20 ms·

US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

• harshulpandav 8y ago
  Why can't US government give an official statement to all its employees guaranteeing future payment of the work done during shutdown? And banks should be able to give personal loan over that statement. Interest paid over that loan can be reimbursed by the govt once shutdown is over. (I am not an economist; It is just my opinion)
  • yaks_hairbrush 8y ago
    (1) The US government did just that -- promised backpay for all unpaid work during the shutdown. (2) Banks may not wish to give loans to folks who have bad/no credit, even with the assurance. Banks need a bit more than assurances that the government will pay their debtees -- they need assurances that they will get that money.
• throwaway456321 8y ago
  I was just at LGA Terminal B and can't believe how awful it is. You're stuck at those cramped gates with CNN blaring at max volume - when it's not playing stupid ads it's just non stop Trump bashing - I was there 2.5 hours and boarded my flight with a throbbing headache. Also could not believe there's no public transport at LGA. After 60 years they have not managed to get a rail line out there. WTF? So I really feel for people stuck there due to this shutdown nonsense.
• trumped 8y ago
  That should get Pelosi moving? BTW, title nazi, the title of this post doesn't match the title of the article. That should be easy enough to automate?
  • sctb 8y ago
    If you won't start posting civilly and substantively we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • trumped 8y ago
      > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. thanks for the link, and for fixing the title... CNN must have made that one up
• subpixel 8y ago
  Reading Pelosi's tweet, which at-mentions the president and includes an exclamation point, depresses me as much as the shutdown. Nobody should follow Trump's example of using social media as some sort of loudspeaker.
• petercooper 8y ago
  Is it at all sensible to stress out people whose sole job is to safely keep planes in the air? This seems like a recipe for potential disaster.
• anant90 8y ago
  Was the fall of Rome this embarrassing as well?
  • eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    Society slowly turned into an oligarchy where a handful of families owned the majority of wealth. And the same time depletion of natural resources, mostly forests, lead to systemic scarcity of fuel (wood). Increased social complexity due to the size of the empire. On top of that, ongoing wars with barbarian and Ira... I mean Persian forces. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_fall_of_...
  • arethuza 8y ago
    Awfully nice of our US friends to try and make and feel better about our current bit of unpleasantness with our government here in the UK, but you really didn't need to bother....
    • Brakenshire 8y ago
      Could a situation like this happen in the UK, do you think? Not voting through a budget would normally be a confidence issue, which would bring about the fall of the government, could we have a situation where that went on for a period of time without causing a new election?
      • pjc50 8y ago
        Arguably since the Lib Dems detached confidence votes from normal business the constitution has been broken; previously the "May Deal" would have been a confidence vote and its failure would have collapsed the government. While I don't think we'll have budget issues we're very likely to go the other way: use of emergency powers to suspend Parliamentary democracy. I believe some of the Tory party are already calling for this.
      • te_chris 8y ago
        We barely have a government now but things seem to carry on - ish.
• dentemple 8y ago
  There'll be a lot of angry people if the same thing happens in Atlanta over Super Bowl weekend.
  • Regolitch 8y ago
    Had a coworker land there this morning after flying out of New York. Said atl was a total shit-show.
  • chrisBob 8y ago
    Why is Super Bowl travel such a big deal? Doesn’t the stadium only seat about 50k people anyway? I understand that the game is exciting, but I don’t see what travel to one venu would be news.
    • ztoben 8y ago
      A lot of people come for the atmosphere and other festivities. I'm sure the actual number of people visiting town for the game is closer to 200k than it is to 50k.
      • rchaud 8y ago
        Is this really true? I understand diehard fans going to tailgate parties, but don't the vast majority watch the event at a bar or at home?
        • detaro 8y ago
          This article suggests 125-150k visitors for past Superbowls: http://www.startribune.com/a-million-super-bowl-visitors-estimate-includes-many-minnesotans/470777133/ http://www.startribune.com/a-million-super-bowl-visitors-est...
        • brootstrap 8y ago
          For some people (not fucking pats fans though), this is a once in a lifetime chance to see THEIR team play in the biggest game . So yeah, people travel, migrate. For some people it feels like a religious journey. All of your kin are migrating across country for this one event... Just being in the city is cool, you will be seeing rams / patriots jerseys all over Atlanta for the whole week!
• wheaties 8y ago
  Not surprised by this. I'm patently surprised that Houston has stayed open given the staffing issues around the TSA. Maybe this will be the forcing mechanism to end the stalemate.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • MiddleEndian 8y ago
    The TSA is a facade, perhaps they'll disband and we'll all be better off for it (probably not but I can dream). It's ATC that's the actual necessity.
• mikenew 8y ago
  I believe paychecks were due today. Missing two paychecks can be very painful for a lot of people. I would expect things to cascade pretty quickly from this point.
  • exogeny 8y ago
    Very painful? Why not just take out a loan? Wilbur Ross whole-heartedly recommends it!
    • throwaway5752 8y ago
      Oh, no! That wasn't what he meant. The president clarified that he meant to say that grocery stores and banks will work with you and extend you credit.
      • matt4077 8y ago
        “Banks will work with you and extend you credit” is exactly the same as “getting a loan”.
        • throwaway5752 8y ago
          No. In the context in which he said it, it means what happens in bankruptcies when debt-holders renegotiate terms and vendor contracts are restructured, something that the president is, sadly, well qualified to talk about (and commerce secretary, for different reasons)
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • akhilcacharya 8y ago
        What sort of grocery stores offer IOUs
    • bertil 8y ago
      I like to pile up on Wilbur Ross as much as the next guy but I’m genuinely curious about that one. I understand that many people involved will be paid once the situation is resolved and that no one expects the US government to crumble in the near time. Surely, an enterprising bank manager would love to offer (Federally?) guaranteed loans given the circumstances. There has been an explosion of peer-to-peer lending in the last decade, often supported by social bonds from professional relations; they could step up in theory. Charities give, but surely many Americans (less bleeding-heart) would love to make 1% over they spare savings the next weeks if it meant supporting deserving worker, and it came supported by a reassuring institution. Surely make-a-buck-when-you-can is more American than the American Dream itself. I know very little about lending; I’ve never been in the US for longer than ten days at a time; I’ve never experienced financial hardship and I’ve never managed a bank, so I’m very willing to say that I’m not qualified to know. What is preventing all those initiatives from unblocking the situation?
• throwaway5752 8y ago
  Good. People shouldn't have to work for a month without pay. The services should have been cut immediately.
  • rootusrootus 8y ago
    The whole idea of 'essential workers' stinks. At least they ought to be paid. Otherwise, when the gov't stops, it should really stop. Putting continued operation on the backs of the workers is extremely un-American IMO.
• rkochman 8y ago
  I’m glad to see this. The shutdown has been too “business as usual” for most Americans, while others are expected to work without pay, which is ridiculous.
  • thedaemon 8y ago
    This is caused slavery, government mandated slavery. I don't see how so many people can be okay with this happening. Why are we not outraged?
    • ceejayoz 8y ago
      No, it'd be slavery if they couldn't quit.
      • skh 8y ago
        Members of the Coast Guard are not allowed to quit. They are under UCMJ rules. EDIT: For those that don't know the Coast Guard is not part of the Department of Defense. They are under DHS and are not getting paid and are not allowed to quit.
        • pc86 8y ago
          The military is entirely separate from this discussion.
          • skh 8y ago
            The Coast Guard are under DHS and not the DOD. They are working without pay and are not allowed to quit.
        • ceejayoz 8y ago
          The USCG may not be part of DOD, but it's still part of the US Armed Forces. The US Supreme Court has historically deemed conscription to not constitute involuntary servitude as banned by the 13th Amendment. I suspect the same logic would apply here.
• java-man 8y ago
  I think we need to tell the orange one: "you are fired!"
• skohan 8y ago
  Who eats the cost of those cancelled flights?
  • bdcravens 8y ago
    Depending on the cancellation terms, the airlines or the fliers, and it probably trickles down to the businesses or individuals when they have to make alternative travel arrangements.
• howlingfantods 8y ago
  Seems like it’s just delays rather than a full stoppage. From Newsweek: ‘Flights arriving into LaGuardia Airport were delayed by about 41 minutes as of 10:15 a.m. EST and gate hold and taxi delays were between 15 and 29 minutes, although FAA said it was decreasing. Arrival traffic was experiencing airborne delays of 15 minutes or less.‘ Regardless, US scoring a lot of own goals here.
  • coldcode 8y ago
    The US system is highly integrated, any slowdowns causes a lot of ripples elsewhere. Plus its not like it will get better at all. Add a few snowstorms and soon nothing will move.
    • nathancahill 8y ago
      https://flightaware.com/miserymap/usKEWR https://flightaware.com/miserymap/usKEWR
  • cr1895 8y ago
    Indeed, though I think I recall seeing "ground stoppage" on the FAA site when this news first broke. https://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp https://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp
  • bdcravens 8y ago
    The title on this article was apparently changed; it's now "US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages"
• mayneack 8y ago
  Federal workers should start striking. I gather that in most cases they're explicitly prevented from striking, but I think there's a good chance that it's too unpopular to actually punish them. Also yesterday some leadership of the flight attendants union called for a general strike until it was over: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/could-an-unlikely-aviation-strike-end-the-shutdown.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/could-an-unlikely-av...
  • justaguyhere 8y ago
    they're explicitly prevented from striking Wow, is this true? Is this even legal (except maybe police and military)?
    • okl 8y ago
      It happened in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
    • pc86 8y ago
      ATC is going to be as important economically and for public safety as police and military. You literally cannot fly commercial flights without ATC. They issue the flight plans, provide the routing, provide clearances for every taxi movement on the ground and every landing and takeoff for every commercial flight in the country. So what I mean is that whatever argument is made to make it illegal for police to strike (assuming it is), the same argument applies to ATC.
      • knotdvn 8y ago
        Invest in my startup. UBER for ATC. Algorithms for Routing, Smart Contract, BlockChain, Natural Language... Disruption
      • opwieurposiu 8y ago
        This is just wrong. Commercial flights fly all the time without ATC. The majority of airports in the USA are uncontrolled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-towered_airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-towered_airport
• mitchell_h 8y ago
  I'm currently sitting in LGA waiting on a flight that was scheduled for 1:30pm. This sucks.
  • sabujp 8y ago
    not getting paid sucks more
    • rootusrootus 8y ago
      The people not getting paid mostly don't have enough political power to matter. If the airports start going offline politicians are going to very quickly hear from the constituents they actually care about.
• flashdance 8y ago
  Well, I'll be damned. It looks like there's going to be a general strike primarily organized by the US Government. I guess horseshoe theory is real after all. Seriously though, it'll be interesting to see how much disruption is necessary to force the hand of the legislative and executive branch to finally fund the government.
• pc86 8y ago
  As of approximately 15 minutes ago the LGA ground stop has been replaced with a ground delay. There are still ground delay programs in effect at PHL and EWR.
• tanilama 8y ago
  If something is broken, best way to start fixing it is to stop pretending it is still working. Good move.
• neolander 8y ago
  There's no way the federal shutdown lasts too much longer. The heat is on and too many people feel the hurt now, especially in a place like New York. If I were a betting man, I'd say 3-4 days max.
  • creaghpatr 8y ago
    If the airports remain shut down, the economic cost will quickly balloon to multiples of the $5.7B requested for the wall. It's literally a rounding error in the budget.
    • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      Nobody actually cares about the $5.7 billion dollars, it's chump change for the government. This is all about appearance. The Democrats will lose face if they sign off on a budget which allows him to build his wall, and Trump will lose face if he fails to start building it (presumably in time for the next election). (It's also notable that neither party, politically, has a good reason to end it. Trump will have a hard time holding onto even his strongest supporters come reelection if he can't start the wall, the most tangible and physical representation of his promises to his base, and the longer the shutdown persists, the better Democrats will do in Congress next election, the shutdown is a political godsend.)
      • AceJohnny2 8y ago
        The wall he said Mexico would pay for? Didn't he already lose that face?
        • mattnewton 8y ago
          He has many faces.
      • nemothekid 8y ago
        > This is all about appearance. I don't think the democrats should cave because this is a terrible precedent that far outstrips "appearance". It feels like a perversion of checks and balances where, because on side doesn't get what they want, they shut down the entire government until the other side caves. I won't be a fan of future presidents shutting down the government every time they can't come to a bipartisan agreement.
• miramardesign 8y ago
  good no wall, no incoming traffic, if we can't protect our people we shouldnt have a federal government and the states should have local responsibility. as opposed to paying billions for oil wars while our door is left wide open whilst states flout our federal policy.
• wonderwonder 8y ago
  Bearing in mind that ~40% of american's could not come up with $400 to cover emergencies, this is going to become more prevalent in the next few days / weeks as people will simply not be able to afford gas to get to their unpaid work. I read an article today discussing how TSA workers in HI are living in their cars in the airport parking lot as they cannot afford to commute. The FBI just cancelled its internship program due to the shutdown. An administration official recommended that all those affected simply take out loans but unfortunately banks don't lend to people without an income nor to those who have recent delinquencies on their credit due to no income. I feel very bad for these real people being affected by political showmanship.
  • mr337 8y ago
    Some banks are setting up low interest loan programs only for federal employees. They are low interest and are focused on amounts of 2-3 time your paycheck. Granted the rate things are going that might not be enough.
    • Spartan-S63 8y ago
      Not to mention that low interest loans are sort of predatory in this context, despite being lower than market rate interest rates. I understand that they have a profit a motive, but it doesn't make them the "good guys" in this scenario. There really are no good guys during a government shutdown.
      • thenipper 8y ago
        Seriously, I'd imagine most of the people impacted who need the loans don't necessarily have the income to cover an extra loan payment when this is over.
      • dwighttk 8y ago
        kinda depends on the interest rate... look at it as an insurance for the bank against some of the people defaulting on the loans and it isn't predatory.
      • 8y ago
• coldcode 8y ago
  When material damage begins to occur to US businesses their first call will be to certain Senators. Imagine Fedex with no flights, Disneyworld with no guests, Prime with no deliveries. It's a massive disaster in the making with lots of ripple effects. Even the mail won't move except by truck.
• thisisweirdok 8y ago
  We keep climbing this stupid mountain and I keep wondering where the peak is.
• yingw787 8y ago
  Even without the shutdown, the U.S. air traffic control system may experience greater strain in the years to come due to a generational deficit in the number of new air traffic controllers being trained and staffed: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryncreedy/2016/01/28/controller-shortage-to-increase-airline-costs-delays-fares/#14e7852b5a68 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryncreedy/2016/01/28/contro... This may have been an issue with Reagan firing all members of PATCO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr... Whereas before, sufficient military air traffic controllers were willing and able to take on the job, today there is no such reserve. One book I read recently on the topic of arbitraging the social trust was "The Fifth Risk"; it's a good read. https://smile.amazon.com/Fifth-Risk-Michael-Lewis/dp/1324002646?sa-no-redirect=1 https://smile.amazon.com/Fifth-Risk-Michael-Lewis/dp/1324002...
  • randogogogo 8y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation, I'm going to check it out.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • MrMember 8y ago
    Anecdotal, but I've had several friends who went to school for air traffic control give up and find work in other industries because there weren't any openings for them in ATC.
    • bryondowd 8y ago
      I didn't go to school for it, but I did manage to apply for an opening, get through the initial screening, and go to the academy as a trainee. Washed out in the finals by a few points. From what I saw of the entire process, the biggest issue they have is the strictness of their hiring process. It's very bureaucratic, in the interest of fairness, but also very harsh. They get tens of thousands of applicants, but only have enough throughput at the academy for a few thousand students per year, and they wash out around 50% of those students. Then more wash out at their respective facilities. The kicker is that when they bring in current/retiring controllers to act as instructors at this academy, they put them through the same course, with the same final, and only about 2/3 of the instructor candidates pass. In other words, their program is so strict that a third of people actually doing the job couldn't qualify to even start the job at a trainee level. I was told, while there, that the final exams simulate a level of traffic somewhere between a level 9 or 10 tower. Trainees who complete the academy get sent to towers below level 8, and have to succeed there before being able to transfer to a higher level tower. If I gave them some benefit, I'd say the idea was to get the best of the best into the low level positions so that as many as possible would progress up to the top levels, but when they can't even fill their low levels because they are cutting half their hires at the academy, it seems like they might be overdoing it. List of facilities and their levels, for those curious what kind of airport warrants a given level. [1] https://123atc.com/facilities https://123atc.com/facilities
• s0rce 8y ago
  Why can't the ATC adopt a funding model like the USPS so they don't have this problem in the future relying on appropriations. Can they basically charge airlines and other traffic for their services to fund the operations. I'm mostly curious if this is actually realistic.
  • jamiek88 8y ago
    They do. https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/air-traffic-management/Pages/air-traffic-control-charges.aspx https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/air-traffic-manageme... Not sufficient to run cost free though it seems.
  • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Why can't the ATC adopt a funding model like the USPS so they don't have this problem in the future relying on appropriations. Can they basically charge airlines and other traffic for their services to fund the operations. I'm mostly curious if this is actually realistic. I'm not sure if it's economically realistic but it seems politically realistic. The right should be fine with the idea of a government agency being less tax dependent and I'm not sure what problem the left would have with it. The corporate interests should also have no problem with it because it arguably gives them slightly more control (ATCs being less accountable to the .gov for funding them makes them more accountable to customers). I'm not familiar with how ATCs work but on the surface it seems like it could be a win-win-win.
    • skosch 8y ago
      > ATCs being less accountable to the .gov for funding them makes them more accountable to customers That's one potential issue right there – would this arrangement put airlines or airports into a position to squeeze concessions out of ATCs that might reduce safety? At the very least, minimum ATC pay would need to be federally regulated.
  • mikeash 8y ago
    Better yet, change the rules so that funding automatically continues at previous levels for all agencies if Congress fails to pass a CR.
• volak 8y ago
  FWIW - house Democrats have voted against paying workers three times (so far). Most recently yesterday https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/house-gop-leaders-only-13-democrats-voted-republicans-legislation-pay https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/house-gop... OK - heres a left biased source: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/425858-house-rejects-gop-measure-to-pay-workers-but-not-open-government https://thehill.com/homenews/house/425858-house-rejects-gop-...
  • andonisus 8y ago
    This is interesting. Did they give specific reasons for voting Nay (or abstaining)? Is it because it would not pass the Senate regardless?
    • nodja 8y ago
      It's misconstruing facts, a lot of the proposals are ridiculous. One yesterday included an approval of $5.7B to build a wall.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • tantalor 8y ago
    CNS is not a reliable source
  • skh 8y ago
    In situations like this people need to understand what exactly was being voted on. It's common in American federal politics for bills to be voted on that contain poison pills so that headlines like the story you linked to can be made. Both parties have passed bills in the respective chambers they control to end the shutdown. At some level and at some point in time probably both parties will take the blame for this mess. However, the President appears to have put his party at a disadvantage in terms of public relations due his proudly shutting down the government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-q3KxCopM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-q3KxCopM
  • 8y ago
• rchaud 8y ago
  Do unpaid workers have cause to sue their employers for back pay with interest? What about damages?
  • freeone3000 8y ago
    Yes. https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2019/01/federal-workforces-largest-union-sues-over-unpaid-labor-during-shutdown/153886/ https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2019/01/federal-workfor... . They've yet to collect from the 2013 shutdown, however.
• usaphp 8y ago
  As a non US citizen, I don’t understand what’s that shutdown even about, seems like absurd thing to do. Is it all because of Trump or he is not the only one to blame? I remember there was some shutdown when Obama was there too? Or am I mistaken? Edit: downvoted for asking a question?
  • dwighttk 8y ago
    it is a political thing. Both the House and the Senate have to approve bills that fund these various government agencies, so if a president has at least one of the two backing him up (just enough that they can't override his veto) then he can say give me X or we won't pass the funding bill. It's standard practice to tack lots of little x things onto the bill because they wouldn't ever really pass on their own, but people don't want to deal with a shutdown to stop them. Sometimes that is a big enough issue that people will deal with a shutdown.
  • brootstrap 8y ago
    Hello, I am 28 years old and dont really ever recall a government shutdown happening in my years, pre-trump. People up above in the comments have written more details i would recommend reading thru the comments more to get info. However for a quick summary, trump is whinging like a bitch (this is literally all he does) because the democrats wont agree to his finances for the wall. Something like 5.7billion for just a down payment. So instead of negotiating like a good person, he just cries and SHUTS DOWN THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT. He has done like 3 shutdowns so far lol. guy is a fuckin nutjob but someone we elected him =(
    • usaphp 8y ago
      Here is the one I was referring to, shutdown in 2013 during Obama period: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_government_shutdown https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_g...
  • Brakenshire 8y ago
    It seems like in the US the two legislative branches and the executive branch of government have to all agree each year on a budget, or else everything shuts down? It's a curious system, I think in most countries not being able to pass a budget would bring down the government and cause a new election. It seems to rely very strongly on politicians seeking compromise, which is ambitious! A question to American posters: could any party holding any of the branches of government unilaterally shut down the entire government if they chose, until the next scheduled congressional or presidential election?
• NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I hope not too off topic, but I'm puzzled by shutdowns. Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget just continues. The budget sets the yearly amount for each department and it runs on until another budget changes how much everyone gets. Sometimes a new department gets created, sometimes something is abolished. Everyone gets their salary and services run on. Even if the finance bill is defeated, or even if they can't agree a government at all. So how is it so easy for the US to simply run out? It naively seems like something both sides would want to fix pretty quickly. Is there some unseen advantage doing it this way? From news reports it seems to be all downside. Edit: Thanks for the enlightenment!
  • mabbo 8y ago
    They don't want to stop the harm to citizens, because then they can't blame the harm on the other guy. And since they aren't harmed by it in any way, there's no real problem with doing it.
  • whorleater 8y ago
    The recent interpretations of the anti-deficiency act (https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resources https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resou...) means that the government can be shut down unless functions endanger "life" or "property". Congress could amend the anti-deficiency act to fund the government at previous levels, but that would remove the shutdown process as a political cudgel.
    • Spoom 8y ago
      > that would remove the shutdown process as a political cudgel Which, IMHO, should absolutely be done.
      • metalliqaz 8y ago
        Our current government is holding a gun to its own head in an attempt to negotiate. It's children vs adults and the children have all the power. What "should" be done is unlikely to happen. :(
• SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  I'm still not fully understanding what's going on here, and I'm american. Could someone who is more educated in politics of the US explain to me why this shutdown is allowed to go on for this long, and why there is no law in place for 'if the congress cannot come to an agreement, X shold happen'?
  • mikeash 8y ago
    The law says the opposite: agencies are legally prohibited from carrying out any nonessential work without explicit continuing funding. Look up the Anti-Deficiency Act for more info. As for why it continues to be this way, it’s because politicians have found the threat of a shutdown to be a useful bargaining chip. It’s a little bit like nuclear weapons: they’re pretty bad, but at the same time people stand up and listen to you when you threaten to use them. The problem is that we now have an idiot in the Presidency and too many cowards in Congress who don’t want to bypass him.
  • nkrisc 8y ago
    Because Congress would have to pass that law. Then they could use a shutdown as political leverage. This could end today and Congress could override any presidential veto, but that is not politically convenient.
  • dragontamer 8y ago
    Congress can write, and rewrite, any law. Congress will virtually never be held responsible for any event, since they control the law itself. Another thing: Trump issued a veto-threat against the bills that passed the House. Trump refuses for a budget to be passed unless it has his wall. Republicans don't want to betray their leader, so they're holding firm with Trump.
    • SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      Q: Why don't republicans want to betray their leader? Is there that much republican support for Trump right now?
      • 8y ago
• resters 8y ago
  At the risk of introducing a political topic into this supposedly apolitical subject, why shouldn't any president simply make demands and then shut down the government until his/her political opponents cave? Seemingly this strategy will not work ever again for either party if proper steps are taken. It seems like a terrible abuse of executive power.
  • bluGill 8y ago
    Don't blame only the president, congress has just as much blame for not passing a budget the president would agree to.
    • MrZongle2 8y ago
      Unfortunately, that logical line of thinking can't fuel the new Two Minutes Hate. It's a shitty situation and I feel sorry for the government workers affected, but there are clearly multiple parties responsible here. If the plight of these workers were a real concern, if it were considered a real crisis, it wouldn't be happening.
    • sixothree 8y ago
      They passed this last budget unanimously which means they that 60% more votes than were needed for a veto override.
      • uncoder0 8y ago
        It was a voice vote which always gets marked down as 100-0 or 0-100 in the Senate.
    • mdavidn 8y ago
      They did pass a CR back in December. Everyone thought the President would sign it. He changed his mind.
      • bluGill 8y ago
        Still partially their fault for thinking the president would. Even if the president changed his mind afterwards they take some blame as their job is to figure this out in time.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• matt4077 8y ago
  Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
• dawhizkid 8y ago
  Interesting thing I discovered when I was concerned about SFO delays is that SFO is one of the few airports in the U.S. that does not use TSA for security...it hires its own private security officers. Edit: For those curious, these airports have private security (SFO is by far the largest as far as I can tell): https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening-partnerships https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening-partnerships
  • mehrdadn 8y ago
    Whoa, really? Do you know whether/which other airports are like this?
    • dawhizkid 8y ago
      most others on here are small airports https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening-partnerships https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening-partnerships
      • mehrdadn 8y ago
        Oh wow thank you!
  • electrograv 8y ago
    Does this mean the airports experiencing a crippling loss of federal personnel could simply hire them onto their own payroll (the same people, even)? In such a case, all airports could keep functioning independent of government aid -- theoretically, anyway.
    • jessriedel 8y ago
      That is how the entire system use to operate: > Prior to September 11, 2001, airport screening was provided in the U.S. by private companies contracted by the airline or airport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions... Leaving our airport infrastructure dependent on the dysfunctional federal government was another downside to the nationalization of most of airport security.
• Tsubasachan 8y ago
  Always painful when you're reminded New York is part of the US. Civilised States of America secession soon?
• butterfi 8y ago
  I don't understand why congress still gets paid.
  • detaro 8y ago
    I believe the idea is that it if congress members could be compelled to accept something they disagree with to end their own personal finance issues, it would cause an inbalance benefiting the richer/better-backed members.
• cletus 8y ago
  Honestly I just don't want to fly at all until this whole thing is over. Who knows if on the day I want to fly there won't be a shortage of ATCs or TSA to man the "security" line? We have 2 horrible years where Trump was in the White House and the GOP controlled the House and the Senate and there was no stomach for the border wall. To think there is any greater chance now that the Democrats control the House or that they could somehow be shamed into capitulating is laughable. The public has generally not been kind to whatever party forced a shutdown. Look at Newt Gingrich's shutdown as one modern example. According to 538 it seems like people are (rightly) blaming Trump for this. Good. My question is at what point do McConnell develop a spine and overrule the president? Because that's what it may well take. Either that or a rank-and-file revolt in the Senate. I'm glad to see banks are trying to help out Federal workers who are hurt by this but the one question I have is: how can people live and have responsibilities and sudden expenses and not be able to come up with $500? I mean I realize this fact is the basis for the check cashing industry (which is predatory and should be outlawed) but I honestly couldn't live that way.
  • isostatic 8y ago
    While ATC is of course essential, I'm unsure what different TSA not turning up would make.
    • rootusrootus 8y ago
      An interesting question. If TSA does not show up, what happens if the airport just opens the security gates. That would be ... hilarious. Probably illegal.
      • isostatic 8y ago
        I don't think it would be, providing the airport do the same 'quality' of checks. If security instead got rid of the theatre of taking shoes off, molestation, etc, reverting to security as it was 20 years ago, but with a locked cockpit, it would be far more pleasant and wouldn't require the TSA at all.
• eriken 8y ago
  The US should seriously consider decoupling critical services like this from government. It is neither reliable nor necessarily to have the setup you are currently using.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• dalbasal 8y ago
  I'm Irish. Our politics is usually boring, so we watch the east and west (UK & US) versions. From an outside perspective, it sounds like the destructive stalemates currently causing havoc in parliament & Congress are quite similar. Everything is political machinations. The issues at hand (brexits & border walls) are popular/opinionated with the public, but most politicians don't feel as strongly about these issues. They are equally happy if things go well, and they get credit or they go bad, and the other side gets blamed. I know politics always has.. politics, but I don't remember it ever being so explicit. A mental exercise I often go to is imagining a secret ballot. I suspect that the votes would be totally different, if the ballot was secret.
• BurningFrog 8y ago
  This should force Trump to end it pretty soon. The public clearly blames Trump for the shutdown, so Democrats have no reason to lift a finger to stop it while Trumps approval rating drops, and as more airports close, the situations surely becomes untenable fast.
  • BurningFrog 8y ago
    Nailed it!
• mehrdadn 8y ago
  Is there any way to donate or lend money to ATC/TSA workers who are struggling to make ends meet? (Ideally lend, but with as generous terms as possible...)
• hitpointdrew 8y ago
  Wouldn't be a problem if security was put in the hands of the airlines, where it belongs.
• screye 8y ago
  Damn. I literally landed in NYC yesterday. This shutdown is crazy.
• linkmotif 8y ago
  Good thing there’s the Internet...
• SteveCoast 8y ago
  Why hasn't the FAA been privatized anyway? It looks like most of Europe's air controllers and even airports were long ago privatized.
  • detaro 8y ago
    I believe the most common model in Europe on country-level is that of a state-owned or at least state-controlled company, with sometimes some locations being subcontracted (but I believe the latter exists in the US too). International agreements about allowed fees probably mean you can't really make a profit, so little reason for other owners to be interested.
• foobaw 8y ago
  What an embarrassment as a country.
• joshuaheard 8y ago
  It's time to automate air traffic control.
• lkrubner 8y ago
  On February 7th, myself and my co-workers are supposed to travel half way across the country for a major sales-call/meeting. But if the shutdown is still happening, there is no amount of money that would tempt me to get on that plane. Stuff like this worries me: "The delays come one day after a stark warning was issued by air industry unions about the risk to public safety. "In our risk averse industry, we cannot even calculate the level of risk currently at play, nor predict the point at which the entire system will break," air traffic, pilot and flight attendant union leaders said in a joint statement." I can't be the only who feels this way, and the longer the shutdown goes on, the more people are likely to be worried about air travel. In the short term you might think my company will suffer because of a lost sales opportunity, and that is strictly our loss. But if it happens to enough companies, then it is going to hit the general economy. Working on major projects means long lead times. The sales that are not being closed this quarter are going to show up as less economic activity in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Unless the shut down ends immediately, it seems likely this will have medium-term or long-term consequences.
  • 0xcafecafe 8y ago
    I am travelling internationally on the 1st and I cannot avoid my trip. Will only be nervous until we cross the US airspace. Moreover, I worry about the upcoming superbowl weekend and the mayhem the airport delays will bring.
• yters 8y ago
  Might be a good general warning to not become so dependent on the federal government.
• dandare 8y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks that air traffic controllers and the airport security personnel hold the key to the shutdown? If airports close down, the shutdown will have to stop immediately, the damage to the economy would be so catastrophic not even Republicans could ignore it.
• Grollicus 8y ago
  This is by far not the first shutdown, nor is there any indication it will be the last. I'm wondering why under these circumstances anyone would even want to work for the US government? Obviously there are people near to their pension years who will want to complete them, but they would usually have some money. But young people? If your boss is an asshole, just quit! Why would that be any different in the public sector?
  • tyrust 8y ago
    Not everyone has the luxury of quitting.
• rootusrootus 8y ago
  This is pretty silly. Congress thinks they can't continue to fund government activities, but they certainly don't suspend tax collection. It would be easy to solve the "shutdown" and "debt ceiling" fictions, except they are too useful as a political weapon.
• asabjorn 8y ago
  Both sides are being stupid here. Trump knew the #resistance mindset makes it impossible for democrats to even trade something they supposedly care about, DACA protections, for the wall he cares about. I just find it mind-boggling that this path was even tried when it was a big gamble on popular opinion overruling #resistance. I find it hypocritical that the democrats are willing to spend more money on #resistance than what they could trade wall for DACA protections. Remember, real americans and children brought here illegally are effected by this inability to trade what you supposedly care for with what someone else cares for. It is human to care more for your family than you neighbor, more for your neighbor than a stranger countryman, more for a stranger countryman than one from another country. The people already here illegally are our countrymen, but the people not here yet are not. Lets make sure our people is taken care of.
  • epage 8y ago
    While yes, there is a negotiation between two perspectives going on, imo the fault for the shutdown is independent and wholly owned by Trump and McConnell with the republican senators as accessories for not ousting McConnell. The House and the Senate passed a bill in December to keep the government open. From what I read, the Senate bill passed with a veto-proof majority. Trump vetoed but McConnell refused to get this through despite Trump.
  • dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Trump knew the #resistance mindset makes it impossible for democrats to even trade something they supposedly care about, DACA protections, for the wall he cares about. Trump's offer on DACA was a temporary preservation of the status quo on DACA, which opponents of his attempt to eliminate it have already acheived through litigation. If he offered the more comprehensive legislative solution—the DREAM Act—for which the Obama Administration implementing DACA was a stopgap alternative, maybe that would actually be something. But what he has offered is essentially nothing.
  • rootusrootus 8y ago
    Clever of Trump to offer to temporarily return some of the DACA protections he himself took away. Offer something substantial, and it would be a more interesting discussion. How about a blanket, one-time grant of citizenship (or at least green cards) to all current DACA kids? Might be political suicide, but ... maybe not. Would really change the political calculus in the country right now. Ha!
• yeukhon 8y ago
  Why is this on HN? I thought HN does not allow political news.
• athenot 8y ago
  I'm not a lawyer so I'm wondering: how feasible would it be for government employees to sue the president in small claims court and get a default judgement since there's no way he'll how up all over the country? Kinda like how people did this in the Equifax data leak...
• NoblePublius 8y ago
  “Flights were halted at New York's LaGuardia airport - the 20th busiest in the country - shortly before 10:00 local time (15:00 GMT). The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has now confirmed the temporary ground stop has been lifted.” The headline is fake news.
• quotemstr 8y ago
  Actual headline: "US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages" HN headline: "US shutdown: Flights halted into New York airport" These two headlines suggest very different mental pictures of the situation. HN should stick to general policy and use the article's headline.
• plaidfuji 8y ago
  Much hand-wringing is being done by well-meaning moderates and centrists here, blaming both the President and Congress, wondering why our system allows for this to happen, expressing solidarity with the furloughed workers. At least the right questions are being asked. But the fact is that for this to end any time soon, the equivocating masses trying to stay on the sidelines, saying "oh those darned politicians...", are going to have to choose a side. The hardliners on both sides (the people who vote most often) view compromise as unacceptable, so their representatives are going to sit on their hands and vote down bill after bill. The choice is not between building a wall or not - it is about whether we allow individual actors to use the functioning of the federal government as leverage in political negotiation. It would be the same if Democrats in the House said, "we won't pass a funding bill unless it includes universal healthcare. If you don't agree, you're shutting the government down." Absurd. Continuing government funding with no strings attached is an apolitical opinion, and it's time for centrists to speak up.
  • fsdfsaf 8y ago
    > It would be the same if Democrats in the House said, "we won't pass a funding bill unless it includes universal healthcare. If you don't agree, you're shutting the government down." Absurd. That's exactly what happened 5 years ago.
    • rootusrootus 8y ago
      Please don't be dishonest here. In 2013 the GOP was trying very specifically to defund the ACA. The Democrats were pushing clean CRs. Again, it was the GOP trying to use a gov't shutdown to force the Democrats to agree to their wishes.
  • rootusrootus 8y ago
    Let's be honest. Anybody talking "both sides" nonsense is right wing. True moderates and centrists are not at all with Trump on this particular issue. It goes well beyond the wall.
• megaman8 8y ago
  I can only hope that voters learn something from all this and start considering alternative parties, rather than continuing to vote democrat/republican every year.
  • Sargos 8y ago
    The vast majority of Americans don't get a choice of who to vote for as districts are extremely gerrymandered nowadays. The only politicians I had a chance to vote for last election was local ones like the school board. Congress was just one name that I had to fill in the oval for.
• sunshinelackof 8y ago
  I am shocked this hasn't happened sooner. It speaks to the lack of agency the average person has even in a government job. Politics and money grant agency for people, but most Americans have limited access to either.
• pgrote 8y ago
  My mind is blown by how the US Federal Government can claim someone is essential and force them to work without pay. I've read a pretty good explanation of it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/11/how-can-government-force-people-work-without-pay-indefinitely/?utm_term=.6295e1aeb370 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/11/how-can-go... Yet, I still cannot understand how it is legal to make people work without pay based on an Attorney General's thoughts on it in the 1980s. Amazing.
• exabrial 8y ago
  I feel bad for the TSA employees, as they couldn't have seen this coming. But this is yet another reason the TSA should 100% be funded by the airlines, not the Taxpayers of the United States. Those who wish to fly will pay for their own security, those who rarely fly wouldn't.
• janpot 8y ago
  How long before the shutdown actually costs more than the wall?