I'm not saying the article's thesis is wrong, much of it rings true to me, but we have very comprehensive data and statistics concerning air travel so I'm deeply unimpressed by this article instead hanging its argument on a hodgepodge list of incidents instead of digging into the data to get some proper numbers.
We have "proper numbers" for the full range of issues covered in the essay? From airport aesthetics to El Paso being shut down because of lack of coordination around anti-drone testing, or something?
The article is not just about safety, or some other singular topic with clear statistics.
Just because this sentiment will get some cheap upvotes from people who didn't engage with the article doesn't be that the author should have searched for keys under streetlights to provide a false appearance of rigor.
This is an essay from the Atlantic Daily, which is responding, in real time, to the events of the day. It's a minor work of commentary, it is not supposed to be in-depth reporting, and it's bit odd to feel ought to have been a work of investigative reporting, which the Atlantic also does, seperately.
Safety / incident data collection and publishing from the FAA and NTSB are basically live, you'll get incidents logged within days at most and preliminary reports usually within a few weeks. What lags the most are data analysis and interpretations, but major newspapers should probably be prepared to do their own data analysis if they're making grand proclaiments like the collapse of an industry...
This is a common kind of "data or nothing" fallacy. Data doesn't reliably capture evidence for the thesis "TSA agents and aviation workers are burning out and ICE is going to make it worse". The part that data is good for hasn't happened yet over a long enough timeline to reflect properly.
If the argument is "deadly accidents are up over the past decade", then yes, of course, we must point to data.
If the argument is, "the aviation industry might be on the verge of a steep decline in availability and/or safety due to recent political/financial problems", then what do you mean "show the data"? That doesn't make sense. It's a concern based on observation, which is fine if it's not presented as a fact.
And if it turns out that a specific accident is due to said forces - what, we don't address those forces, because "data"?
I agree, but the article does specifically mention crashes as a symptom we're already seeing:
> Fatal crashes, overstressed controllers, and endless security lines reveal a system teetering on the brink of failure.
I have not read the entire article (paywalled), but the introduction sure seems to strongly imply that we're already seeing an unusually high rate of crashes.
"Collapse" isn't within the statistical distribution though, so you'd still to apply judgement in any case.
I suppose it's a word with many definitions.
1. Not really. If the crash rates we're seeing under the Trump administration are higher than any similar length period in the last ~10 years, we should start to worry.
You absolutely can see a difference. [0] The term of art is "Runway Incursions", and the stats definitely show our airports are working at the limits of safety.
Category A and B incursions increased by 2.8σ. Further, it was 7 years of increases in a row. Either factor on its own would indicate a process out of statistical control.
Well, a tired, overextended air traffic controller at LaGuardia just caused two pilots to die last night while landing. How many deaths would communicate "We have likely reached system failure"? I presume for some, it's going to have to be a few airframes worth of passengers unfortunately. There is a shortage of air traffic controllers. Those working are being pushed to failure. The system as a whole is degrading. These are facts, based on evidence and observations.
There is currently a shortage of ~3k controllers (as of this comment), and the time to train and put new controllers into service is significant. Excess retirements reduces time to system failure due to labor shortages.
https://www.faa.gov/air-traffic-controller-qualifications
> Entry-level applicants must complete required training courses and spend several months at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. Applicants are paid while in training. After graduating the academy, individuals are placed in locations across the country and must gain 2-3 years additional training, both classroom and on-the-job experience, before becoming a certified professional controller. This rigorous training includes close supervision and evaluation by senior controllers that ensures controllers are competent, professional, know their airspace environment and can deal with the pressures and high pace of the job.
Controllers in training quit due to a lack of pay whenever a government shutdown occurs. This impairs the talent pipeline to improve system performance anytime a shutdown occurs.
> The shutdown is having real consequences, as some students at the controller academy have already decided to abandon the profession because they don’t want to work in a job they won’t be paid for, Duffy said. That will only make it harder for the FAA to hire enough controllers to eliminate the shortage, since training takes years. He said that the government is only a week or two away from running out of money to pay students at the academy.
> “Currently nearly 50 percent of major air traffic control facilities are experiencing staffing shortages, and nearly 90 percent of air traffic controllers are out at New York–area facilities,” the FAA said in a statement posted on X on Friday evening.
> How many deaths would communicate "We have likely reached system failure"?
"Failure" is really a matter of opinion rather than some objective tipping point. The air system is unlikely to ever actually "fail", and at worst will just become some arbitrary level of degraded that some people will loudly label "failed".
There are plenty of examples around the world of countries with variously degraded air systems, that are far worse than the US status quo but still are not "failed".
>Yemen, in the midst of a perennial civil war, still runs commercial flights
Not any more, they don't:
> The General Director of Sanaa International Airport, Khaled al-Shaief, said in a post on his X account that the strike had completely destroyed the last of the civilian planes that Yemenia Airways was operating from the airport.
Note also that they deliberately choke off the hiring funnel before they even get applicants, and deliberately dispose of experienced controllers. Air traffic controller applicants must be under 31 years old for initial hire. The mandatory retirement age is 56. Although there are limited exceptions to both rules.
Air traffic controllers require a significant investment by the federal government, I take no issue with age limits for both investment (lower bound) and safety reasons (upper bound) (if the data says it is reasonable, I'll always defer to the data).
I take exceptional issue with the fact that their pay is not considered essential. There should be no way for this critical infrastructure to be not considered essential. ATC pay should flow regardless of actions of any branch of the federal government, and there should be robust systems in place to ensure these workers are not pushed beyond reasonable work limits. Fix the system or break the system forcing a fix. If it continues to work "good enough" without a fix, no changes will be made.
This assumes that controllers over 56 years old are statistically "unsafe," presumably due to perceived cognitive speed and ability. So unsafe that the concern overrides experience, familiarity with systems, and other key benefits of tenure. I'd love to see that data.
My understanding is the 56 year old age limit is due to burnout and other accumulated negative risk factors from the profession. You have a shelf life like a professional athlete due to the sustained high cognitive load and stress of the workload. Replies open to additional references and citations.
It would make an interesting reality TV show to have a group of 60-70 year olds attempt to perform a simulated 8 hour ATC shift under "live fire" conditions.
I was trying to show that elderly people probably shouldn't be air traffic controllers by providing an extremely recent example of an elderly person ending the lives of an entire family using a car. I didn't mention that the driver was asian. You did. :)
I'm curious: If your boss emailed you and all of your coworkers with mass buyout offers and demanded that they quit their job how many do you think would take up the offer? 10%? 20%? Do you think it would be enough to cause significant organizational issues?
Problems related to air traffic controllers and TSA staff aren't a sign of "american aviation" being near collapse - they are a sign of american goverment being near collapse. This is critical national infrastructure - stop playing stupid political games with it.
I am amazed every day that people are expected to turn up every day to work while being unpaid. In westminster-style parlimentary systems, if a government can't guarantee supply[1], they are sacked, and a snap election is called.
The paralysis of the political system in the US is either a feature or a bug depending on your point of view i suppose, but no question that it is entirely dysfunctional that a government can continue existing if it can't pass a budget.
This is how Canada works (Westminster style). When a govt tables a budget it goes to a vote, and if they can’t get the votes to pass it it triggers a no-confidence vote in the govt and away we go to an election.
A lot of core services in the US are near collapse, because society focuses on short-term value extraction, over long term success. If you look at the US's history, there was a much better balance between the two (with the core being seen as a lever towards future wealth).
You see this in education, infrastructure, public health, scientific research, housing, and energy. All foundational systems of a society, which compound the value of everything else, but they aren't immediate profit centers so kick the ball down the road.
It is an attitude problem first and foremost; and I'm not sure how you fix that.
PS - This also impacts private enterprise, like corporations. Enshittify their current offerings for the next quarter bump but ruin their brand reputation/long-term viability.
I'd argue more that it's an incentive alignment problem. From the 70s on we changed the way a lot of the incentives work so corporations could more freely capture markets and a lot of Americans were convinced that this would help enrich them as well. All it's done is hollow out our social services and further consolidate wealth in this country. Ironically the people most hurt by these policies are the ones who keep voting for them so until we hit some catalyst inflection point where people can map the policies being enacted onto what's happening in their own lives this cycle will continue. Most Americans seem pretty ready to accept whatever bullshit makes them feel good so the beatings will either continue until morale improves or until everyone feels beaten enough to do something. Seems more likely it's the former than the latter.
> It is an attitude problem first and foremost; and I'm not sure how you fix that.
From a certain perspective, it should be easy: That balance is the norm that has persisted through centuries; the current situation is relativley very new.
I think the important question is, why has this attitude shifted - despite having obviously bad consequences - and how is that shift being sustained?
Quarterly reporting requirements are clearly not the causal factor in short term incentives. All the best performing publicly listed businesses invest on decades long timelines risking billions and tens of billions of dollars.
Simultaneously, plenty of non publicly listed businesses make decisions that benefit in the short term at the expense of the long term.
Reducing quarterly reporting requirements does reduce transparency, however,
I don't think it's as much an 'attitude' problem as it is a 'wealth' problem.
The richest folk in this country have bought out every single media apparatus it can get its hands on and have spread decades of propaganda. The 'philanthropic' billionaire that spent wealth so that they could have a building or initiative named after them have vanished and gave their wealth to the methhead billionaires that rip up the wiring of the country to sell for pennies.
I am flying from SFO -> DEN in a few days and I see that Denver wait time is 4 minutes and, as is well known, SFO does not use TSA or federal security staff.
Denver does, however, so I wonder why there is no wait at DEN and hundreds of minutes at Houston/Atlanta/JFK ?
I’m a frequent flier and flown into all of the above, the ones with TSA issues have been perpetually mismanaged under the best conditions, it’s not even remotely surprising that they are having issues under pressure.
This is not news, there was an episode of Last Week Tonight on the Air Traffic Control crisis last summer[0].
From memory: on the human side airports are understaffed, there are no young controllers in the pipeline, attrition is high, and the less people are available the higher the burnout rate, which creates a vicious cycle. On the technical side, airports are unmaintained, systems are obsolete and crumbling.
John Oliver makes the case that most of the issue is that the FAA is financed through discretionary spending so e.g. it's subject to shut downs and can't do long term planning.
This is largely true for almost all US public services. Decades of focusing on the needs of the 1% is producing a situation where almost everything is under funded or poorly implemented. Critical infrastructure isn't a priority.
The final paragraph is maybe the most relevant. It goes well beyond just aviation. I'm sure we've all felt this.
> The ICE deployment is a particularly extreme example of what the political scientist Steven M. Teles has dubbed “kludgeocracy,” in which the government reaches for short-term, improvised solutions while resisting real reform. “‘Clumsy but temporarily effective,’” Teles has written, “also describes much of American public policy. For any particular problem we have arrived at the most gerry-rigged, opaque and complicated response.” The U.S. aviation system has been held together by such patches for years, but the kludges may finally be failing.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in using immigration to address labor shortages. however, not having an official policy, such a labor visa with clearly defined rules, combined with a stable population of 'illegals' that don't have the same labor protections, is and was not really a fair or sustainable situation.
It's inherently unfair because its used to drive down wages of the lower classes. Outside of highly skilled work that cannot be sourced from within the country that is critical for nation security, the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
> the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
While I don't disagree, and while I firmly believe in UBI (which is the natural conclusion to your logic), without a comprehensive plan in place, just "paying people more" will be a bit of a death spiral since that is a core contributor to inflation on a large scale.
If you look at the massive increase in, for example, CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? "Pay people more" seems to be just fine as long as it's only certain people. Once the wrong kind of people, whose wages have stagnated for decades, want an increase in pay then our entire economy is suddenly at risk. I feel that the main driver behind the inflation we've seen in the last few years has primarily been greed, but nobody seems interested in trying to fight inflation on that front either. Inflation is a problem, but we need a better way to deal with it besides "the average worker still gets paid like it's 1975"
> CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then?
Because it’s economically insignificant. Total CEO pay across the Russell 1000 excluding Musk is in the tens of billions. Paying a few people more isn’t inflationary. (It’s other kinds of problematic.)
There seem to be social consequenes to that sort of income inequality. There are solid arguments for enabling founders to become fabulously wealthy. The argument seems a bit more stretched for managers.
There's no evidence that tight labor markets lead to a inflation death spiral, food in america is supposed to be expensive because America is a wealthy nation. The elites like to dress this up as something that is bad for the lower class but it's quite the opposite, the lower class in wealthy high cost of living, low immigration countries do very well, not that there are many of these countries left.
Agreed. Immigration for a labour shortage is a tale as old as time. Mass migration was very common post WW1/2 Europe. People went where there were jobs and labour shortages.
Policy around this type of thing is important.
My post is more about the general dysfunction and solution schemes we see in some governments. I think having the ICE example might bring about some bots and trolls, though. I don't care for the ICE example, it's just a part of the quote.
The US policy seems pretty clear: Allow companies who employ undocumented workers to benefit and profit from it, while making sure only the individual workers shoulder the criminal and livelihood risks.
Yes, there is a legal scheme in place: you're not allowed to validate the authenticity of provided documentation as a company. If someone is undocumented, they can forge documents and that's completely allowed.
The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states. That's why we get a constant flow of completely ineffective and performative solutions, like ICE.
Just start locking up executives who have employees that are undocumented, and the problem would disappear before your very eyes. But, building a wall is easier, and you can see a wall.
> The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states.
One example of this playing out was when the Florida state senate (Republican supermajority) shot down a bill that would have required businesses to use E-Verify to validate the authenticity of their employees' documentation. https://www.cfpublic.org/politics/2025-05-05/bill-to-expand-...
> Bill Herrle, state executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, said the bill would have made the state’s labor shortage worse and dampened productivity and entrepreneurship in the state. He said his group was relieved that it didn’t pass.
> “When I talk to small business owners now, I’m finding them busy doing a job they’d like to hire someone to do’’ Herrle said. “They’re working the line. They’re working in the kitchen. They’re working the register. And when a small business owner is doing that, guess what they’re not doing? They’re not being an entrepreneur. They’re not spending time trying to find ways to build and grow their business.’’
According to 8 USC 1324, it looks like what you're talking about could quickly land you in prison for up to 5 years. So, it's a scheme maybe, but not a legal one.
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - 8 USC 1324 is related to harboring or bringing an alien. Companies hiring people with what they believe are genuine documents, by reasonable inspection, is perfectly legal. Please note this just means you have to look at them.
The companies are doing this "unknowingly". Of course they're not stupid, they're fully aware they're hiring a lot of undocumented people. But nobody, on record, knows that. To them, all their employees have documents which appear valid. It is pretty easy to forge I-9 documents.
Part of this is because the US has incredibly poor identification infrastructure. Often, not even US citizens can be reliably identified, as seen in commercial banking. The other part is that companies cannot choose to not hire people because they think they are undocumented. You can't hire someone because they're too brown and not American sounding enough.
That's not to say that I think the solution is universal identification or legalization of racism in hiring practices.
Okay, I can see for that one that you might say that you didn't pay them to enter the country and that you didn't help them find a home and so you aren't technically harboring.
But, what about this one?
18 U.S.C. § 1546
This says, "having reason to know." So, you actually don't have to really know, you just have to have reason to know, to be incarcerated. That really seems like I should check, if only to cover my own ass. Like if the picture wasn't clear but you accepted it anyway, you had reason to know? Seems pretty loose for anyone that wants to enforce it.
I'm clearly not an attorney, so if you are, please correct me.
- deregulation of airlines in the 1980s led to rampant consolidation of routes and SPOF hubs that only work for revenue purposes and offer no real resilience in traffic planning. over-subscription of flights and lack of any real competition compounds this issue.
- climate change and global warming increasingly exacerbate severe weather conditions that ground aircraft and incur delays or cancellations in an already fragile system
- reagan-era policy hostile toward air traffic control labor unions that once checked the excesses of capital resulted in understaffing issues for more than two decades later. poor regulation of working hours, outmoded systems, and wage stagnation has further stressed the ATC system.
- the partial government shutdown has caused massive delays and cancellations of flights as the artifice of security theater begins to break down under its own political morass.
the solution is reform and regulation through policy change and investment. this is not possible in late stage capitalism (Streeck, 2016.)
Calling it a perfect storm is too generous. This is deliberately tearing down the floodgates that protect you from the extremely normal and predictable storms.
Just a standard warning to readers: when you use an archive.ph (or other archive.today) link, you risk your computer's resources being used to participate in a DDOS against another web site, as reported/discussed recently on HN[1].
the article repeatedly says that there are decades of neglect, and ICE is not mentioned until the last 2 paragraphs, and only to criticize its use as a temporary kludge, so you did not understand the article.
Your numbers for France don't match anything I can find online.
The number of immigrants per year seems to have been max 340k, about 50% have employment quickly, etc.
You complain about "leftists" but as someone who definitely doesn't want open borders, the general fear in your comment and the numbers that seem made up make your comment read a lot more like (far-) "rightist" stuff.
You are being disingenuous. The article is about the aviation industry as a whole. The article talks about various accidents that have occured in the past few years. What it means for airports, etc.
Then there's a section about the airports and TSA. TSA is currently working without pay due to a shutdown over funding. The issue of contention in this funding bill is ICE. The administration is responding by sending ICE to airports to fulfill TSA functions or not, it's, as always, unclear with this administration.
Uh, they know their audience? I read about the crash on the NY Times. Then I saw that there were comments so I thought to myself what can people have to say about a plane crash where it looks like ATC told the truck to stop? Times readers did not disappoint: Congress and government shutdown, lack of TSA staffing, Trump’s fault, ICE, DOGE…
This is just some claim by a person. I appreciate the context but as far as I can tell no such policy was on the books. The person making the claim has a clear motivated reason for claiming such and its all pretty vague.
It's okay, one claim is all that's needed for this adminstration and the current overton window in the US. The eternal leader himself changes his tune from sentence to sentence - the US has already won, the US needs help, the US was just testing the US has agreed to a ceasefire after discussions with Iran, even when Iran wasn't actually there.
What matters is that the claim was made, and now you have to pretend it is true.
Well, yes, it is. That does not mean that all the problems have been solved by getting rid of those who gained their positions purely based on inalienable characteristics unrelated to job requirements but it does make for a better chance of solving the problems.
Does it? Or does it mean that we got rid of those people who would otherwise likely be rejected due to inalienable characteristics and who could have helped avoid groupthink, leading to an improved chance of solving problems?
No, it does not mean that. Have a look around you and you'll notice plenty of people with those inalienable characteristics in just about all positions you can think of. Some of them will have gained their positions due to preferential treatment or other 'DEI predecessors' but many just happened to have those characteristics while fitting the job profile.
As Thomas Sowell said [1] and says: “Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day.”
You're making a claim about it - twice now - that you haven't actually yet justified by any data. I'm suggesting there are, in fact, alternate explanations.
Well no, you're the one who makes unfounded claims. Show how DEI makes things better, please. Don't start redefining the term, just show how selecting people based on inalienable characteristics instead of competence improves the outcome.
I haven't yet made a single claim. I've asked a question about alternative hypotheses. For instance, that DEI initiatives allow qualified candidates who otherwise would have been overlooked to achieve positions they otherwise might not.
You are asserting that DEI means that unqualified individuals are being put into positions from which they should have been excluded. That is a statement for which you have yet to provide any proof.
Who is talking about skin colour here? I haven't mentioned this term a single time, instead I purposefully use the term inalienable characteristics because that covers more than just skin tone.
You're the one talking about excluding people based on skin colour, not me. That is after all what DEI ends up being: exclude those who are considered to be non-marginalised (in practice white and east-Asian, heterosexual, men) from the pool. Getting rid of DEI removes the inalienable characteristics filter so that everybody is allowed in again to compete on merit. Having a given skin tone is not a badge of merit, having achieved a given level of competence is.
Do you realise that you are the one who is turning this into a question of race and that you are the one who is willing to exclude people based on it? Read that Sowell quote again and realise you're the one he's talking about, whether you're a politico or not.
yes exactly, they hired people by the colour of their skin before, not whether or not they could do their jobs. this is why airplanes have now started falling out of the sky and crashing into stuff on the ground.
People who dedicate their lives to studying an industry, can get very good at being able to predict the probability of events in their domain.
These same people are commonly off by orders of magnitude when predicting the magnitude of these same events.
The author of this article won the "Toner Prize for Excellence in National Political Reporting". I'm going to infer from this, that he's better at political reporting, than he is at predicting the future of an entire industry.
And if he is truly convinced of this outcome, he should be shorting the airlines. (I'm gonna guess he hasn't done that).
no paywall: https://archive.ph/20260323153943/https://www.theatlantic.co...
I'm not saying the article's thesis is wrong, much of it rings true to me, but we have very comprehensive data and statistics concerning air travel so I'm deeply unimpressed by this article instead hanging its argument on a hodgepodge list of incidents instead of digging into the data to get some proper numbers.
We have "proper numbers" for the full range of issues covered in the essay? From airport aesthetics to El Paso being shut down because of lack of coordination around anti-drone testing, or something?
The article is not just about safety, or some other singular topic with clear statistics.
Just because this sentiment will get some cheap upvotes from people who didn't engage with the article doesn't be that the author should have searched for keys under streetlights to provide a false appearance of rigor.
This is an essay from the Atlantic Daily, which is responding, in real time, to the events of the day. It's a minor work of commentary, it is not supposed to be in-depth reporting, and it's bit odd to feel ought to have been a work of investigative reporting, which the Atlantic also does, seperately.
> but we have very comprehensive data and statistics concerning air travel
somehow I feel like conditions may have changed since that data was collected. just a hunch.
Safety / incident data collection and publishing from the FAA and NTSB are basically live, you'll get incidents logged within days at most and preliminary reports usually within a few weeks. What lags the most are data analysis and interpretations, but major newspapers should probably be prepared to do their own data analysis if they're making grand proclaiments like the collapse of an industry...
We have "very comprehensive data and statistics" indicating that US aviation is not nearing collapse? I don't understand what you mean.
He means that anyone making an argument that aviation safety has deteriorated should be using the stats to back it up, instead of anecdotal evidence.
This is a common kind of "data or nothing" fallacy. Data doesn't reliably capture evidence for the thesis "TSA agents and aviation workers are burning out and ICE is going to make it worse". The part that data is good for hasn't happened yet over a long enough timeline to reflect properly.
If the argument is "deadly accidents are up over the past decade", then yes, of course, we must point to data.
If the argument is, "the aviation industry might be on the verge of a steep decline in availability and/or safety due to recent political/financial problems", then what do you mean "show the data"? That doesn't make sense. It's a concern based on observation, which is fine if it's not presented as a fact.
And if it turns out that a specific accident is due to said forces - what, we don't address those forces, because "data"?
I agree, but the article does specifically mention crashes as a symptom we're already seeing:
> Fatal crashes, overstressed controllers, and endless security lines reveal a system teetering on the brink of failure.
I have not read the entire article (paywalled), but the introduction sure seems to strongly imply that we're already seeing an unusually high rate of crashes.
+1 but this is The Atlantic so having a reasonable expectation would keep you sane.
I think they mean they would prefer more rigorous statistical analysis.
"Rigor cleans the window through which intuition shines" - Ellis Cooper
"Collapse" isn't within the statistical distribution though, so you'd still to apply judgement in any case. I suppose it's a word with many definitions.
> "Collapse" isn't within the statistical distribution though
Uh? Maybe you could explain what you mean by this a bit more.
1. It's not a rigorously defined term.
2. "System collapse" would be unexplored territory, so how would statistical analysis be able to infer when it occurs?
1. Not really. If the crash rates we're seeing under the Trump administration are higher than any similar length period in the last ~10 years, we should start to worry.
2. See above.
[dead]
I don't think you can make any statistical argument from accident data from a single year.
Yes, there is universal data out there. But those events are so rare that you almost never can differentiate a normal year from an abnormal one.
You absolutely can see a difference. [0] The term of art is "Runway Incursions", and the stats definitely show our airports are working at the limits of safety.
[0]: https://www.buckycountry.com/2025/09/22/runway-close-calls-u...
That's a 7 years graph, where category A incursions change by 0.7σ, and total incursions are basically horizontal.
What statistical conclusion are you taking from it?
Category A and B incursions increased by 2.8σ. Further, it was 7 years of increases in a row. Either factor on its own would indicate a process out of statistical control.
Well, a tired, overextended air traffic controller at LaGuardia just caused two pilots to die last night while landing. How many deaths would communicate "We have likely reached system failure"? I presume for some, it's going to have to be a few airframes worth of passengers unfortunately. There is a shortage of air traffic controllers. Those working are being pushed to failure. The system as a whole is degrading. These are facts, based on evidence and observations.
There is currently a shortage of ~3k controllers (as of this comment), and the time to train and put new controllers into service is significant. Excess retirements reduces time to system failure due to labor shortages. https://www.faa.gov/air-traffic-controller-qualifications
> Entry-level applicants must complete required training courses and spend several months at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. Applicants are paid while in training. After graduating the academy, individuals are placed in locations across the country and must gain 2-3 years additional training, both classroom and on-the-job experience, before becoming a certified professional controller. This rigorous training includes close supervision and evaluation by senior controllers that ensures controllers are competent, professional, know their airspace environment and can deal with the pressures and high pace of the job.
Controllers in training quit due to a lack of pay whenever a government shutdown occurs. This impairs the talent pipeline to improve system performance anytime a shutdown occurs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/1s1eh14/i_mess...
US air traffic controllers start resigning as shutdown bites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45860865 - November 2025 (365 comments)
Flights to Los Angeles Airport halted due to air traffic controller shortage - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45715771 - October 2025 (11 comments)
> The shutdown is having real consequences, as some students at the controller academy have already decided to abandon the profession because they don’t want to work in a job they won’t be paid for, Duffy said. That will only make it harder for the FAA to hire enough controllers to eliminate the shortage, since training takes years. He said that the government is only a week or two away from running out of money to pay students at the academy.
Air traffic controller shortages cause widespread flight delays amid government shutdown - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/air-traffic-controller-... - November 1st, 2025
> “Currently nearly 50 percent of major air traffic control facilities are experiencing staffing shortages, and nearly 90 percent of air traffic controllers are out at New York–area facilities,” the FAA said in a statement posted on X on Friday evening.
Do you feel lucky?
> How many deaths would communicate "We have likely reached system failure"?
"Failure" is really a matter of opinion rather than some objective tipping point. The air system is unlikely to ever actually "fail", and at worst will just become some arbitrary level of degraded that some people will loudly label "failed".
There are plenty of examples around the world of countries with variously degraded air systems, that are far worse than the US status quo but still are not "failed".
There's Egypt, which has labeled crashes caused by bad design as "someone used a bomb and blew it up" for political reasons: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/07/fire-not-bomb-...
Yemen, in the midst of a perennial civil war, still runs commercial flights: https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/653181-yemenia-expat...
Russia, with airplane parts sacntioned for years, still runs commercial flights.
Even if the US undergoes a USSR-style sudden collapse, the aviation system is not going to "fail" in the sense of completely breaking and stopping.
>Yemen, in the midst of a perennial civil war, still runs commercial flights
Not any more, they don't:
> The General Director of Sanaa International Airport, Khaled al-Shaief, said in a post on his X account that the strike had completely destroyed the last of the civilian planes that Yemenia Airways was operating from the airport.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-it-has...
That's just from Sanaa. There are still flights to/from other cities in Yemen, mainly Socotra and Aden.
Note also that they deliberately choke off the hiring funnel before they even get applicants, and deliberately dispose of experienced controllers. Air traffic controller applicants must be under 31 years old for initial hire. The mandatory retirement age is 56. Although there are limited exceptions to both rules.
Those age limits should apply to all political offices
Air traffic controllers require a significant investment by the federal government, I take no issue with age limits for both investment (lower bound) and safety reasons (upper bound) (if the data says it is reasonable, I'll always defer to the data).
I take exceptional issue with the fact that their pay is not considered essential. There should be no way for this critical infrastructure to be not considered essential. ATC pay should flow regardless of actions of any branch of the federal government, and there should be robust systems in place to ensure these workers are not pushed beyond reasonable work limits. Fix the system or break the system forcing a fix. If it continues to work "good enough" without a fix, no changes will be made.
This assumes that controllers over 56 years old are statistically "unsafe," presumably due to perceived cognitive speed and ability. So unsafe that the concern overrides experience, familiarity with systems, and other key benefits of tenure. I'd love to see that data.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/58231
My understanding is the 56 year old age limit is due to burnout and other accumulated negative risk factors from the profession. You have a shelf life like a professional athlete due to the sustained high cognitive load and stress of the workload. Replies open to additional references and citations.
It would make an interesting reality TV show to have a group of 60-70 year olds attempt to perform a simulated 8 hour ATC shift under "live fire" conditions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260323212332/https://www.crisi...
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/media/Fatigue_Report.pdf
https://news.siu.edu/2025/07/072225-siu-research-focuses-on-...
An elderly woman ran into a bus stop at 70mph, killing 4 people. Their claim was “I couldn’t stop, I don’t know what happened”
They were given 200 hours community service. I think this happened today.
Why you got to pick an asian woman as your example though?
I was trying to show that elderly people probably shouldn't be air traffic controllers by providing an extremely recent example of an elderly person ending the lives of an entire family using a car. I didn't mention that the driver was asian. You did. :)
78 years old at the time, now 80, sentenced to probation.
https://people.com/family-four-killed-bus-stop-outrage-drive...
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/news/sfpd-arrests-driver-...
(SFPD Case #240-160-569)
Also, their pay comes from a fund filled by airport fees, not the general budget.
Additional citation:
LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47503965 - March 2026
[dead]
I'm curious: If your boss emailed you and all of your coworkers with mass buyout offers and demanded that they quit their job how many do you think would take up the offer? 10%? 20%? Do you think it would be enough to cause significant organizational issues?
Problems related to air traffic controllers and TSA staff aren't a sign of "american aviation" being near collapse - they are a sign of american goverment being near collapse. This is critical national infrastructure - stop playing stupid political games with it.
I am amazed every day that people are expected to turn up every day to work while being unpaid. In westminster-style parlimentary systems, if a government can't guarantee supply[1], they are sacked, and a snap election is called.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_supply
The paralysis of the political system in the US is either a feature or a bug depending on your point of view i suppose, but no question that it is entirely dysfunctional that a government can continue existing if it can't pass a budget.
This is how Canada works (Westminster style). When a govt tables a budget it goes to a vote, and if they can’t get the votes to pass it it triggers a no-confidence vote in the govt and away we go to an election.
A lot of core services in the US are near collapse, because society focuses on short-term value extraction, over long term success. If you look at the US's history, there was a much better balance between the two (with the core being seen as a lever towards future wealth).
You see this in education, infrastructure, public health, scientific research, housing, and energy. All foundational systems of a society, which compound the value of everything else, but they aren't immediate profit centers so kick the ball down the road.
It is an attitude problem first and foremost; and I'm not sure how you fix that.
PS - This also impacts private enterprise, like corporations. Enshittify their current offerings for the next quarter bump but ruin their brand reputation/long-term viability.
I'd argue more that it's an incentive alignment problem. From the 70s on we changed the way a lot of the incentives work so corporations could more freely capture markets and a lot of Americans were convinced that this would help enrich them as well. All it's done is hollow out our social services and further consolidate wealth in this country. Ironically the people most hurt by these policies are the ones who keep voting for them so until we hit some catalyst inflection point where people can map the policies being enacted onto what's happening in their own lives this cycle will continue. Most Americans seem pretty ready to accept whatever bullshit makes them feel good so the beatings will either continue until morale improves or until everyone feels beaten enough to do something. Seems more likely it's the former than the latter.
> It is an attitude problem first and foremost; and I'm not sure how you fix that.
From a certain perspective, it should be easy: That balance is the norm that has persisted through centuries; the current situation is relativley very new.
I think the important question is, why has this attitude shifted - despite having obviously bad consequences - and how is that shift being sustained?
Through the right incentives, like repealing quarterly reporting requirements. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-sec-preparing-el...
Quarterly reporting requirements are clearly not the causal factor in short term incentives. All the best performing publicly listed businesses invest on decades long timelines risking billions and tens of billions of dollars.
Simultaneously, plenty of non publicly listed businesses make decisions that benefit in the short term at the expense of the long term.
Reducing quarterly reporting requirements does reduce transparency, however,
I don't think it's as much an 'attitude' problem as it is a 'wealth' problem.
The richest folk in this country have bought out every single media apparatus it can get its hands on and have spread decades of propaganda. The 'philanthropic' billionaire that spent wealth so that they could have a building or initiative named after them have vanished and gave their wealth to the methhead billionaires that rip up the wiring of the country to sell for pennies.
It can't be fixed because America is not a nation state.
I am flying from SFO -> DEN in a few days and I see that Denver wait time is 4 minutes and, as is well known, SFO does not use TSA or federal security staff.
Denver does, however, so I wonder why there is no wait at DEN and hundreds of minutes at Houston/Atlanta/JFK ?
I’m a frequent flier and flown into all of the above, the ones with TSA issues have been perpetually mismanaged under the best conditions, it’s not even remotely surprising that they are having issues under pressure.
This is not news, there was an episode of Last Week Tonight on the Air Traffic Control crisis last summer[0].
From memory: on the human side airports are understaffed, there are no young controllers in the pipeline, attrition is high, and the less people are available the higher the burnout rate, which creates a vicious cycle. On the technical side, airports are unmaintained, systems are obsolete and crumbling.
John Oliver makes the case that most of the issue is that the FAA is financed through discretionary spending so e.g. it's subject to shut downs and can't do long term planning.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeABJbvcJ_k
This is largely true for almost all US public services. Decades of focusing on the needs of the 1% is producing a situation where almost everything is under funded or poorly implemented. Critical infrastructure isn't a priority.
The final paragraph is maybe the most relevant. It goes well beyond just aviation. I'm sure we've all felt this.
> The ICE deployment is a particularly extreme example of what the political scientist Steven M. Teles has dubbed “kludgeocracy,” in which the government reaches for short-term, improvised solutions while resisting real reform. “‘Clumsy but temporarily effective,’” Teles has written, “also describes much of American public policy. For any particular problem we have arrived at the most gerry-rigged, opaque and complicated response.” The U.S. aviation system has been held together by such patches for years, but the kludges may finally be failing.
Yes, that's how I would describe using immigration to address labor shortages
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in using immigration to address labor shortages. however, not having an official policy, such a labor visa with clearly defined rules, combined with a stable population of 'illegals' that don't have the same labor protections, is and was not really a fair or sustainable situation.
It's inherently unfair because its used to drive down wages of the lower classes. Outside of highly skilled work that cannot be sourced from within the country that is critical for nation security, the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
> the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
While I don't disagree, and while I firmly believe in UBI (which is the natural conclusion to your logic), without a comprehensive plan in place, just "paying people more" will be a bit of a death spiral since that is a core contributor to inflation on a large scale.
If you look at the massive increase in, for example, CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? "Pay people more" seems to be just fine as long as it's only certain people. Once the wrong kind of people, whose wages have stagnated for decades, want an increase in pay then our entire economy is suddenly at risk. I feel that the main driver behind the inflation we've seen in the last few years has primarily been greed, but nobody seems interested in trying to fight inflation on that front either. Inflation is a problem, but we need a better way to deal with it besides "the average worker still gets paid like it's 1975"
> CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then?
Because it’s economically insignificant. Total CEO pay across the Russell 1000 excluding Musk is in the tens of billions. Paying a few people more isn’t inflationary. (It’s other kinds of problematic.)
What other kinds of problematic is it?
> What other kinds of problematic is it?
There seem to be social consequenes to that sort of income inequality. There are solid arguments for enabling founders to become fabulously wealthy. The argument seems a bit more stretched for managers.
There's no evidence that tight labor markets lead to a inflation death spiral, food in america is supposed to be expensive because America is a wealthy nation. The elites like to dress this up as something that is bad for the lower class but it's quite the opposite, the lower class in wealthy high cost of living, low immigration countries do very well, not that there are many of these countries left.
Agreed. Immigration for a labour shortage is a tale as old as time. Mass migration was very common post WW1/2 Europe. People went where there were jobs and labour shortages.
Policy around this type of thing is important.
My post is more about the general dysfunction and solution schemes we see in some governments. I think having the ICE example might bring about some bots and trolls, though. I don't care for the ICE example, it's just a part of the quote.
The US policy seems pretty clear: Allow companies who employ undocumented workers to benefit and profit from it, while making sure only the individual workers shoulder the criminal and livelihood risks.
I thought the policy is that you can't hire without documentation. Do you mean that there is a scheme in place, outside of the legal framework?
Yes, there is a legal scheme in place: you're not allowed to validate the authenticity of provided documentation as a company. If someone is undocumented, they can forge documents and that's completely allowed.
The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states. That's why we get a constant flow of completely ineffective and performative solutions, like ICE.
Just start locking up executives who have employees that are undocumented, and the problem would disappear before your very eyes. But, building a wall is easier, and you can see a wall.
> The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states.
One example of this playing out was when the Florida state senate (Republican supermajority) shot down a bill that would have required businesses to use E-Verify to validate the authenticity of their employees' documentation. https://www.cfpublic.org/politics/2025-05-05/bill-to-expand-...
> Bill Herrle, state executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, said the bill would have made the state’s labor shortage worse and dampened productivity and entrepreneurship in the state. He said his group was relieved that it didn’t pass.
> “When I talk to small business owners now, I’m finding them busy doing a job they’d like to hire someone to do’’ Herrle said. “They’re working the line. They’re working in the kitchen. They’re working the register. And when a small business owner is doing that, guess what they’re not doing? They’re not being an entrepreneur. They’re not spending time trying to find ways to build and grow their business.’’
According to 8 USC 1324, it looks like what you're talking about could quickly land you in prison for up to 5 years. So, it's a scheme maybe, but not a legal one.
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - 8 USC 1324 is related to harboring or bringing an alien. Companies hiring people with what they believe are genuine documents, by reasonable inspection, is perfectly legal. Please note this just means you have to look at them.
The companies are doing this "unknowingly". Of course they're not stupid, they're fully aware they're hiring a lot of undocumented people. But nobody, on record, knows that. To them, all their employees have documents which appear valid. It is pretty easy to forge I-9 documents.
Part of this is because the US has incredibly poor identification infrastructure. Often, not even US citizens can be reliably identified, as seen in commercial banking. The other part is that companies cannot choose to not hire people because they think they are undocumented. You can't hire someone because they're too brown and not American sounding enough.
That's not to say that I think the solution is universal identification or legalization of racism in hiring practices.
Okay, I can see for that one that you might say that you didn't pay them to enter the country and that you didn't help them find a home and so you aren't technically harboring.
But, what about this one?
18 U.S.C. § 1546
This says, "having reason to know." So, you actually don't have to really know, you just have to have reason to know, to be incarcerated. That really seems like I should check, if only to cover my own ass. Like if the picture wasn't clear but you accepted it anyway, you had reason to know? Seems pretty loose for anyone that wants to enforce it.
I'm clearly not an attorney, so if you are, please correct me.
There's written policy and then there's policy as-enforced.
Describes problem-solving in every company I've worked at as well.
Clumsy solutions for short term political wins, you say?
So like instead of hiring by merit doing it via DEI?
it is a perfect storm:
- deregulation of airlines in the 1980s led to rampant consolidation of routes and SPOF hubs that only work for revenue purposes and offer no real resilience in traffic planning. over-subscription of flights and lack of any real competition compounds this issue.
- climate change and global warming increasingly exacerbate severe weather conditions that ground aircraft and incur delays or cancellations in an already fragile system
- reagan-era policy hostile toward air traffic control labor unions that once checked the excesses of capital resulted in understaffing issues for more than two decades later. poor regulation of working hours, outmoded systems, and wage stagnation has further stressed the ATC system.
- the partial government shutdown has caused massive delays and cancellations of flights as the artifice of security theater begins to break down under its own political morass.
the solution is reform and regulation through policy change and investment. this is not possible in late stage capitalism (Streeck, 2016.)
Calling it a perfect storm is too generous. This is deliberately tearing down the floodgates that protect you from the extremely normal and predictable storms.
>" A careful, iterative process of safety regulation culminated in a 16-year period, from 2009 to 2025, when no U.S. airline had a fatal crash."
This is quite amazing
[flagged]
[flagged]
Just a standard warning to readers: when you use an archive.ph (or other archive.today) link, you risk your computer's resources being used to participate in a DDOS against another web site, as reported/discussed recently on HN[1].
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...
Got a link to the entry?
Updated my reply with the initial story, but there have been followups on HN.
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
the article repeatedly says that there are decades of neglect, and ICE is not mentioned until the last 2 paragraphs, and only to criticize its use as a temporary kludge, so you did not understand the article.
The article is clearly not "about" ICE. One paragraph talks about the ICE deployment
Your numbers for France don't match anything I can find online.
The number of immigrants per year seems to have been max 340k, about 50% have employment quickly, etc.
You complain about "leftists" but as someone who definitely doesn't want open borders, the general fear in your comment and the numbers that seem made up make your comment read a lot more like (far-) "rightist" stuff.
You are being disingenuous. The article is about the aviation industry as a whole. The article talks about various accidents that have occured in the past few years. What it means for airports, etc.
Then there's a section about the airports and TSA. TSA is currently working without pay due to a shutdown over funding. The issue of contention in this funding bill is ICE. The administration is responding by sending ICE to airports to fulfill TSA functions or not, it's, as always, unclear with this administration.
The article has 10 paragraphs. 3 mention ICE.
It is the Atlantic, surprised Elon Musk didn't catch some strays in this piece.
Uh, they know their audience? I read about the crash on the NY Times. Then I saw that there were comments so I thought to myself what can people have to say about a plane crash where it looks like ATC told the truck to stop? Times readers did not disappoint: Congress and government shutdown, lack of TSA staffing, Trump’s fault, ICE, DOGE…
[flagged]
It’s a good thing new hires don’t have to wait or be rejected because the FAA needed to hire a different race or sex for the position.
The FAA never had any such policies as far as I can tell.
This will get downvoted from the mindless reactionaries here but here’s the link to the practice. https://nypost.com/2025/02/10/us-news/air-traffic-controller...
This is just some claim by a person. I appreciate the context but as far as I can tell no such policy was on the books. The person making the claim has a clear motivated reason for claiming such and its all pretty vague.
It's okay, one claim is all that's needed for this adminstration and the current overton window in the US. The eternal leader himself changes his tune from sentence to sentence - the US has already won, the US needs help, the US was just testing the US has agreed to a ceasefire after discussions with Iran, even when Iran wasn't actually there.
What matters is that the claim was made, and now you have to pretend it is true.
Well, yes, it is. That does not mean that all the problems have been solved by getting rid of those who gained their positions purely based on inalienable characteristics unrelated to job requirements but it does make for a better chance of solving the problems.
Does it? Or does it mean that we got rid of those people who would otherwise likely be rejected due to inalienable characteristics and who could have helped avoid groupthink, leading to an improved chance of solving problems?
No, it does not mean that. Have a look around you and you'll notice plenty of people with those inalienable characteristics in just about all positions you can think of. Some of them will have gained their positions due to preferential treatment or other 'DEI predecessors' but many just happened to have those characteristics while fitting the job profile.
As Thomas Sowell said [1] and says: “Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day.”
[1] https://sowell.org/quotes?page=3
You're making a claim about it - twice now - that you haven't actually yet justified by any data. I'm suggesting there are, in fact, alternate explanations.
Well no, you're the one who makes unfounded claims. Show how DEI makes things better, please. Don't start redefining the term, just show how selecting people based on inalienable characteristics instead of competence improves the outcome.
I haven't yet made a single claim. I've asked a question about alternative hypotheses. For instance, that DEI initiatives allow qualified candidates who otherwise would have been overlooked to achieve positions they otherwise might not.
You are asserting that DEI means that unqualified individuals are being put into positions from which they should have been excluded. That is a statement for which you have yet to provide any proof.
you need to show how excluding people on the basis of skin colour makes things better.
Who is talking about skin colour here? I haven't mentioned this term a single time, instead I purposefully use the term inalienable characteristics because that covers more than just skin tone.
You're the one talking about excluding people based on skin colour, not me. That is after all what DEI ends up being: exclude those who are considered to be non-marginalised (in practice white and east-Asian, heterosexual, men) from the pool. Getting rid of DEI removes the inalienable characteristics filter so that everybody is allowed in again to compete on merit. Having a given skin tone is not a badge of merit, having achieved a given level of competence is.
Do you realise that you are the one who is turning this into a question of race and that you are the one who is willing to exclude people based on it? Read that Sowell quote again and realise you're the one he's talking about, whether you're a politico or not.
Oh yes, racial equality has famously been achieved in the US...
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
Read that book. If it is too long read a summary [1]. Learn.
No, it has not. Neither does it make sense to reduce the level of equality, hence the need to get rid of DEI and similar constructs.
[1] https://literarydevices.net/animal-farm/
yes exactly, they hired people by the colour of their skin before, not whether or not they could do their jobs. this is why airplanes have now started falling out of the sky and crashing into stuff on the ground.
[flagged]
[flagged]
People who dedicate their lives to studying an industry, can get very good at being able to predict the probability of events in their domain.
These same people are commonly off by orders of magnitude when predicting the magnitude of these same events.
The author of this article won the "Toner Prize for Excellence in National Political Reporting". I'm going to infer from this, that he's better at political reporting, than he is at predicting the future of an entire industry.
And if he is truly convinced of this outcome, he should be shorting the airlines. (I'm gonna guess he hasn't done that).
(edit: syntax)