Jump to content

Should Traffic Controllers be paid during shutdowns? And should private planes receive the same access as commercial airlines during flight restrictions?


Recommended Posts

Posted

I do NOT want to go cloak room on this.  I really just want to know if you think airports are such important infrastructure to the public that they should be paid during shutdowns?

And do you think that Private Jets (low passenger counts) should or should not have the same access to the flight path as commercial airlines during periods of flight restrictions?

 

My personal feeling is yes, they should be paid as the overall threat to economic activity, makes me feel like Air traffic controllers are essential.  Conversely, I think that the first flights to lose access to the flight path should be private planes.  Simply as their are a lot of alternative landing places for smaller airlines, that could be utilized.  The same cannot be said for commercial airlines.  I just think you start off restricting the flights with the fewest passengers is the most logical way to manage such a crisis in the future.

 

 

 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Everyone working should be paid on the regular schedule. If Congress and the President can't agree on the appropriations, then shut it down.

The Goldbergs What GIF by ABC Network

Posted
16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Interestingly the link says:

Quote
  • The Federal Aviation Administration on Monday limited private flights at a dozen major U.S. airports as air traffic controller shortages snarled traffic around the country.
  • Last week, the FAA didn’t limit private jet and other general aviation flights like it did for U.S. commercial aviation.
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Interestingly the link says:

"last week" being Friday. So a couple days later.    

 

Sure they should have done it at exactly the same time.  Not sure it makes much operational difference, perhaps politically when the billionaires are inconvenienced.

Posted

I’m as affected by these ATC troubles as anyone but a shutdown needs to be a shutdown.   Otherwise there’s no incentive to work for compromise.  Start paying everyone and that’s how you make it last longer.

Make it be a real shutdown so they try harder to avoid it.  I would go further and say not only don’t pay fed employees, don’t have them come in to work at all. All air travel stops. All military ops pause.  All fed offices close. Tell the airlines they can’t fly.  Billions would be at stake instantly and the shutdown would likely never happen or if it did it wouldn’t last 2 hours. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

I’m as affected by these ATC troubles as anyone but a shutdown needs to be a shutdown.   Otherwise there’s no incentive to work for compromise.  Start paying everyone and that’s how you make it last longer.

Make it be a real shutdown so they try harder to avoid it.  I would go further and say not only don’t pay fed employees, don’t have them come in to work at all. All air travel stops. All military ops pause.  All fed offices close. Tell the airlines they can’t fly.  Billions would be at stake instantly and the shutdown would likely never happen or if it did it wouldn’t last 2 hours. 

I'm kinda on board with this. It seemed like the shut down during the Clinton term had Alor more closures. 

I feel like the average person isn't really affected that much anymore

Posted
27 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

"last week" being Friday. So a couple days later.    

 

Sure they should have done it at exactly the same time.  Not sure it makes much operational difference, perhaps politically when the billionaires are inconvenienced.

So if you were managing a business, say the FAA, your first move would be to put the most productive and income producing flights at a 4,5,6% cuts? Then you would look at the least income producing flights carrying the fewest people?  From a business, or putting the public first perspective, it's a strange starting point for me?  Assuming my goal is the least disruption and minimize economic damage? That's why I think it's so clear that private flights should always be the first one's cut, before a commercial flight?  I would be fascinated to know the number of private and non-commercial flights allowed to displace commercial airline flights?  From an economic perspective is a no brainer.

Having Air traffic controllers paid is a no brainer to me.  And I don't fly all that much, but it's like closing an interstate from a business perspective.  So again a no brainer for me from an economic perspective.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, horn4life said:

So if you were managing a business, say the FAA, your first move would be to put the most productive and income producing flights at a 4,5,6% cuts? Then you would look at the least income producing flights carrying the fewest people?  From a business, or putting the public first perspective, it's a strange starting point for me? 

well you see its not a business, its the government so its not ever going to be managed like a business.   NO CR

 

I agree with Your Mom above.  Paying everyone during a shutdown makes a shutdown even more completely non-sensical.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Your Mom said:

I’m as affected by these ATC troubles as anyone but a shutdown needs to be a shutdown.   Otherwise there’s no incentive to work for compromise.  Start paying everyone and that’s how you make it last longer.

Make it be a real shutdown so they try harder to avoid it.  I would go further and say not only don’t pay fed employees, don’t have them come in to work at all. All air travel stops. All military ops pause.  All fed offices close. Tell the airlines they can’t fly.  Billions would be at stake instantly and the shutdown would likely never happen or if it did it wouldn’t last 2 hours. 

I can get behind this except for Military Ops pause. Because China and Russia would love that. 

"So no one's manning their defense systems? Cool."

Posted
1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

Pay ATC - Yes

Ground private aviation - Yes

Fuck those GA guys.

Using the terms "GA" or "private planes" is a hugely broad brush because it's not just private jets. There is absolutely GA low-hanging fruit that, in my opinion, should be grounded first in the event of a shutdown. For example there's a shitload of Cessna 172 and Cherokee student pilots clogging up the system, requesting VFR flight following and a Class Bravo clearance for their flight from Denton to Waco. Not to mention their departure tower is already handling 4 touch-n-go's in the pattern (half of which want a short approach) and 5 in line waiting for takeoff. That should be the first to get cut and would help alleviate both tower and enroute ATC: no pattern work at a towered field and VFR on your own. Another would be instrument students who want to knock out 4 practice approaches on a single IFR flight plan (each with the published miss please!) at Conroe, Hooks, and then Sugarland. Those take up far more ATC bandwidth and patience than a Gulfstream on a standard departure/arrival whose going to get in/out of the area quickly.

After that you could work your way up through grounding piston, then turboprop, etc. using either engine type or MTOW, maybe even adding a Part 91 vs. 135 element to it. Point being if a government shutdown forces us to start grounding aircraft, there are many different ways to split up the GA world that would have a meaningful impact on alleviating ATC's job. And the private jets would likely be quite far down that list. (Except Teterboro, that's its own animal and no idea how to manage that through a shutdown except grounding flights). 

1 hour ago, Your Mom said:

Make it be a real shutdown so they try harder to avoid it.  I would go further and say not only don’t pay fed employees, don’t have them come in to work at all. All air travel stops. All military ops pause.  All fed offices close. Tell the airlines they can’t fly.  Billions would be at stake instantly and the shutdown would likely never happen or if it did it wouldn’t last 2 hours. 

Agree 1,000% with this.

Posted
2 hours ago, Your Mom said:

I’m as affected by these ATC troubles as anyone but a shutdown needs to be a shutdown.   Otherwise there’s no incentive to work for compromise.  Start paying everyone and that’s how you make it last longer.

Make it be a real shutdown so they try harder to avoid it.  I would go further and say not only don’t pay fed employees, don’t have them come in to work at all. All air travel stops. All military ops pause.  All fed offices close. Tell the airlines they can’t fly.  Billions would be at stake instantly and the shutdown would likely never happen or if it did it wouldn’t last 2 hours. 

And if everything did shut down, it might be an eye-opener for the sizable chunk of the population that claims they get no benefit from the federal government.  

(But probably not.)

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

We don’t have to have shut downs. Germany has a law that funds the government at certain levels even if no new budget is agreed. Nothing prevents Congress from reforming the 1974 budget act

Posted
16 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

We don’t have to have shut downs. Germany has a law that funds the government at certain levels even if no new budget is agreed. Nothing prevents Congress from reforming the 1974 budget act

Just like nothing prevents congress from doing anything, other than being Congress. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

We can't even stop the dipshit reps and Senators from getting paid during a shutdown.

That's the group that has to be cut off the second a shutdown starts.

This.

If they want to fuck around, they should fuck around with their own paychecks first.

Posted

1. Everybody should be paid. ATC, essential workers, non-essential workers. 
 

2. Congress doesn’t have to do shit to stop shutdowns.  We didn’t have them until 1980. The AG then issued a legal opinion saying a shutdown was required if a budget wasn’t passed and no one questioned it. They just went along. 
 

Any AG at any time could issue a new one that says “we re-examined this and it turns out we were wrong in 1980. If Congress doesn’t pass a budget we will keep paying employees on credit and meeting ongoing obligations until they do.”

Literally that easy, can’t be repeated enough that this happens because political leaders want it to. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
27 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Any AG at any time could issue a new one that says “we re-examined this and it turns out we were wrong in 1980. If Congress doesn’t pass a budget we will keep paying employees on credit and meeting ongoing obligations until they do.”

 

It sounds like you're saying my girlfriend and her financial habits would make a great AG.  What could possibly go wrong with that?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...