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

281–290 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#281

Post by nobody9999 »

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.

>Although, Republicans would ostensibly like to shrink the size of the government

Where did you get that idea? That's never been true. You may just have been hoodwinked by their "Two Santas" strategy.

Republicans have been explicitly playing that game as promoted by Jude Wanninski[1] since the late 1970s, and it's been loudly touted as quite successful by Republicans.

The idea is to cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors when Republicans are in power, then cry poverty and austerity when Democrats are in power, loudly calling for incredibly popular Democratic programs to be slashed.

I'm not making this up. See the links below. It's not like this has been a secret for the past fifty years or anything.

[0] https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/two-santas-str...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#282

Post by Sabinus »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #13
johncolanduoni wrote: post #8

The things that are and aren’t considered essential enough to fund during a government shutdown are insane. Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).

Isn't the point of the government shutdown to be painful? It's a self-imposed failure condition, we could "optimize" it by removing the shutdown entirely.

Many parliamentary systems dissolve the government if they fail to pass a budget. "Can't run the country, time for an election. "

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#283

Post by array_key_first »

lynndotpy wrote: post #157
zermelo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/24 Passed by Congress in January 2019 and signed by Trump. " Employees furloughed as a result of a lapse in appropriations shall be compensated for the period of the lapse on the earliest date possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates. "

Note that the White House issued a memo contradicting GEFTA, and the OMB removed references to it. Federal workers are spooked.

Communication from the WH has been so wild this administration. Just constant things that directly contradict the law.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#284

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

Even if they will (which shouldn't be in doubt, but these are not normal times) it is still when they are not getting paid now, even if they will be paid some time after an event which is expected to occur at some uncertain time in the future finally happens.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#285

Post by deepsun »

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…

Not for "anything", judge would dismiss a case if they don't see a way it could win in trial. Defendant can file a "motion to dismiss".

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#286

Post by thephyber »

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 buy that reasoning. They clearly don’t care about their blame claims matching reality, so they will continue to lie about causes. The same with norms — they don’t stop breaking the norms of the US government and politics during Trump’s terms.

That said, there does seem to be something which has thus far kept them from changing the cloture/filibuster rules to pass bills with a simple majority. I’m curious if the “Freedom Caucus” is fearful of Republican leadership so they are still holding the Sword of Damocles over the role of the Speaker of the House.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#287

Post by thephyber »

bee_rider wrote: post #256
qcnguy wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reco…

You keep saying filibuster, but it is the “vote for cloture” (similar to a quiet filibuster) which is the thing that has blocked most legislation.

I am curious why Republicans have not changed the parliamentary rules for cloture. The party seems to be pushing states to gerrymander to benefit their Congressional power as early as the next Congressional election. My best guess at the moment is there are a few Republican members who fear what the party leadership does with no opposition party constraints.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#288

Post by thephyber »

qcnguy wrote: post #250
locopati wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the way governance works. Did you feel that way when the Democrats held all three branches and still the Republicans did everything in their power to break government? Trump won the presidency by a slim margin... the Senate Republicans represent fewer people than the Democrats do. The government is designed to work together, unless one party decides to stop playing by any rules apparently.

What did they do in their power to break the government? They voted to reauthorize spending during Biden's presidency many times, did they not?

This comment makes you look willfully ignorant of the statements and actions of Republicans in power.

Start with DOGE and Russel Vought’s actions. Then look at Congressional Republican’s recision bill, their lack of Article 1 oversight of what Trump’s Executive is doing, their consistent support of the Executive against any attempt by the Judicial to enforce the law.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#289

Post by dragonwriter »

nocoiner wrote: post #97
thetron wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't buy food with an IOU from your employer.

Sometimes you can. A decade or so ago when California ran out of money, they issued warrants to their payees, and lots of banks accepted those at face value.

Last time was July-August 2009 (and before that in 1992 and 1933.)

But those registered warrants aren’t abstract expectations of future payment, but debt instruments with a fixed interest rate when issued.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#290

Post by esalman »

mlrtime wrote: post #224
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?

I was listening in on a Twitch stream today, and the streamer mentioned he wanted to become an ATC, but was told he needs to have military experience to become one.
Post reply on HN