FAA to cut flights by 10% at 40 major airports due to government shutdown
129 comments
·November 6, 2025runako
AceyMan
I would expect the airlines to ad hoc create a reduced master schedule in the interim until capacity is restored. They do this for major holidays, but many months in advance. Here they will be doing 72 hours in advance. Flights won't get "cancelled" they'll be NOOP (Not Operating) which is different. As an Ops Chief, this is heaven (while losing money). Tons of spare planes available. Lots of time to work on backlogged maintenance on the planes. Major headache is parking: it's not easy to have too many idle aircraft for a sizable carrier. Stowing them overnight becomes a choke-point.
runako
That's a good point, the airlines know how to handle reduced system capacity. I think in my hypothetical game I am more interested in how does FAA game out what capacity to tell the airlines.
For example, assume ATC is still not being paid around Thanksgiving week. How many ATC are still coming to work, for free, with no assurance of receiving back pay, on a holiday week, with a second rent/mortgage payment due in a week? Planning around that seems much harder even than planning around a storm!
jacquesm
> As an Ops Chief, this is heaven (while losing money).
Assuming the airline survives.
jacquesm
> Has anybody modeled what this does to the overall system?
At this point I'd be more concerned about safety than secondary effects so I think they are making the right call. At the same time the economic impact will be massive.
runako
I'm interested in such a model in part because I am curious where the safety line is. There's a point after which it becomes reckless to fly in the US.
glerk
What is stopping them from funding the things they have consensus on piece by piece while they continue debating the rest?
wnevets
Is this the greatness I've been promised?
cyberax
Aren't you tired of winning already? I certainly am.
strathmeyer
[dead]
CursedSilicon
Kind of glad I picked Amtrak to go down and visit family for Thanksgiving
Gonna be rough if the shutdown lasts to the end of November. Shame the usual suspects didn't get the memo about how badly their party was just decimated across the country. Should've been a canary in the coal mine moment
georgeburdell
In my mind this is how you’re spending your holidays
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VTD96WhhC9w&list=RDVTD96WhhC9w...
Publix holiday commercials were something else
bsimpson
I have to believe that they'll get their shit together before Thanksgiving. If this petty standoff ruins people's holidays, there will (hopefully) be hell to pay at the next election.
null
kmeisthax
After my last horrible domestic flight experience, several trips to Japan, and watching an ungodly amount of Miles in Transit videos, I actually considered just doing 100% Amtrak for an upcoming trip.
Problem is, I live in Utah. The daily California Zephyr pulls into Salt Lake Central at 3AM, way after all the connecting public transit has shut down for the night. So just getting to the train will probably involve a night Uber at what I assume is extraordinary expense. Not to mention it's in the run-down industrialized car park part of downtown, not the nice part with the mall and LDS temple.
Additionally, Utah's class 1 railway is Union Pacific, a dogshit hedge fund running a decrepit railroad that clogs up downtown with shittons of long, slow freight trains[0]. Which means the California Zephyr is one of the most frequently delayed Amtrak services, even with Amtrak levels of padding. So that 3AM train could easily wind up being delayed several hours, and any connections through Chicago are almost certain to get missed. Not to mention it's a three day ride, which is a lot of time to spend on a train without access to a shower[1].
So Amtrak here is the worst combination of inconvenient and slow. I've heard the scenery on the Zephyr is absolutely amazing, though.
I ultimately wound up booking SLC - JFK and a connecting Amtrak from Penn Station to Pittsburgh, which turns out to be about the same time as SLC - JFK - PIT by air. In fact, the air layover is so long JetBlue won't sell you a connecting ticket.
However, I'm now afraid that itinerary is going to get wrecked by this stupid government shutdown, and if that happens I'm pretty sure I'm just out the money for both the plane, train, and hotel.
With infrastructure like this, why would anyone want to vacation in this awful country?
[0] To the point where pedestrians often ignore grade crossing warnings, expecting a slow freight train they can outrun, only to be turned into a fine red mist by a FrontRunner train going 80mph.
Also, if you're reading this and live in Utah, please tell your local representatives to support the Rio Grande Plan: https://riograndeplansaltlakecity.org/
[1] Please correct me if it turns out there are public showers for coach passengers.
JKCalhoun
Wild times. I guess I'm just at a loss for words—what's going on in this country.
anadem
> what's going on in this country
The government has been hijacked by a gangster
lotsofpulp
Is it called a hijacking if the majority of passengers support the hijackers?
gpm
Yes? If I bought a plane ticket to Costa Rica and it turned out half my fellow passengers were actually part of the xyz gang and hijacked it and flew it to... I don't know... El Salvador I would be entirely correct in calling them criminal hijackers and I'd be justifiably pissed off (and scared).
chowchowchow
49.5% of 65% of eligible voters voted for him.. hardly a majority any way you slice it, either of voters or of the broad population.
op00to
The majority of American citizens do not support the policies of the current administration.
whyenot
This whole topic is about politics and I am leery of steering even more in that direction, but based on recent polls, I’m not sure that the passengers currently do support the hijackers.
esseph
They don't though, and current polling across the board looks horrible for them. Results yesterday were also quite telling.
petersellers
The majority of passengers didn't even care enough to vote.
Barrin92
yes, going straight into the mountain isn't any more pleasant even if 90% of the passengers sit in the cockpit. Which I hope stays a metaphor given the amount of air traffic controllers they just laid off.
Although if that metaphor is too rough I suppose we can also go with the inmates running the asylum
GiorgioG
Congress is still supposed to do its job.
dfxm12
House Republicans have been refusing to show up for work for over a month, while still collecting a paycheck. They expect air traffic controllers, et al. to work for free.
drooby
By impeaching and removing him, yes
georgemcbay
Half of Congress clearly believes its job is to do whatever the gangster says.
trelane
[flagged]
tekno45
isnt that the minority leader?
unethical_ban
Both parties are responsible for the shutdown at this point.
The debate is which one is more righteous: the one keeping it shut to prevent millions from having healthcare in sacrifice to the rich, or the side keeping it shut to fight for healthcare affordability for 15.million people and keeping rural hospitals open?
qotgalaxy
[dead]
WillPostForFood
The "gangster" wants the government open, republicans in Congress have all voted ~10 times to reopen. How can you not blame the only people voting to keep it closed?
prh8
Republicans want it open with the conditions, conditions that are unacceptable for the health of society
Erem
Did any of these 10 votes meaningfully address concerns of the objecting representatives?
mayneack
The republicans have a clear majority in all three houses. They can reopen if they want to.
cdelsolar
they're taking away people's healthcare
dfxm12
Out of touch billionaires are running the show, insulated from the problems they are creating. They are people who never have to set foot in a grocery store, worry about paying for a doctor's visit or, importantly here, fly commercial.
null
strathmeyer
[dead]
SilverElfin
Divisiveness and extremism from both parties, when moderates are badly needed. On the issue of the shutdown specifically, there was some belief that Democrats (Schumer in particular) would approve a CR (resolution to fund the federal government) after the second “no kings” protest or perhaps after the election, like maybe it was a political tool they wanted to use for election gains. But it seems they’re content with just letting the shutdown continue indefinitely unless the COVID era “temporary” expansion of ACA subsidies is extended - which is effectively trying to make it permanent.
kccoder
The establishment dems are moderates. Frustratingly so. What we need are politicians who support regular citizens over the rich and corporations. At least the dems are fighting for something that helps people in need vs the republican’s BBB.
the_real_cher
“If there was a shutdown, I think it would leave a tremendously negative mark on the president of the United States. He's the one that has to get people together.” - Donald Trump 2013
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G1m9mWg3xYk
The republicans have control of every major branch of government and it's still somehow the Dems fault.
voxl
God forbid you actually have to interact with an extermist on the left if you think the geriatric liberals running the show in the democratic party are any kind of extremist.
qotgalaxy
[dead]
mmaunder
Watching officials describe how the NTSB is working hard to investigate the recent air disaster, knowing that many at NTSB aren't getting paid...
jameslk
Seems like a win for reducing air pollution
ch4s3
Not if a significant fraction of people drive.
NewsGotHacked
Anyone figure out yet which 40 airports these are?!? All articles I have seen say 40 airports but don't mention which ones
ab071c41
Not sure if it matters much, to be honest. Even if another airport wasn’t on the list, chances are good it’s connected to at least one that is on the list. Less planes coming in, less planes going out.
GCUMstlyHarmls
If its not on this list, it's probably on next weeks list anyway.
blondie9x
All the major airports. Just looks up the top airports in the US they will all be impacted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_i...
Official announcement tomorrow.
FpUser
I bet the assholes responsible for shutdown would solve the problem in an instant if they were to start losing money. But they are of course shielded from harm done to the rest of the population.
esseph
Most of the establishment are rich enough to not care, but more junior representatives would suffer.
istillwritecode
No doubt flights between blue cities.
weo3dev
I'll give you a hint about all cities in the great us of a. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-map-showing-trumps-004...
yodon
For those not familiar with where cities are located in the US, that map is basically a population density map of the US. High population density regions are blue, low population density regions are red. This is true even in "deep red" states and "deep blue" states.
The founders knew this divide would exist, because the same basic divide was there 200+ years ago (different parties and party names, but the same rural/urban political divide). They purposely chose to design the electoral college system in a way that gave rural regions a significant say in political outcomes even when their population densities are much lower than those of cities. They also purposely placed seats of government away from major cities, for much the same reasons.
The country may be more polarized today, but the color pattern on the map is not new.
jcranmer
The electoral college was originally intended to have the states appoint some grandees who would get together and discuss whom the best candidate for president would be (for an election system that actually works like this today, imagine the papal conclaves). This system worked like this approximately once, and failed catastrophically by the fourth election, which prompted the slight adjustment that we see today. Electors weren't regularly selected by popular vote until after that change, largely complete by the 1820s.
Meanwhile, the reason for the electoral allocation reflects one of the most fundamental compromises in the design of the federal system: is the national government be representative of the people, or is it representative of the states? The answer is it's both--that's why there's one house for the people and one house for the states (the Senate). And the number of electors for the president is similarly a compromise, giving one vote for each member of both houses. (Again, recall that senators were not elected by popular vote until the 20th century).
There was no concept of a rural/urban political divide, because urbanization really wasn't a thing in 1787. The overarching concern of the people who wrote the Constitution was balancing the powers of a state like Virginia versus Rhode Island--the small state/large state divide is the major focal point of discussion--although there was also a contentious issue over the role of slavery (of course, in 1787, most states were slave states--only Massachusetts had fully abolished slavery by that point, although the rest of New England had just adopted a gradual abolition program) which yields the ⅗ compromise.
terminalshort
I am skeptical of this claim because in the 1700s the urban population would have been minimal compared to what it is today. A large majority of people were employed on farms.
schainks
Um… not quite.
There is clear, documented evidence that slavery and the three fifths compromise are directly related to the creation of the electoral college: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/elec...
ajross
> They purposely chose to design the electoral college system in a way that gave rural regions a significant say in political outcomes even when their population densities are much lower than those of cities.
This is a myth. The electoral college as originally conceived simply granted a elector count[1] to the states and let them decide how to allocate them. It had nothing to do with urban/rural divide, which barely existed at all outside of the three (!) states that actually had cities of meaningful size.
The interpretation you're proposing is decidedly modern. It's a retcon intended to justify the fact that "red" states in the modern electorate are clearly wielding outsized influence. But even that has only been true for 2-3 decades.
[1] What asymmetry existed was actually because of the way senate seats are allocated. Its effect on presidential elections was essentially an accident.
relaxing
Lot of nonsense.
Seats of government necessarily become cities. You don’t create a new city to keep power away from cities. State governments tended to be put in central locations for the convenience of all urban and rural dwellers, and away from existing power centers to avoid concentrating power with the wealthy.
The electoral college demands proportional representation in presidential elections. It says nothing about whether the electors are rural or urban dwellers. In fact, proportional representation weakens the power of less populous states.
The original unicameral continental congress with only a senate gave more power to less populous states, but the founding fathers found it effectively gave any single state veto power, which was counterproductive, and hence the great compromise was passed creating the House.
unsnap_biceps
relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1138/
defrost
Earlier: US may cut air traffic 10% by Friday without shutdown deal, sources say
(reuters.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45828203
noshutdown
Why is a shutdown even possible? If there’s no agreement just use what was already law before. It makes no sense.
What other country has such a stupid procedure?
femto
Other countries call it "Loss of Supply".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_supply
Usually it is interpreted as a loss of confidence in the government, resulting in the formation of a new government or the calling of an election. Potential loss of power is a pretty good incentive for a government to find a sensible solution.
pdonis
> Why is a shutdown even possible?
Because much of what the US government does, including paying most of its employees, is funded by annual appropriations, which are only valid for one particular fiscal year. As soon as that fiscal year ends and a new one starts, if new annual appropriations haven't been passed for the new fiscal year (or something else that provides funds, like a Continuing Resolution), all those things have to stop because there's no money to fund them any more.
There's no Constitutional requirement for all those things to be funded by annual appropriations; the only restriction the Constitution imposes is that no appropriation "to raise and support Armies" shall be for more than two years. It's just how the budgeting process has evolved.
> If there’s no agreement just use what was already law before
That won't work quite as you state it because "what was already law before" expired at the end of the last fiscal year.
A Continuing Resolution is an attempt to extend "what was already law before" for some period into the new fiscal year (in the case of the one passed by the House in September that was until November 21). But it still has to be passed as a law--it doesn't just happen automatically. Congress could put something in place to do that (since there's no Constitutional bar to that--see above), but they never have.
NewJazz
Fun fact: this didn't happen before 1980 when the courts started enforcing the anti deficiency act.
jsolson
I'd say certain countries in Europe give us a run for our money: https://caw.ceu.edu/other-activities/academic-blog/politics/...
arp242
Not really comparable because the bureaucratic system kept running. It's just a completely different political system and "there is no government" means a different thing. US-style "government shutdowns" don't really happen in Belgium.
rk06
better, US can move essential services to a separate budget and keep it away from this shutdown nonsense.
Has anybody modeled what this does to the overall system?
My impression is the system doesn't have all that much slack to begin with. And then to reduce all the major airports at the same time? And with the (current) expectation that next week will be worse?
Edit: this feels ripe for a simulator type of game. Assume X% of ATC walk off the job every week because they have to pay their bills and can't work ATC for free any longer. Assume Y% of TSA do likewise. Assume FAA increases acceptable fatality risk by Z% weekly. Give little sliders for X, Y, Z. See what conditions are required to let us make it to December 1.
More edit: It would be cool to compare this to natural shutdowns. For example, how does a 10% reduction overall affect traffic as compared to a given Nor'easter or hurricane or bomb cyclone?
More edit: give FAA the power to e.g. shut down airports and rapidly move & re-certify ATC on other airports, like regional triage. Maybe shut down Hobby and Austin and put everyone at IAH. Move to sectors, so there's a single airport operating in Texas and surrounding states, ATL in the southeast, etc. Game out how far in advance FAA needs to make all those calls in order to minimize fatalities. Game out what is the date after which air travel becomes less safe than driving. This could be like Railroad Tycoon, except from the regulator's perspective.