Post #36992 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 4

Controllers were already understaffed, so that problem would get more acute.

Right. That's what I was trying to figure out. We know they're understaffed, but so far (present tragedy excepted) it has generally been possible to operate a functioning air traffic system even with the understaffing.

If we lost some outrageous number of controllers - say 70% - the system would break down. I assume that if we lost a less outrageous but still large number of controllers - say 40% - the system would also break under the strain.

I was just wondering if the number that the OPM expects for uptake on retirement - closer to 10% - would pose a similar systemic problem for air traffic control, or if that's still small enough that they can make it work without major consequence (again, present tragedy excepted).

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.