| ▲ | armcat 5 hours ago |
| More info on AP [1]. Looks like a comms issue. The figures they quoted for the overhaul are absolutely insane - almost $45 billion (I used to work in telecom): > "The government has been working to overhaul the outdated technology that air traffic controllers rely on since Congress approved $12.5 billion for the project last year." > "Duffy has said that another $30 billion will be needed to complete the work, and the White House has begun lobbying Congress to approve it." [1] https://apnews.com/article/flights-halted-airports-faa-f81b0... |
|
| ▲ | greggsy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| What is the cost of grounding all flights across the USA for one day? |
| |
| ▲ | LPisGood 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’ve seen figures that estimate the aviation industry to provide about $1.5 trillion worth of GDP for America, so 4-5 billion dollars. Feel free to double that for the cost of dealing with unexpected disruptions and loss of institutional trust. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Assuming the GDP is lost completely and not at least partially made up by increasing number of flights on other days. | | |
| ▲ | starttoaster 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It probably is at least partially made up. But I don't know about you, but my flights for the last year or two have all been booked up for every seat. And I'm not sure carriers just have a bunch of planes sitting around not making money. Or a bunch of crew sitting around not making money. |
| |
| ▲ | pvab3 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All of the AI money discussions have broken me for being surprised by large amounts of money. The frontier companies spend that in what, 5 minutes? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | davedx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's because air traffic control systems in the US haven't been significantly upgraded in like a century. Keep kicking the can it will get more and more expensive |
| |
| ▲ | tzs 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wouldn't that have been taken into account when the $12.5 billion was allocated? Or was the $12.5 billion just meant to be the first allocation and they knew substantially more would be need later? | |
| ▲ | ncruces 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A century? Since 1926? The FAA was created in 1958. | |
| ▲ | TZubiri 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm hearing some discourse about "outdated infrastructure" and increasing investment because most systems are analog and not digital. However, this failure mode seems more likely to be caused by digital communication systems and an 'upgrade' (with commercial incentives) to newer technology. My bet is that if short-wave radio transmission keeps being used, availability will be higher than stuff like Github. | |
| ▲ | einrealist 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The DOGE/OMB rampage didn't help either. |
|
|
| ▲ | chasd00 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Never let a crisis goto waste. Someone screws up and the first reaction is to say “we need more money” |
| |
| ▲ | thaumaturgy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Snark aside, this is actual advice in Crisis Engineering by Nitze, Weaver, and Dickerson, and largely matches my experiences as well. You can harp on and on and on at upper management about why budget or attention needs to be allocated to take care of something before it blows up into a much bigger problem, but they'll never move on it -- until it actually does blow up, and then suddenly you've got nearly a blank check to do whatever's necessary to make sure it never happens again. If you don't take full advantage of that, you're missing out on possibly your only opportunity ever to fix whatever's needed fixing for years. | | |
| ▲ | sfink 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That makes sense, and yet... If things blow up because you're upgrading to something supposedly better and it goes wrong, then that's not a time when you can properly fix the new thing. You can only push forward with the transition or go back to the old. I disagree with "you've got nearly a blank check to do whatever's necessary to make sure it never happens again." You have a blank check, but anything you use it for has to be scoped within stopping the bleeding. As soon as you're onto the new or back to the old, the check expires and you likely can't touch anything real anymore because it'll be involved in lawsuits and finger-pointing. I don't disagree with the core message, but I think it plays out differently for a major upgrade vs a production meltdown on an existing system. With mostly an existing system, you can pour effort into resilience. With an upgrade, I doubt people would let you beef up a system that is still on the chopping block, even if it's getting a life extension. And if you're still switching to the new system, all effort is going to go into getting it up and running and anything that gets in the way of that (as quality improvements are likely to) is going to face some serious resistance. The check is not truly blank. | |
| ▲ | asdfman123 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Funnily enough this also works at a personal level, as in, within yourself. You can spend years working on a problem but if you have a catastrophic failure in your personal life, you can use that to change dramatically with far less internal resistance. |
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > first reaction The FAA et al. have been working to modernize US ATC since ~2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Transporta... The next step is a ton of hardware upgrading, which always costs real money. | | |
| ▲ | intrasight 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > working to modernize US ATC since ~2003 I was working on upgrading US ATC in 1995. As were lots and lots of other people. |
| |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When the system is held together with chewing gum and 1980s-era software, when it fails, "someone screws up" is not a fair reaction. Of course it fails! The wonder is that it still mostly works. | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The wonder is that it still mostly works. A lot of very hardworking people getting too little pay for something so critical while their employers (some contracting company) take a lot of profit. Eventually they burn out waiting for help and a replacement system and retire or quit, then the systems really start failing because the knowledge leaves with them. |
| |
| ▲ | kulahan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Should probably have waited 48 hours for the news cycle to move on and ensure absolutely nobody knows the money is needed | |
| ▲ | sailfast 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They asked for the money before the crisis which makes the timing even MORE conspiracy coded somehow |
|
|
| ▲ | vulture916 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Hold on, let me fire up Claude… |