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

271–280 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#271

Post by johneth »

dingaling wrote: post #211
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For comparison: Terminal ATC in the UK is a competitive market. Each airport is free to tender for private companies to operate the service. En route ATC remains a government-granted monopoly awarded to NATS, which is the privatised former national provider.

NATS is also half-owned by the UK government + they have a golden share.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#272

Post by danaris »

qcnguy wrote: post #251
danaris wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please note the distinction between "govern" and "rule."

The Democratic Party is not seeking to rule. They are seeking to have the government do its damn job.

The Republican Party is seeking to rule, but not govern: that is, they get to be in charge, but they take no responsibility for anything that happens under their rule. (Most especially Trump and his administration; Congressional Republicans are a bit less of the former and a lot more of the latter.)

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#273

Post by ssl-3 »

jrs235 wrote: post #261
ssl-3 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but: Republicans have enough votes to get moving on whatever they choose (including stopgap measures) regardless of what a minority of democrats may think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option > The nuclear option can be invoked by a senator raising a point of order that contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then overrule the point of order based on Senate rules…

The Republicans don't want to get rid of the filibuster because they're scared of setting the precedent, they're scared because if they continue to pass bills with zero Democrat votes then they have to own full responsibility for what happens. Recession/depression is quickly approaching...

I don't think they're scared at all.

Instead, I think that crash-and-burn, and then blame the other guy, was the plan all along.

Deflecting all blame towards the other guy has been the standard practice for at least multiple decades now. It's not something that is kept in the pocket and used for special occasions; that play has instead been a constant in US national politics for a rather long time now.

The only new part with this administration is actively throwing monkey wrenches into the works and then acting all surprised when things break, or just failing to admit that they've broken a thing. (But they're not stupid; they knew that doing this would break stuff.)

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#274

Post by bdangubic »

danaris wrote: post #272
qcnguy wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please note the distinction between "govern" and "rule." The Democratic Party is not seeking to rule . They are seeking to have the government do its damn job . The Republican Party is seeking to rule, but not govern: that is, they get to be in charge, but they take no responsibility for anything that happens under their rule. (Most especially Trump and his administration; Congressional Republicans are a bit less of…

if republican party knew (had any desire) to actually govern the country would become 1-party within one election cycle.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#275

Post by dang »

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 know many people have reason to be frustrated, but please don't post like this to HN. It's not what the site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#276

Post by histriosum »

evilduck wrote: post #173
shadowgovt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens if they don't show up? Are they at risk of jail or at risk of being fired and replaced by the new recruit, Michael McDoesnt-Exist ( https://www.aviationtoday.com/2025/07/25/americas-atc-meltdo... )?

Nothing happens to them. They can't be jailed for taking their PTO or sick leave, they are free to quit and there are not enough recruits in the pipeline to backfill them en masse. They could be put on a PIP, or fired for not showing up, or some other retaliatory and childish Trump action, but what is the government realistically going to do to fix this? Fire them for poor performance and make sure that a short term…

On the other hand, if privatizing ATC is one of your goals, this is probably an effective way to force the issue.

(Current Airline Pilot here, definitely NOT in favor of privatizing ATC, but historically breaking things on purpose is the usual path politicians take to privatize)

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#277

Post by mindslight »

bee_rider wrote: post #259
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.

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

I think the top level comment really sets a great context for discussing this. The Republican goal has been to destroy, part out, and sell off our Constitutionally-limited government. Whether the government is nominally "shut down" or not doesn't really matter to that overall plan.

So yes, this is not going to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But something has to happen in order for it to resolve one way or another, and one of those possibilities (that you should be championing if you appreciate our Constitutionally-limited government!) is for Congress to start exerting their authority independent of Dear Leader's grip on the Party.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#278

Post by danaris »

bdangubic wrote: post #274
danaris wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please note the distinction between "govern" and "rule." The Democratic Party is not seeking to rule . They are seeking to have the government do its damn job . The Republican Party is seeking to rule, but not govern: that is, they get to be in charge, but they take no responsibility for anything that happens under their rule. (Most especially Trump and his administration; Congressional Republicans are a bit less of…

if republican party knew (had any desire) to actually govern the country would become 1-party within one election cycle.

[Citation needed]

The Republican aversion to governing is a very new thing.

Like, sure, the "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" philosophy is not particularly new, but the idea that Republicans in Congress should actively oppose any and all attempts to make government function at a basic level? That the executive should be actively dismantling his entire branch?

None of that is even old enough to vote.

If what you say were true, then it would have happened back under GWB.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#279

Post by sleight42 »

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…

Because at some point the Executive Branch has no more budget left to spend because Congress can't approve a budget?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#280

Post by jaredklewis »

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.

Fair, this case fits the bill, but it’s interesting we have to go back more than 100 years to find one. Also worth noting that a major fact in this case is that Ford explicitly said and maintained that shareholder value was not his priority.

That’s a mistake that business leaders have long since learned from. Wanna drop a billion dollars to add legs to your metaverse characters? Do whatever you want and just present a plausible argument that it serves shareholders. You don’t need evidence, any rationale is fine as long as you don’t explicitly state that you don’t care about shareholder value.

Another similar case might by something like eBay v Newmark, in that to the extent shareholders got relief it was because of things the business leaders said about shareholder primacy, rather than any actual actions taken by the company.

I guess that’s the real influence of shareholders: boards and executives can do whatever they want as long as when they talk, they don’t speak ill of shareholder primacy.

Post reply on HN