Ground stop at JFK due to staffing
213 comments
·October 31, 2025ipython
pfooti
Yeah, I think the actual underpinning support that broke this time is recission. In the past, of congress passed a budget with money for the some department or line item, that money would be spent. Now the president has claimed that he doesn't have to spend money he had been directed to spend by finding bills, and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance.
This means that there is no longer the ability to negotiate a budget in good faith. The Dems can fight for more health care funding (or whatever) and the compromise can happen, and then the president can just say "sike!" And not do it.
And, political leanings aside, this president has shown that he will indeed break any agreement he decides to, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to negotiate. So I'm thinking this shutdown lasts a Long time.
bee_rider
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.
mindslight
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.
o11c
Frankly, it's time to look into seeing how recall elections work in various states.
"Our legally elected representative directly refuses to represent us" should be plenty of grounds.
aidenn0
Recalling congressional representatives is probably not allowed. AFAICT, however, there has never been a federal court ruling on the (likely) exclusive right of congress to expel members.
The closest I could find was Burton v. U.S., where the court declined to rule, since the law in question didn't apply to senators at the time.
greedo
The Constitution forbids states from recalling Congressional representatives.
euroderf
> Now the president has claimed that he doesn't have to spend money he had been directed to spend by finding bills, and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance.
So this means the Supreme Court has unilaterally implemented the line item veto ? So much for "balls and strikes" eh.
Figs
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 federal taxes to fund state food programs in order to prevent the alternative of immediate violent revolution as millions of people go hungry is an obvious course of action when they exhaust that capacity...
pickledish
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-lawmaker...
(it's a really interesting situation since I think I read somewhere that the reason federal income taxes are directly remitted to the federal government today, is specifically to disallow this kind of state retaliation)
svnt
And this will work much better in most blue states than most red states, which are more dependent on federal funds. Which means the likely response is the federal government will begin funding what were formerly federal programs in select states.
collingreen
Is the Air Force still being paid? We've seen a complete willingness to have the military turned against the people and the tech gap between us citizens and the fully equipped military is staggering. A couple drone swarms and even hungry folks will have to take permanent cover and that's just the stuff declassified. It's an interesting time where a very small number of folks can effectively hold off the entire citizenry for long enough that the "millions of people go hungry" problem solves itself. Pick which regions get food first and you wont even have to bother with things like gerrymandering anymore.
Maxious
Not the Air Force but forces in direct control of the president like ICE/Secret Service are being paid in advance to ensure their continued service https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/1978925656785457247
null
ares623
Speed running to become an actual developing nation. This is what millions of migrants are trying to escape from. Ironic, for all parties involved (well, except for the ones on top of course)
donmcronald
> Speed running to become an actual developing nation.
That's what it looks like from the outside, but I can't understand what the gain is. Who benefits? The result of the middle class was massive advancement and an equally massive increase in standard of living for the wealthy who captured most of the gains.
What do they gain from stagnating innovation and a lack of education, services, etc.?
It makes me think of the old Olympic and sports videos. The participants basically suck because they're coming from a small pool of people wealthy enough to not need a job. Do they really want the pool of candidates competing to become doctors, etc. to be smaller which will end up lowering the overall quality for them?
Or do they think they'll simply hire the best and brightest from other countries that are investing in their citizens?
bryant
"better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" is the expression and idea you're looking for.
Alternatively "better to rule among the miserable than to serve among the great."
It's a consistent theme with most autocracies.
estimator7292
Short term profit extraction for the already obscenely-wealthy.
That's it, that's the only goal.
vkou
> Who benefits?
People who would rather be kings of shit mountain, than rich and powerful but bound by law in a functional society.
lamontcg
The ridiculously wealthy view the system as a strictly zero-sum game, and they want to keep everything they have, and deny the rest of the population of everything. They understand this isn't sustainable, so they're fortifying bunkers and buying up islands.
The days of Henry Ford capitalists who think their workers should be paid enough to buy their products seems to be unfashionable (even though he was a Nazi supporting racist, he had his head screwed on better than they do).
The end game of full on narcissistic capitalism is coming. Hopefully the Henry Ford types wake the fuck up and do something about their peers losing the fucking plot entirely.
SlightlyLeftPad
It’s a failed state and people need to get out.
coliveira
That's exactly the plan. Not only this, but Republicans don't want to have congress working again. So their king will operate with zero oversight.
lynndotpy
There is no reason it could not happen, our country (the United States) has rapidly and radically changed in the past 10 months and 10 days. The only longer shutdown was in 2018-2019 during Trump's first term, and this shutdown is looking to blow past that milestone.
I'm happy these posts aren't getting flagged any longer, though. For the centrality of the United States in the tech industry (and vice versa), US politics are unfortunately also the most relevant story in the tech industry for any time horizon of a month or longer. Even Trump's "Long Live the King" announcement from near the start of his term was not taken seriously. It was quickly flagged here.
It sucks, but Trump is just the biggest tech story of the day every day, by virtue of being the latent factor.
There is no reason that can't happen. But consider also what it will mean if the government does re-open. I think it's much more likely than not that it reopens under Republican terms.
It sounds dramatic but it is worth describing plainly: This administration is destructive, and it has already been the end of many things as we know it.
HaZeust
HN admins have some of the most influential in this administration on speed dial, the flagging and non-reversal of flagging was not due to ignorance.
rogerrogerr
I think if this was the plan, the right would be insisting on something more outlandish than a clean CR.
sigmar
It's double speak to call it a "clean CR" when there was just a huge bill changing a ton of tax code, budget, and increasing ICE's budget by 10x.[1] Passing the CR would have approved those spending changes as if they were in an appropriations bill.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
dionian
with a clean CR we can open the government temporarily and pass a budget, right? the whole CR thing is terrible, we need single subject bills
thephyber
You still take Republicans in Congress at their word?
Look at the actions of Russell Vought, not the words of Ted Cruz.
SV_BubbleTime
> clean CR
So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.
paulryanrogers
'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.
collingreen
What does this mean? If youre implying "clean CR" is perfectly fine can you just say that? If you don't think it's perfectly fine what ARE you trying to say?
null
jfengel
There is only limited legal ability to fund departments outside of an appropriations law. Republicans could pass one if they eliminated the filibuster, but that's a nuclear option they haven't leaned on yet.
The executive branch is applying various tricks to keep some absolutely critical departments going but they can't just fund anything they like. At least, not according to the Constitution, which is very explicit that you can't spend money without Congressional approval. But we'll see how much of a difference that makes.
insane_dreamer
> not according to the Constitution, which is very explicit that you can't spend money without Congressional approval.
Trump has already shown his willingness to flout that. If he does it again, who's going to stop him? Congress?
thephyber
I suspect this shutdown will last a while, but I don’t think Republicans will have enough votes to open anything without Democrat buy-in. R needs 20% of the Ds to vote for R bills to get anything budget-changing passed (except the 1 Reconciliation per year that only requires a simple majority). Short of Dems feeling some insane pressure (eg. Military threats or somehow defunding of core government tasks like police, education, medical, Social Security), I don’t see that happening right now.
ssl-3
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 and precedents; this ruling would then be appealed and overturned by a simple majority vote (or a tie vote), establishing a new precedent. The nuclear option is made possible by the principle in Senate procedure that appeals from rulings of the chair on points of order relating to nondebatable questions are themselves nondebatable. The nuclear option is most often discussed in connection with the filibuster. Since cloture is a nondebatable question, an appeal in relation to cloture is decided without debate. This obviates the usual requirement for a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture on a resolution amending the Standing Rules.
ipython
My point is that they won’t feel the need to ever “officially” re open the government.
yndoendo
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!
tombert
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 transaction that I agreed to.
If I had some bloviating wannabe-demagogue telling me that I should keep working and to not expect backpay, I am quite confident that I would quit, or at least keep calling in sick. I am not going to blame anyone who would do the same. I have no fucking idea why half the country voted for this.
[1] This has actually been tested for one job.
imperfect_light
You should ask BigCo if they're only providing goods/services to their customers "for the money."
Ekaros
If they are not doing just for money. Surely you should be able to give very good discounts to customer. After all why are profits aka. money needed?
deepsun
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.
jaredklewis
> 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 company was too nice to customers, the environment, or whatever.
For whatever reason, “shareholders” live rent free in the heads of Internet commentators, but it’s hard to understate their actual influence.
paulryanrogers
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.
kumarvvr
> "we all do this for the money"
BigCo
To Investors : We are in it for money. We will earn you money. It is money we dream, covet and will go to any lengths for. Ethics, Integrity, Truth, all those don't matter in the long term.
To Society : We do CSR, we are a good for society, we are ethical, we have integrity, we value society, we care much more than just money.
To Employees : We are family, if one of us is hurt everyone is hurt, we believe in work-life balance, we believe in fairness, equality, openness, transparency.
BigCo is a liar and a hypocrite.
hshdhdhehd
Bad attitude != incorrect, of course.
Actually good attitude often == not honest.
tombert
It was one of those things, I didn't even consider that it would upset people. Like, maybe it's something on the spectrum for me, but when I said it I assumed it was effectively a truism and I didn't think I'd get any pushback because everyone already knew and agreed with it.
It didn't occur to me that people would say I had a bad attitude because I did think that literally everyone I was talking to would agree and I didn't see why they'd be bothered.
john_moscow
Surviving at BigCo is all about saying one thing, and often doing quite the opposite to advance your career.
If you don't like it, working at a BigCo could be quite soul-draining.
tombert
I'm very bad at that kind of dishonesty. It's not like I'm some hyper-ethical straight-edge nerd, I'm just really bad at the corporate propaganda stuff.
I have worked and done well at BigCos where they were a little less intellectually dishonest, so I don't actually think it's intrinsic to big companies.
johnfn
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 in, but she might get annoyed if that's the only reason you can come up with.
tombert
I didn't say it was the only reason to take a job, and I clarified that even at the time. It's perfectly fine to factor in other benefits to the job, (e.g. how much you like the work, how much you like your coworkers, etc.). I actually quit that BigCo and took a paycut to work at a different company because it was soul-draining. When I say "we all do this for the money", I'm saying that this is a necessary component for the job, and ultimately if they stopped paying me then I would not work there anymore, even if I otherwise love the work and environment.
Again, to be clear, I said all this at the time.
I don't think the hot girlfriend analogy applies in this case; if I had a hot girlfriend and she stops being hot, if I liked her I probably wouldn't up and leave her. If a company stops paying, I will absolutely leave.
cwillu
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.
amanaplanacanal
There are a few privileged folks that get to work a job for those other benefits. The majority take whatever they can get because they need to eat.
ehaliewicz2
Would you have have chosen to work at your job if you were never going to get paid?
cogman10
We almost certainly could have floated through this had Reagan not gutted the ATC union (while firing a huge amount of staff) with congress neutering their negotiation power.
We never really fully recovered from that. We took away the power of employees in a high stress job to voice their concerns and needs which, as a result, made the job extra hard to hire for.
SlightlyLeftPad
It is a failed state, and we have seemingly overnight given Russia and China the biggest beautiful gift they could have asked for.
Our military is over extended, science has been flipped over and defunded, and that alone will settle it.
Now add unreasonable volatility from tariffs, and wait, give it time, wait some more until it’s impossible to unwind, then if we’re not in a major war, economy crashes, chaos ensues.
collingreen
Mix in telling people the news is the enemy of the state and everything bad is because of their neighbors and you have quite a lot of opportunity for chaos.
dpe82
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 time and Congress has continuously refused to do anything about it.
johnbatch
This was canceled 21 minutes after it was issued. https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_list?whichAdvisories=ATCSCC&...
whamlastxmas
Sounds performative
crm9125
Makes sense. Why would ATC go to work when their employer says they won't get paid?
Until UBI is a thing, they (necessarily) need to be very cognizant of where they spend their time in relation to where they make their money.
Republicans should propose a reasonable solution that will get the votes to pass, otherwise, this will continue.
andreybaskov
I once landed a GA airplane in a very busy uncontrolled class C airport that closed its tower at 4pm due to staff shortage, but was still operational. Since then I have a tremendous respect for aviation resilience to any single point failure. I imaging having entire JFK on CTAF isn't an option though.
chris_va
This is Alaska 37, wings up turning base over Coney Island...
johncolanduoni
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).
gruez
>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).
They are considered essential. That means they have to work, but not be paid.
https://time.com/7329683/government-shutdown-flight-delays-c...
johncolanduoni
But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one). Who would argue that air traffic controllers shouldn’t be on that rarefied list?
eigen
> But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one).
I think thats due to the 27th Amendment [1]
> No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
can't change (or stop) congressional pay until an election. guess it's a double-edged sword they can't give themselves in immediate pay raise, which I think was the point of ratification in 1992, but also can't cut their pay for failing to pass a budget.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-27/
dataflow
IIRC the term of interest is "permanent appropriation".
shadowgovt
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...)?
johncolanduoni
I could imagine some sort of loss of seniority or pay level, even if they’d hire them right back because we already have an ATC shortage.
evilduck
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 shortage becomes permanent? How do you even recruit backfills when the entire world knows you fucked over the previous crew and promise to do it to the next batch too?
o11c
Today in "blatant constitutional violations specified by law" ...
nocoiner
Lots of things enshrined in statute (appropriations, prohibitions on impoundment, the name of the Department of Defense) have been disregarded in this year of our lord 2025.
wvenable
What's insane is just accepting that government shutdown is a thing. Determining what is and is not essentially is just splitting hairs.
CGamesPlay
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.
evilduck
Agreed, but the people who can legislate away shutdowns are the same ones who are currently using shutdowns as a political tool. There's no chance the current climate would do that.
wbl
Shutdowns used to not exist because Congress would authorize the President to spend at existing levels (but not the army, for reasons). This changed in the 1970s.
gruez
Source? Wikipedia contradicts you.
>Before 1917, the U.S. had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed the Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave the Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued.[25] The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.[26][27]
>In 1953, the U.S. Treasury risked reaching the debt ceiling of $275 billion. Though President Eisenhower requested that Congress increase it on July 30, 1953, the Senate refused to act on it. As a result, the president asked federal agencies to reduce how much they spent, plus the Treasury Department used its cash balances with banks to stay under the debt ceiling. And, starting in November 1953, Treasury monetized close to $1 billion of gold left over in its vaults, which helped keep it from exceeding the $275 billion limit. During spring and summer 1954, the Senate and the executive branch negotiated on a debt ceiling increase, and a $6 billion one was passed on August 28, 1954.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Leg...
sjm-lbm
That's the debt ceiling, which is a different weird quirk of how the USG is funded. The relevant page for shutdowns is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...
"Funding gaps have led to shutdowns since 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring it. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown. As of October 2025, 11 funding gaps have led to federal employees being furloughed."
ternus
Debt ceiling is different than a shutdown. Debt ceiling negotiations are about raising the debt limit to pay for spending Congress has already appropriated. The debt ceiling failure mode is "the US defaults on its debt."
Shutdowns happen when Congress hasn't appropriated new money by passing a budget. The shutdown failure mode is "there isn't enough money to pay for existing programs."
crm9125
Meh, flying is a luxury. We can all stay put until the government pulls its head out of its ass.
johncolanduoni
Not if you want the economy to keep functioning. A lot of people doing real work (e.g. engineers flying out to fix medical devices) rely on air travel.
crm9125
More people will die if the democrats capitulate, than those from malfunctioning medicals devices (or other reasons). I think you should do more research to understand the true cause and effect of the decisions in the current situation the U.S. finds itself in.
Zagitta
Planes transport more things than people, like organs for transplants. Are those a luxury too?
temp0826
Can't tell if joking, healthcare is essentially a luxury now. An organ transplant could very likely lead to someone becoming destitute.
ssl-3
I'm an American, and I'm absolutely certain at this point in my life that I will never be able to afford to pay for an organ transplant to benefit myself or anyone that I know, regardless of any compatibile combination of need and availability that may arise.
Therefore, it will never happen.
So yes: I'd like to suggest that organ transplants may be in fact be luxuries.
(If the question were instead worded as "Should organ transplants be considered luxuries?" then my answer would be written very differently.)
evilduck
Air cargo is also going to be impacted.
hnburnsy
Advisory 27, Ground stop was lifted, Disregard Expected Departure Clearance Times for flights destined to JFK.
-------------------
ATCSCC ADVZY 027 JFK/ZNY 10/31/2025 CDM GROUND DELAY PROGRAM CNX MESSAGE:
CTL ELEMENT: JFK ELEMENT TYPE: APT ADL TIME: 0252Z GDP CNX PERIOD: 31/0252Z - 31/1517Z DISREGARD EDCTS FOR DEST JFK COMMENTS: EFFECTIVE TIME:
310256-311617 SIGNATURE:
25/10/31 02:56
zermelo
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?
shawn_w
In theory, yes. But with this administration, who knows?
jmtulloss
A lot of commenters are focusing on the legalities and likelihood of backpay, which is relevant but I tend to agree with you… it’ll get paid because it’s in the interest of both parties to pay their employees what they’re owed.
We’re staring down the barrel of two missed paychecks though. If you're living paycheck to paycheck you’re getting desperate. If you’re living with about 1 month of emergency buffer… that buffer is one paycheck away from gone. It’s a cash flow issue
thetron
You can't buy food with an IOU from your employer.
nocoiner
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.
collinmcnulty
Practically speaking, you are correct, but interestingly all dollars are literally an IOU from the US government, so you do buy food with an IOU from their employer. Debt from or to a sovereign is the basis for all money.
lmm
> You can't buy food with an IOU from your employer.
Historically in times of war or civil disorder it's often been possible.
knollimar
New startup idea?
JohnTHaller
The Republicans are working on not paying many of federal employees. Plus, the federal employees that use them will lose SNAP benefits/food stamps tomorrow.
lynndotpy
As others have pointed out, this has gone on for a full month and this is increasingly unsustainable for people.
Essential employees were already guaranteed backpay, but in 2019, on day 26 of the 35-day shutdown during his first term, Trump signed GEFTA into law, guaranteeing that furloughed employees also got backpay.
But earlier this month, the White House issued a memo contradicting that, saying furloughed workers aren't entitled to backpay, and the OMB edited articles to delete references to the GEFTA.
Even though the GEFTA is law, we're seeing the Trump administration break laws all the time with no accountability, and so a broke federal employee would reasonably not anticipate a realistic, timely, and achievable legal recourse for a GEFTA violation while they're just trying to feed their family.
gazook89
The administration has posited that they don’t have to do backpay for many positions. Currently, there is no reason anyone could expect norms to hold.
egonschiele
Yes, but if you decide to leave your job during the shutdown (say to find more stable work), you do not get paid for the unpaid hours you worked.
And as others are saying, plenty of people can't afford to work for no pay indefinitely.
fracus
Of course they can. A bank would have no problems giving out loans given the pay is coming eventually.
bashtoni
I hope these hypothetical banks will also be giving these theoretical indefinite loans interest free.
hshdhdhehd
Citation? Who is giving unsecured pay day loans on unknown payday? If they did what would the interest be? 1000%?
sigmar
anyone have any apps they use to follow FAA ground stops? maybe I'll put a link to https://nasstatus.faa.gov/ on my phone
hnburnsy
MCO ATCSCC ADVZY 151 DCC 10/30/2025 OPERATIONS PLAN
https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis?adv_date=10302025&a...
>MCO GROUND DELAY PROGRAM WAS ISSUED AND USERS CAN EXPECT A PERIOD OF TIME LATER IN THE EVENINGWHEN NO ARRIVALS WILL BE ABLE TO LAND AS THERE WILL BE NO CERTIFIED AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AVAILABLE AT MCO.
whatever1
Why can't the airlines pay the air traffic controllers? They pay anyway for airport fees, it should be a minimal difference in the ticket cost.
moelf
IIUC they legally can't do that. ATC are federal employees, you can't just have private companies pay off federal workers. (Well, I know Trump's friend is literally doing that for the military so idk, maybe laws are just words these days)
hshdhdhehd
Why hire private? Why not fund the existing federal ones?
trenchpilgrim
In previous shutdowns, Congress passed temporary funding bills to keep paying certain functions such as ATC for a few weeks while negotiating the budget.
This time, negotiations seem to have entirely stalled.
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 shut down because they're unpaid. And clearly this demonstrates the executive needs more power, since Congress is completely frozen. Finally, the Supreme Court is no longer an issue either, since that's not funded either.
Someone tell me why this couldn't happen.