 |
|
|
|||||
Flight reductions at 40 major U.S. airports will remain at 6% instead of rising to 10% by the end of the week because more air traffic controllers are coming to work, officials said Wednesday.The announcement was made as Congress took steps to end the longest government shutdown in history. Not long after, President Donald Trump signed a government funding bill to end the closure.The flight cuts were implemented last week as more air traffic controllers were calling out of work, citing stress and the need to take on second jobs leaving more control towers and facilities short-staffed. Air traffic controllers missed two paychecks during the impasse.The Department of Transportation said the flight reduction decision was made on recommendations from the Federal Aviation Administration’s safety team, after a “rapid decline” in controller callouts.The 6% limit will stay in place while officials assess whether the air traffic system can safely return to normal operations, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said, although he did not provide a timeline Wednesday.“If the FAA safety team determines the trend lines are moving in the right direction, we’ll put forward a path to resume normal operations,” Duffy said in a statement.Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said Wednesday that safety remains their top priority and that all decisions will be guided by data.Delta struck an optimistic note about how much longer flight reductions would continue, saying in a statement the airline looked forward to bringing its “operation back to full capacity over the next few days.”Since the restrictions took effect last Friday, more than 10,100 flights have been canceled, according to the flight tracking site FlightAware. The FAA originally planned to ramp up flight cuts from 4% to 10% at the 40 airports.The FAA said that worrisome safety data showed flight reductions were needed to ease pressure on the aviation system and help manage worsening staffing shortages at its air traffic control facilities as flight disruptions began to pile up.Duffy has declined to share the specific safety data that prompted the flight cuts. But at a news conference Tuesday at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, he cited reports of planes getting too close in the air, more runway incursions and pilot concerns about controllers’ responses.The FAA’s list of 40 airports spans more than two dozen states and includes large hubs such as New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles and Chicago. The order requires all commercial airlines to make cuts at those airports.Airlines for America, the trade group of U.S. airlines, posted on social media that it was grateful for the funding bill. It said reopening the government would allow U.S. airlines to restore operations ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday which is in about two weeks.How long it will take for the aviation system to stabilize is unclear. The flight restrictions upended airline operations in just a matter of days. Many planes were rerouted and aren’t where they’re supposed to be. Airlines for America said earlier Wednesday that there would be residual effects for days.Eric Chaffee, a Case Western Reserve professor who studies risk management, says airlines face complex hurdles, including rebuilding flight schedules that were planned months in advance.Airline and hotel trade groups had earlier Wednesday urged the House to act quickly to end the shutdown, warning of potential holiday travel chaos.Flight cuts disrupted other flights and crews, leading to more cancelations than the FAA required at first. The impact was worsened by unexpected controller shortages over the weekend and severe weather.The CEO of the U.S. Travel Association said essential federal workers like air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration workers must be paid if “Congress ever goes down this foolish path again” and there is a shutdown.“America cannot afford another self-inflicted crisis that threatens the systems millions rely on every day,” Geoff Freeman said in a statement. Associated Press writer Audrey McAvoy contributed to this report. Rio Yamat, AP Airlines and Travel Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
Forty-three days later, the U.S. government shutdown has come to an end. While it wreaked havoc on government services, flights, and paychecks for federal workers, stock market appears to have come through it unscathed. In fact, by some measures, it improved. The Dow Jones Industrial Average reached 46,441.10 on the first day of the shutdown. Since October 1, it has grown over 4%, reaching over 48,000 for the first time on Wednesday, November 12. While the record number came as the shutdowns end became a sure thing, the Dow had continued to rise throughout the period. The S&P 500 also followed a mostly upward trajectory throughout the shutdown. It opened at 6,664.92 on October 1 and closed at 6,850.92 on Wednesday. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite also grew about 4% during the shutdown period, even despite concerns of an AI bubble that had dinged shares of major tech companies like Nvidia and Palantir earlier this month. How do government shutdowns typically impact stock markets? Historically, shutdowns have not had a significant effect on the markets. Government shutdowns tend to be high profile though low-impact market events, Truist, a financial company, reported ahead ahead of the most recent shutdown. In the previous 20 shutdowns, there has been almost no change, on average, for the S&P 500, while it has been in positive territory 50% of the time during the shutdown period. As the shutdown began, Bloomberg shared data demonstrating the S&P 500s seemingly unrelated growth and decline during shutdowns. It further reported on the impact of what some experts see as a 16-year-long bull run in U.S. markets. Both Bloomberg and, more recently, MarketWatch point to historically elevated stocks that have created what many see as inflated valuations for quite a few companies, including many in the tech industry.
Category:
E-Commerce
As electric bills keep soaring, Trump has tried to blame clean energy for the higher prices. But new research suggests the public isnt buying itand that clean energy could soon own the affordability argument. A new briefing from the nonprofit Potential Energy Coalition looks at how to talk about clean energy in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, when some advocates have suggested talking less about climate change as a reason to move away from fossil fuels. Renewable energy is, however, the cheapest form of powerand many people recognize this. In a survey of more than 15,000 Americans, the nonprofit found that 38% already recognize that clean energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. Another 15% think that they cost the same, while 20% say that they dont know. Fewer than a third think that fossil-fueled power has a cost advantage. (When asked an open-ended question about whats causing the surge in energy bills, only 2% mentioned clean energy; the majority blamed corporate greed and politics, followed by weather and inflation.) Cost-of-living concerns are viewed by many elites as an obstacle to talking about clean energyas a reason to run away or change the topic,” says Will Howard, head of insights and advisory services at Potential Energy Coalition. “But the reality is, shying away from the topic is the last thing we should do. Plenty of people already see the cost benefits of clean energyand with the right message, many more do, too. The group tested various messages, including one that talked about rising demand for energy and the fact that clean sources are the most affordable way to get it. After seeing that message, the belief that clean energy is cheaper than fossil fuels jumped up by 27 points. Our messaging in the test was able to significantly increase the perception, which I think speaks to the fact that while there may historically be a green premium that people perceive, a really large amount of this is pretty movable, says Howard. People don’t come to this with a really firm understanding or a high level of confidence of their own understanding of the issue, and it’s fairly malleable. If you show them the right message, they can actually shift the way they’re thinking about these energy sources and the costs associated with them. The nonprofit also tested messages about climate. Since Trumps election, both business and politicians have moved away from talking about climate change. Some climate startups quickly pivoted to rebrand their products as focused on national security. A recent Searchlight Institute report suggested that the first rule in solving climate change is “don’t say climate change.” But Potential Energy Coalition’s research suggests that climate messages were equally effective, and respondents in their surveys were still as concerned about climate as they had been in the past. “If you’re looking at how much did you persuade people to take action on climate, or how much did you persuade people to transition to clean energythose two metrics specificallya message about the urgent consequences of climate change is just as effective or more effective than talking about affordability,” says Howard. The research suggests climate advocates should weave in key attributes that resonated in the tests, including the fact that clean energy is local, unlimited, and proven. One mistake, Howard says, is that some messages talk about clean energy as new or innovativesolar and wind power have been around for decades. “There’s a price tag that comes with being new, and it’s [also] the opposite of proven,” he says. “What we saw in the testing is that being provenwe’ve been trying to do solar for 50 years or moreand the fact that prices have come down so much over the last 25 years on these clean energy sources, is actually much more reassuring and drives affordability perception much more.” Another challenge is that people sometimes balk at the idea of building new infrastructure because of the upfront costs. But because of the surge in demand for new power, the choice isn’t between building renewables or just leaving fossil plants in placeit’s building renewables or adding more fossil fuels that have volatile, increasing costs. “The first step is getting them out of that binary and leveling the playing field of like, okay, hold on, we have to build something. So what should we build?” he says. The nonprofit, founded by a former corporate marketing executive who wanted to help tackle the problem of climate change, sees clean energy as a brandnot in the traditional sense of a company’s brand, in the sense that the phrase “clean energy” evokes a certain feeling and a shared public understanding. That brand is strong, Howard says. “The clean energy brand is better than we think, and it’s easy to strengthen it further if we’re disciplined about emphasizing the right attributes,” he says. “Specifically, not being afraid to position clean energy as the cheaper, better choice because it’s local, an unlimited resource, and a proven technology.”
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||