post #242
mlrtime wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, it is a negotiation, and the shutdown is because neither side will agree to certain things the other side wants to do. The Democrats won't agree to making the awful omnibus bill cuts permanent and essentially defunding the ACA, because they want to govern and actually help all our people. The Republicans won't agree to providing and caring for Americans through programs that are already fully approved, because…

The Democrats might "want to govern" but they lost the election, so what they want shouldn't matter.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#252

Post by xethos »

UzPPw337CtTbKQd wrote: post #205
jaredklewis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Some of the law professor quotes in Wikipedia's "Significance" section may be of interest as far as "Known For" vs "Means":

> Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.

Or

> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#254

Post by colechristensen »

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).

To be more clear than my vague references, 60 to 70 senators cornered Caesar and stabbed him to death to protect the republic. They killed him but didn't succeed in protecting the republic.

An extended shutdown, an actually refusing-to-function House of Representatives, and a president with not even the slightest respect for the Constitution... the comparisons to first century BCE Rome exaggerated or metaphorical.

Trump got someone to donate $130 million as an obvious symbol to try to buy military loyalty by paying salaries (nevermind it's about enough to cover a single nice lunch)

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#255

Post by bee_rider »

pickledish wrote: post #160
Figs wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this continues for much longer, local/state governments can, should, and eventually will commandeer the taxes that currently go to the federal government. There is no point in paying federal tax if the federal government is no longer functional. States are already trying to step up with emergency declarations to enable financial support to work around SNAP being unfunded; passing state laws to redirect useless fed…

Sadly I don't think it works this way, at least IIUC -- the state can't withhold taxes from the federal government, because those taxes (from biweekly paychecks anyway) don't go through the states -- they go directly to the federal government. Some states are trying to pass laws to still make headway in this area, for reasons like you suggest, for example NY: https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2025/10/state-lawmak…

Although, Republicans would ostensibly like to shrink the size of the government and Democrats would probably at this point prefer their money to go to an entity that will actually provide services. So I don’t really see why there isn’t a broad consensus for implementing this idea.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#256

Post by bee_rider »

qcnguy wrote: post #249
sagarm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let Republicans remove the filibuster. They can do it with a simple majority.

Yes they seem to be discussing it now. It's odd that this mechanism lasted so long.

The filibuster has essentially become a mechanism to ensure you have a somewhat broad consensus among the states, instead of being able to ram things through with a 51% majority.

Just keeping the lights on shouldn’t require a 60% consensus (it should be the default). This is represented by the reconciliation process, which is some budget related voting process that only requires a majority in the senate. But the reconciliation process was used up to pass the “one big beautiful bill.”

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#257

Post by mancerayder »

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…

>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.

On the one hand, I've been saying this for two decades, in small and large cos. I've never been promoted in title, but I've also never been fired and generally been given more and more people to manage. I'm too direct and honest, but as I got older I learned to own it and do it smoothly without disrupting too much.

But the 'consultant mentality' helps me maintain my sanity, sleep a little better at night and never get married to a company. I wish I put my money where my mouth is, though, because peers who move every 2-3 years make significantly more than me despite being more junior.

On the one hand, the FounderSpeak about internalizing the job, loving what you do, and work life balance being bad business nauseates me... On the other hand, some of my high performing workaholic friends are not only richer than me, they seem like they're more purpose driven in their lives as their corporate jobs give meaning it doesn't give me.

It seems then that, for me, self-honesty and work life separation achieve less satisfaction and a lot less pay (and perhaps delayed early retirement).

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#258

Post by mindslight »

bee_rider wrote: post #255
pickledish wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I don't think it works this way, at least IIUC -- the state can't withhold taxes from the federal government, because those taxes (from biweekly paychecks anyway) don't go through the states -- they go directly to the federal government. Some states are trying to pass laws to still make headway in this area, for reasons like you suggest, for example NY: https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2025/10/state-lawmak…

Although, Republicans would ostensibly like to shrink the size of the government and Democrats would probably at this point prefer their money to go to an entity that will actually provide services. So I don’t really see why there isn’t a broad consensus for implementing this idea.

Because Republicans don't want to shrink the size of government as a whole, rather they want most funding to go to a massive domestic paramilitary terror squad to keep citizens in line.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#259

Post by bee_rider »

mindslight wrote: post #110
bee_rider wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but they won’t actually do that. So, indefinite shutdown I guess?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#260

Post by myvoiceismypass »

mlrtime wrote: post #221
qcnguy wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"look - this fight will be over if you stop trying to defend yourself from my swinging fists"
Post reply on HN