FAA to cut flights by 10% at 40 major airports due to government shutdown

147 pointsposted 3 months ago
by mikhael
(cnbc.com)

201 Comments

runako

3 months ago

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.

AceyMan

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

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!

grebc

3 months ago

Who’s doing your modelling at the FAA? Aren’t they all furloughed or working while not paid?

jacquesm

3 months ago

> As an Ops Chief, this is heaven (while losing money).

Assuming the airline survives.

jacquesm

3 months ago

> 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

3 months ago

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.

jacquesm

3 months ago

I'm not. The only way to satisfy your curiosity is to sacrifice a few hundred people.

runako

3 months ago

That’s the point of the model, so that it doesn’t have to play out in reality.

senordevnyc

3 months ago

I wonder if the FAA even has enough data on fatality to do something like increase the fatality risk by 0.1% or something. Commercial air travel is so ridiculously safe and has been for decades; would they even have enough of a sample to estimate that with any accuracy? Particularly around something like having fewer ATC available, since I'm guessing even fewer of the rare accidents have that as a cause?

jacquesm

3 months ago

This is one of those annoying safety paradoxes, subtly linked to the prevention paradox. The better you get at getting rid of the incidents the lower the rate, the longer it will take to gather data to improve further. There is a similar curve involved when it comes to debugging. High frequency bugs are easy to squash. Low frequency ones can be really hard.

jacquesm

3 months ago

Yes, but if your model is wrong people will die. Unless you mean to use the model only from a curiosity perspective and not to base actual decisions on.

hypeatei

3 months ago

I don't think GP is an official at the FAA or has any influence over those who work at the FAA. It's kinda strange that you'd assume it's not for curiosity and/or personal use.

jacquesm

3 months ago

It is you that is making assumptions here. I assumed nothing.

runako

3 months ago

Yeah, further down in my post I talk about making it a game, it being "cool" to make comparisons etc. I seriously hope the people making decisions have better tools and more insight than my late-night noodling, or we are well past the point where it is no longer safe to fly.

cmurf

3 months ago

The longer it goes on, I expect another statistic which is once the backpay check clears, people quit. Because this is bullshit. The backpay will not cover the financing costs of going into debt to cover bills, food, rent, mortgage. The government should foot that bill, but I don't think they will.

runako

3 months ago

Back pay isn’t guaranteed, and Congressional leadership has gone back and forth about whether back pay is owed. I would put money on any back pay being partial at best. (I understand that this is waste, fraud, and abuse that is being cut?)

But yes, this is bullshit. We also should not have active duty military using soup kitchens abroad. But on these matters, my opinion is obviously different from that of most voters. Hopefully, voters will change their minds.

cmurf

3 months ago

Seems it is the law.

https://www.nteu.org/blog/2025/11/03/ShutdownBackPay

runako

3 months ago

In the last few months, that must be accompanied by the question of who is going to enforce it.

Those charged with enforcement of the relevant laws have waffled on whether or both they plan to issue back pay. Their decisions after the shutdown are the only operative factor, regardless of the letter of the law.

wnevets

3 months ago

Is this the greatness I've been promised?

cyberax

3 months ago

Aren't you tired of winning already? I certainly am.

CursedSilicon

3 months ago

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

kmeisthax

3 months ago

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.

bsimpson

3 months ago

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.

user

3 months ago

[deleted]

mmaunder

3 months ago

Watching officials describe how the NTSB is working hard to investigate the recent air disaster, knowing that many at NTSB aren't getting paid...

Frieren

3 months ago

> The move comes as air traffic controllers have missed their paychecks due to the government shutdown. Air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration screeners are among the essential government employees who are required to work during the shutdown.

Slavery never went away, it just shifted.

But at least the Republican goverment is doing something positive to curve climate change. If they shut down enough of the economy and people cannot afford gas anymore that will produce less CO2. Win?

FpUser

3 months ago

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.

terminalshort

3 months ago

It should be a constitutional amendment that congress and the president get no pay during a shutdown (with no back pay) and pay a $1000 / day fine for each day that it remains closed. And shutdown for a month should trigger elections.

jjav

3 months ago

> And shutdown for a month should trigger elections.

I'd be more strict and say shutdown on day 1 trigger reelection for all senate and congress seats and the president & VP. Get everyone out.

It's not like they don't know this is coming months in advance, so there is no excuse at all to fail at their job which is negotiating a compromise.

duxup

3 months ago

I feel like that would only harm a "poorer" president and give an advantage to rich presidents.

Had the same discussion about state reps in my state. Pay them less as a punishment means you just get folks doing the job who are a specific demographic. Others simply can't...

watwut

3 months ago

President is getting richer and richer evrry day from crypto and deals with familly.

mlrtime

3 months ago

[flagged]

hypeatei

3 months ago

Pelosi ran her own cryptocurrency meme coin where transactions can't be tied to a specific person? Oh right, no, she publicly disclosed stock trades that literally everyone else in Congress is doing as well. How does running a meme coin, that anyone in the world can "invest" in while you're President, compare to an insider stock trade?

terminalshort

3 months ago

Nobody is saying Nancy Pelosi is as good at corruption as Donald Trump is, but she is just as corrupt. This is why The Democrats' attacks on Trump don't work. If you steal $100 you don't get to be outraged at the guy who steals $1 million.

hypeatei

3 months ago

> but she is just as corrupt. This is why The Democrats' attacks on Trump don't work. If you steal $100 you don't get to be outraged at the guy who steals $1 million.

Is this satire? If not, that's completely delusional and really a poor attempt at covering for Dear Leader. Adhering to the law and reporting stock trades is not the same as: running a cryptocurrency that can't be traced (Trump coin), running a mobile service provider while you control regulators (Trump mobile), pardoning a convicted fraudster for aiding/supporting your crypto schemes (Zhao pardon), saying you'll put a foreign leader in contact with your son for family business dealings (Indonesia and Eric Trump), and being gifted a $400M jet by Qatar.

But sure, let's pretend these people are just as corrupt as each other. Especially when Trump explicitly campaigned on "draining the swamp" or whatever and his minions are now trying to change the subject and go: "but Pelosi!!!"

The only reason you're even able to push this BS is because they're following the law and publicly disclosing these trades. Who is influencing Trump via his meme coin and various business dealings? We may never know.

terminalshort

3 months ago

You can make a "I'm bad, but he's worse" argument and be effective. But it's gotta be calm and rational. "I may take $100 from you here and there, but that guy, he'll take everything you got. Trust me, you don't want him" works. But if you act morally outraged, then you just come off as full of shit.

hypeatei

3 months ago

Right, ignore all the nuance and keep saying "but both sides!!"

The only people full of shit are the ones attempting to compare publicly reported stock trades to the litany of corrupt actions done under this administration.

senordevnyc

3 months ago

She's not just as corrupt, but she is definitely corrupt. Those trades have to be disclosed, but she gets 45 days to do so, and it seems blindingly obvious that she's using insider info to front run the market. It's disgusting, and I say that as someone who loathes Trump and is unlikely to ever vote for another Republican again after the last decade. That doesn't mean Pelosi isn't corrupt, it means our system allows for corruption.

hypeatei

3 months ago

I never said she isn't corrupt but insider trading has been a talking point long before this unprecedented corruption we're seeing in the Whitehouse. These whataboutisms are pointless and disavowing the behavior literally does nothing unless the other side clearly disavows their leader (Trump) which they have yet to do.

I'll take Republicans/MAGAs seriously in their supposed effort to "drain the swamp" when he is held accountable.

esseph

3 months ago

Most of the establishment are rich enough to not care, but more junior representatives would suffer.

speed_spread

3 months ago

It would become a war of attrition where the richest win because they can afford to.

istillwritecode

3 months ago

No doubt flights between blue cities.

weo3dev

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

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.

ajross

3 months ago

> 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.

terminalshort

3 months ago

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.

iambateman

3 months ago

Just for a fun data point on this…Charleston SC was the fifth largest city in the US in 1800, with 18,000 people.

It’s wild how different the numbers were.

bsimpson

3 months ago

Wall St was an actual (medieval) wall until the turn of the 18th century. It's at the very south of Manhattan, a ten minute walk from the tip of the city it was built to protect.

NYC's postal names are a mess: Manhattanites can write "Manhattan" or "New York". Brooklynites are supposed to write "Brooklyn." Queens denizens write the historic names of the farm towns that used to be there. "Astoria" is actually part of New York City, even though seeing a letter addressed there might make you think it's a town upstate.

The postal service is older than the current boundaries of New York, and they never updated the mail routing to reflect the unified city.

Before the bridges were built, much of what's now NYC was very rural.

Freedom2

3 months ago

I believe the medieval era ended in the 15th century, but the wall was built in the 17th. So actually the wall would have actually been a colonial era wall, if going by eras - not to mention the construction style was actually more reminiscent of colonial era structures rather than medieval.

relaxing

3 months ago

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.

schainks

3 months ago

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...

nostrademons

3 months ago

The map of where slavery is allowed corresponds pretty well with the areas that are rural, as you don't need slaves to work the fields where there aren't fields, and slaves are a poor labor source for the more differentiated and fluid industries in cities (there isn't enough liquidity for them to adapt to changing economic conditions, as the slaves are property of a single owner and their labor isn't traded on a free market).

terminalshort

3 months ago

This is not true at all. Slavery wasn't allowed in the rural north. And in the south, slavery was part of all sectors of the economy. Slave factories were even a thing. Furthermore, slave labor could be traded on the market just as well as any other labor. There was nothing stopping a slave owner from renting out his slaves a contract labor. If the civil war hadn't happened when it did, southern slavery would have been an industrial horror.

schainks

3 months ago

This is also not true, not to mention a terrible assumption about how slavery in the south actually operated. Please read more.

JKCalhoun

3 months ago

Wild times. I guess I'm just at a loss for words—what's going on in this country.

dfxm12

3 months ago

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.

senordevnyc

3 months ago

I suspect we'd have no more shutdowns if the billionaires couldn't fly their private jets anymore.

We should push for a law that grounds ALL part 91 (corporate and private) and part 135 (on demand air taxi) flights if the federal government shuts down, with the only exception being for medical flights (and no non-essential passengers allowed on those flights).

user

3 months ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet

3 months ago

If you fly a private plane, you still care about the FAA running out of flight controllers.

terminalshort

3 months ago

[flagged]

TFYS

3 months ago

Common man votes for the people the billionaire owned media and billionaire funded parties tell them to vote for.

terminalshort

3 months ago

No they don't. The common man voted for Trump in 2016 when all the billionaires and big money were behind HRC. The "billionaire owned" media has had a terminal case of Trump derangement syndrome for the last 10 years. If anybody listened to their hysterics anymore Trump would have lost in a landslide. We aren't secretly run by billionaires. That's a brain dead conspiracy theory.

1718627440

3 months ago

> If billionaires were running the show it would be much more competently run, at least.

Citation needed.

anadem

3 months ago

[flagged]

GiorgioG

3 months ago

Congress is still supposed to do its job.

dfxm12

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

By impeaching and removing him, yes

georgemcbay

3 months ago

Half of Congress clearly believes its job is to do whatever the gangster says.

lotsofpulp

3 months ago

Is it called a hijacking if the majority of passengers support the hijackers?

gpm

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

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.

terminalshort

3 months ago

49.5% of 100% of the votes

NewJazz

3 months ago

Still not a majority.

ryandrake

3 months ago

If you add the eligible voters who chose not to vote (indicating they were fine with whoever wins), then it's a clear majority. If you don't vote, your vote is effectively for the winner.

NewJazz

3 months ago

That makes zero sense at all. They didn't know who would win in advance.

ryandrake

3 months ago

But they were OK with that person winning, whoever it would be. If they weren't, they would have voted for someone else.

NewJazz

3 months ago

That's not how a majority works. You're also making assumptions about why they didn't vote.

chowchowchow

3 months ago

not being motivated enough to vote against != support in terms of claiming a popular mandate. If I just don't care who wins, you can't say I support either candidate.

At most you could say my inaction prevented the winner from losing I guess.

lotsofpulp

3 months ago

It’s a first past the post election system, meaning you vote for the lesser evil. And this was Trump’s 2nd go around, where he campaigned on pardoning traitors. Anyone that didn’t vote for Harris gets lumped in with the supporters of the current administration, for all intents and purposes.

chowchowchow

3 months ago

Eh. You can’t claim the non voters all implicitly support him though since they didn’t know the outcome ahead of time. I’ll agree they didn’t sufficiently oppose him ahead of the 2nd time to bother voting. But that’s far from support.

op00to

3 months ago

The majority of American citizens do not support the policies of the current administration.

SilverElfin

3 months ago

The current administration won the vote. And in fact the continuing resolutions that would fund the government have majority support in both houses of Congress, by the representatives of American citizens. But it needs 60 votes in Senate not just 50 votes. Right now most Democrat senators (all but 3) are voting against even a clean funding resolution that makes no changes to the pre shutdown status quo.

runako

3 months ago

> needs 60 votes

This is a gentle fiction. The GOP has the 51 votes to change this rule by lunchtime tomorrow and proceed to govern according to the mandate they claim. They may choose not to do that, as is their prerogative.

But they do not "need" 60 votes according to the Constitution, which is free online to read. One can even search for a 60-vote cloture requirement in the document and its amendments, which are in fact the real governing documents that describe how Congress is required to operate.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS

3 months ago

> This is a gentle fiction. The GOP has the 51 votes to change this rule by lunchtime tomorrow and proceed to govern according to the mandate they claim. They may choose not to do that, as is their prerogative.

You're correct, of course, but they're doing something that's exceedingly rare these days: they're thinking about the ramifications for when the shoe is on the other foot.

Which is kinda dumb, because Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them (but they'll cry crocodile tears when it's done to them).

It's all moot anyway; now that the election is over, and they don't need to leverage their constituents well-being for votes, Democrats have indicated a willingness to pass the bill.

runako

3 months ago

> Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them

Notably, not for healthcare! (Older person's perspective: the pseudo-requirement for 60 votes is quite possibly why the US didn't get universal healthcare in 2010.)

Anyway, yes it is good if parties who win at the ballot box are able to enact their policies into law. The filibuster prevents this and as such is a cancer on representative government.

The GOP should be able to install armed checkpoints on every city block and eliminate the ACA, returning us to the status quo of 2009[1]. They won the most recent election, that is their prerogative. They should be bound by existing law, but beyond that there should be few checks on them realizing their wish list.

By the same token, when Democrats win, they should be able to offer a Medicare For All and universal preschool[2].

Parties that win should be able to enact their policies. Let the voters decide which policies they prefer. Which brings me back to

> they're thinking about the ramifications for when the shoe is on the other foot.

If they have conviction that their constituents will like their policies, they needn't worry. They should actively want to be able to enact their policies, so that voters can choose them again to get more of the same. What leader of conviction would intentionally neuter their own capabilities?

1 - taken loosely from current enactment of policy and https://prod-static.gop.com/media/RNC2024-Platform.pdf?_gl=1...

2 - taken loosely from https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democr...

atmavatar

3 months ago

    Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them
Could you elaborate? What are some specific examples?

ApolloFortyNine

3 months ago

They're making the right move since everyone just blames orange man bad, as you see in the comments here.

The budget filibuster has been a weird rule for a while that has really just relied on the honor system that the majority party will throw a small bone to the minority to pass the budget. It was only a matter of time until people figured out it doesn't have to be a small bone.

mlrtime

3 months ago

Correct, and anyone that points out that the Democrats could pass this tomorrow are downvoted, and the conversation shifts to some other topic. It's crazy how neither side wants to give in.

danaris

3 months ago

Yeah, it's crazy how one side doesn't want to give in because they're unwilling to countenance a loss of healthcare for millions of Americans, while the other side doesn't want to give in because they're unwilling to give up on massive tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy!

kccoder

3 months ago

They did win the vote and once they started enacting their agenda people decided they didn’t like what they saw which led to the results last night. Trump won because people were misinformed, uninformed, or simply lied to by Trump and his machine.

andsoitis

3 months ago

> which led to the results last night.

Democrats risk drawing the wrong lessons from one good day

terminalshort

3 months ago

This has been true for a while. The last president to finish out a term solidly over 50% approval was Clinton.

Marsymars

3 months ago

Clinton was around mid-60s when he left office vs. Obama at high-50s, not a huge difference.

khazhoux

3 months ago

You must be thinking of the ones that didn't vote? Yeah, they don't count.

(voting is how you get counted)

esseph

3 months ago

Even the ones that did vote. They don't seem to support the tariffs, Venezuela/Columbia expeditions, ICE behavior, etc.

Barrin92

3 months ago

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

whyenot

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

They don't though, and current polling across the board looks horrible for them. Results yesterday were also quite telling.

petersellers

3 months ago

The majority of passengers didn't even care enough to vote.

trelane

3 months ago

[flagged]

tekno45

3 months ago

isnt that the minority leader?

trelane

3 months ago

That is the joke, yes.

SilverElfin

3 months ago

[flagged]

Trasmatta

3 months ago

The Republican party has the power to negotiate with the Democrats at any point and reopen the government. This is a Republican shutdown, through and through.

trelane

3 months ago

... and conversely, so do Democrats.

Amazingly, Republicans were also blamed when the sides were reversed.

If you're determined to blame someone, it is always possible to find a way to phrase things so it's their fault.

danaris

3 months ago

> Amazingly, Republicans were also blamed when the sides were reversed.

Because again and again, it is Republicans who show they are uninterested in governance, while Democrats demonstrate their commitment to it—even if they are sometimes bad at it.

tjpnz

3 months ago

Sounds like he's asking for a compromise and the other side is refusing to give an inch.

Trasmatta

3 months ago

Exactly this. The Republican party is refusing to negotiate and compromise, and somehow it's the Democrats fault for not just completely capitulating?

ModernMech

3 months ago

Insofar as Schumer has the power to block the funding, Senate Republicans have the power to unblock Schumer's block. They just don't want to use it, because they feel it would not be politically advantageous in the future. The problem they have now is, at the end of the day, voters understand the buck stops at Resolute desk, and Schumer is not sitting there.

terminalshort

3 months ago

> voters understand the buck stops at Resolute desk

They do think that, but it's an incredibly stupid way to think about the US government. The president isn't a dictator.

ModernMech

3 months ago

With great power comes great responsibility. If the most powerful person in the world doesn't bear ultimate responsibility when the party he controls can't fund the government he runs, who else is responsible? It doesn't matter he's not a dictator, he's POTUS, he's the leader. The throne comes equipped with a sword dangling above it.

Past presidents understood assuming ultimate responsibility is in the job description, and voters understand it as well. Maybe you think it's incredibly stupid, but I think it's a hallmark of a great leader to assume ultimate responsibility, especially when negative outcomes are not in his control. Conversely, I think weak, feckless leaders pass the buck to subordinates and/or opponents.

terminalshort

3 months ago

Past presidents tried their best to weasel their way out of any responsibility for things going wrong and blame the other side for everything. That's being a politician. The only difference is that the power levels on Trump's reality distortion field are miles past what anyone thought possible in 2015.

ModernMech

3 months ago

Sure, that makes those people good politicians but terrible leaders.

Trasmatta

3 months ago

Yeah, they could end the filibuster, but they're terrified of what that would mean if and when Democrats take control of the Senate again.

The Republican party plans to never leave power again, but they're not actually confident they can pull it off. If they were, the filibuster would be gone already.

Last night's election was a good example of why that scares them.

CamperBob2

3 months ago

The Republicans hold sway over all three branches of government. They can reopen the government anytime they wish. Why do you suppose they're not doing that?

trelane

3 months ago

It requires 60 votes, and the Republicans don't have enough of a majority, even if they were to all vote with the party.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5588295-spending-bill-go...

herufang

3 months ago

It does not require 60 votes. 60 votes is just a convention that republicans are choosing to abide by. The republicans could pass a funding bill tomorrow with a simple 50 vote majority, but they are choosing not to because it makes it easier to blame democrats (which you are falling for hook, line, sinker).

Trasmatta

3 months ago

No, they cannot pass it with a 50 vote majority unless they end the filibuster. Ending the filibuster does not currently have support in the Republican congress, because of the intense political risks associated with that.

herufang

3 months ago

So the republicans have the power to do a thing but are choosing not to do a thing? Yea, that’s exactly what I said.

Trasmatta

3 months ago

I don't think you understand the implications of ending the filibuster if you think this is just about convention, or "making it easier to blame the Democrats". Trump would love to end the filibuster, but the Republican congress is having to think very hard about what it would mean for them if and when the Democrats retake control of the Senate.

herufang

3 months ago

I understand the implications. I don’t know what that has to do with I said. The republicans have the power the end the shutdown tomorrow without the democrats, but they are choosing not to.

jandrewrogers

3 months ago

The Democrats are using their veto power in the Senate. So no, the Republicans can't reopen the government anytime they wish.

trelane

3 months ago

Technically, veto is a different thing. But I suspect you mean it metaphorically.

CamperBob2

3 months ago

Are you sure that's how it works, or is that just what somebody told you? In the latter case, you've been lied to, and you need to go back to that person and ask them why they did that.

jandrewrogers

3 months ago

Don't pretend ignorance, it is unbecoming and dishonest. You know how the process works. For historical reasons it requires 60 votes in the Senate for all intents and purposes to re-open the government, which the Republicans don't have.

I've never been a Republican but the line of argument you are pursuing is gross no matter who does it. Have some self-respect.

CamperBob2

3 months ago

You'll have no problem citing a source for those "historical reasons," then. Correct?

jandrewrogers

3 months ago

I've been a Federal employee (multiple times) through prior shutdowns and have worked in Washington DC off and on over decades. I don't have much time for low-effort political rage bait from people that have no willingness to engage with reality.

Your ignorance of how Federal politics works is not my problem. Plenty of other ways you could learn if you were actually interested.

unethical_ban

3 months ago

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?

trelane

3 months ago

I am sure a Republican would have an opposite, equally slanted way if phrasing their position.

user

3 months ago

[deleted]

unethical_ban

3 months ago

I would love to hear what they could muster, because what I said is truth.

WillPostForFood

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

Republicans want it open with the conditions, conditions that are unacceptable for the health of society

Erem

3 months ago

Did any of these 10 votes meaningfully address concerns of the objecting representatives?

mayneack

3 months ago

The republicans have a clear majority in all three houses. They can reopen if they want to.

cdelsolar

3 months ago

they're taking away people's healthcare

SilverElfin

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

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.

cloverich

3 months ago

To be clear is the argument that wanting to keep subsidies that maintain healthcare for a few million Americans, at the cost of approximately 10% of the cost of the recent tax breaks passed by Republicans, is extremism? The republicans get everything else they want right? Given the national debt is not the concern (eg because they just cut taxes), what is the issue exactly?

the_real_cher

3 months ago

“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.

watwut

3 months ago

Both sides! Well no, there is ine centrist party and one extremist party.

There are moderates in one party and project 2025 extremists in another

voxl

3 months ago

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.

noshutdown

3 months ago

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?

pdonis

3 months ago

> 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.

femto

3 months ago

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.

NewJazz

3 months ago

Fun fact: this didn't happen before 1980 when the courts started enforcing the anti deficiency act.

jsolson

3 months ago

I'd say certain countries in Europe give us a run for our money: https://caw.ceu.edu/other-activities/academic-blog/politics/...

apexalpha

3 months ago

This is completely different.

The is the politicians not being able to form a coalition. Imagine your congress not agreeing to fill some commissions or confirm some positions in government.

It is a 'shutdown' of the legislative branch, not the executive.

aidenn0

3 months ago

In the US, the legislative branch controls the budget, so when their budget expires, if the legislative branch is shutdown, so is the money.

arp242

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

better, US can move essential services to a separate budget and keep it away from this shutdown nonsense.

mlrtime

3 months ago

Have you lived in London or Paris? There are WEEKLY strikes on public transportation. I now live in the US and rarely a day goes by that my teammates across the pond don't complain about how bad the trains are to commute to work, half the time its because of a strike.

sleepyguy

3 months ago

Maybe they should just cancel all the private jets that fly around and that would probably amount to 10% which would only affect the 1%.

glerk

3 months ago

What is stopping them from funding the things they have consensus on piece by piece while they continue debating the rest?

etskinner

3 months ago

In short, horse trading. That is, if you have leverage in an adversarial negotiation, you'd be foolish not to use it to get more of what you want.

For example, as a prospective employee, if I knew that I was the only qualified candidate the employer had interviewed, and they really needed someone within a week, I'd know that I can ask for more salary. If I instead take the middle of the salary range, just because it's maximally acceptable to both parties, I'd be missing out

glerk

3 months ago

Fascinating. Air traffic controllers shouldn’t be a bargaining chip. Planes must keep flying. If the US federal government is too dysfunctional to provide this service (which it is paid to provide), it should be stripped of the privilege of providing it and some other entity should step in to fill the gap. “Shutdown” should be an abdication of sovereignty plain and simple.

lunar-whitey

3 months ago

Abdication of sovereignty is precisely what one party wants. I don’t understand how many people fail to recognize this.

grebc

3 months ago

Which other entity in existence is there?

danaris

3 months ago

Any "other entity" would, in practice, be either beholden to the same government, or concerned with profit over safety.

Our current crisis is not one we can or should base new structures off of. There is no realistic way to run a modern society that can take into account a government utterly hostile to the very notion of governing. We have to get rid of the bad actors and restore some semblance of sanity before we can even consider how to make things more robust against this sort of treasonous single-party capture in future.

mcphage

3 months ago

If they've funded all of the things they have consensus on, what would motivate them to fund the things they disagree about?

jameslk

3 months ago

Seems like a win for reducing air pollution

ch4s3

3 months ago

Not if a significant fraction of people drive.

mlrtime

3 months ago

Did you do the math on that?

ch4s3

3 months ago

One could, but you'd need to model multiple scenarios. Surveys show a steady increase in driving for Thanksgiving in the US versus flying since 2020. The average distance according to the AAA is 549 miles, which is approaching the tipping point where flying is more efficient for single passenger trips. For longer trips the tipping point becomes 2+ passengers. Driving will also be worse for NO2 emissions and general ground level pollution.

And none of this touches on safety, which I think is worth considering.

mlrtime

3 months ago

Yeah, that is assuming everyone decides to drive and not stay at home, which I think most would.

insane_dreamer

3 months ago

How many ATCs are there anyway? Surely the gov can find money from somewhere to pay them during the shutdown. They had no problem raising $250M to fund a ballroom (shows you how much of a bribe those "contributions" really were).

Hikikomori

3 months ago

Its more important to brutalize your citizens with ICE.

NewsGotHacked

3 months ago

Anyone figure out yet which 40 airports these are?!? All articles I have seen say 40 airports but don't mention which ones

ab071c41

3 months ago

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

3 months ago

If its not on this list, it's probably on next weeks list anyway.

ac29

3 months ago

Anchorage International

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International

Boston Logan International

Baltimore/Washington International

Charlotte Douglas International

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International

Dallas Love

Ronald Reagan Washington National

Denver International

Dallas/Fort Worth International

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County

Newark Liberty International

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International

Honolulu International

Houston Hobby

Washington Dulles International

George Bush Houston Intercontinental

Indianapolis International

New York John F Kennedy International

Las Vegas McCarran International

Los Angeles International

New York LaGuardia

Orlando International

Chicago Midway

Memphis International

Miami International

Minneapolis/St Paul International

Oakland International

Ontario International

Chicago O'Hare International

Portland International

Philadelphia International

Phoenix Sky Harbor International

San Diego International

Louisville International

Seattle/Tacoma International

San Francisco International

Salt Lake City International

Teterboro

Tampa International

komali2

3 months ago

Even if flights aren't cut, TSA and related staff are. I've heard rumors of 4 hour security lines at IAH.

mlrtime

3 months ago

The MAX WAS 4 hours, its well under an hour now.

Maybe better to get rid of some of the security theater that we also like to scrutinize with good reason.

blondie9x

3 months ago

Unreal. Traveling is just not worth it right now.

komali2

3 months ago

In the USA at least. On my flight from Japan to Taiwan I arrived at Haneda about an hour before my flight, spent 10 minutes total at security including screening time, walked through an automated immigration gate with no wait, had a soba, then boarded.

I timed my time from plane door to train in Taiwan: 24 minutes. To be fair I was hustling and had no checked bag. Automated immigration gate, walk through customs without being stopped, straight to the train. The train comes every 10-15 minutes so I also got lucky boarding right before the doors closed. My time from plane to home was about an hour and a half.

cdelsolar

3 months ago

sounds good for the economy

insane_dreamer

3 months ago

ICE agents still getting paid (with hefty bonuses) but they can’t pay ATCs. Trump priorities.

silexia

3 months ago

Email every representative available in your state and ask them to please either immediately reopen the government or resign and let in someone who will.