It does quiet down eventually. There's no scheduled departures 22:55-5:45 and only a handful of arrivals 23:59-6:45.
However, arrivals stay pretty heavy right up until 23:59 even on schedule and if you've got a lot of delayed flights (not exactly uncommon at LGA) - you may still have a lot of departures going out in the 23:00 hour.
I would not be surprised to learn that they're staffed to an appropriate level for what the schedule says is supposed to be operating at that time, but a very inadequate level for what actually winds up operating at that time on many days.
Initial analysis suggests they were running about 75% of full capacity in flight ops in the 15min prior to the accident. I doubt they were staffed to 75% of the daytime peak.
An obvious issue is going to be that while it's supposed to be a lower-traffic time, if you've had delays cascading down the day - it may not be in reality. If the staffing doesn't adjust for delays shifting the time of flights, it would probably often leave you with an overworked controller.
Looking at the normal schedules - if all is on schedule there'd be no departures in the 23:00 hour but you'd still have the arrivals side running pretty heavily. However, once you factor in things not being on schedule, as they evidently were not on that night, you get:
----------
The 15min before the accident had 14 flight operations (per Juan Browne/blancolirio going through the ADSB playback). And that's in marginal weather and at night, which makes things more complicated.
That is 75% of the official maximum capacity of the airport - during the main part of the day where there's government-imposed caps on flights, it's capped at 74 operations per hour or about 18.5 per 15min.
As such, it seems apparent that you would need just as much staffing (or at least 75% as much) at that time to safely handle the traffic volume that was occurring that night as you did in the main part of the day.
Unless the normal staffing here was just 2 people, it seems clear that 1 is inadequate.
As is commonly commented on by cartoonists: In plenty of places driving consistently within the lines might be the actual sign you're drunk. Because the roads/potholes are bad enough that you shouldn't be, if you value your suspension.
I live in a northern state so I certainly have experience with potholes, but I've never seen a road so bad that it would cause a false positive like that.
Our local dying mall though? Phew. It amazes me whoever owns the mall doesn't at least go out there with some asphalt themselves.
I mean, there's a well-documented link between colon cancer and inadequate fiber intake.
And it's also well-documented that the average Western diet is highly deficient in fiber and that this is a thing which has gotten much worse in the last 75 years.
There also seems to be at least some light evidence that there may be generational effects - that the starting point of your gut is already bad if your mother's was.
Ireland hasn't mined any coal in 35 years, this plant was not operating on domestic resources to begin with.
Anyway your actual problem are data center buildouts that are causing demand to skyrocket. They've gone from 5% of your electrical demand to >20% in less than a decade, and are the primary cause of your electricity crunch.
And even when we did mine coal, it was a small amount, and this plant never received any of it. It was designed from the start to run on imported coal, brought in on ships, and did not even have a rail connection.
I assume that this means you're sending out rejections that include a mention of "we've hired someone else for this role".
If your hiring model is hiring multiple people through one posting, then you will probably get a lot fewer angry ex-candidates being weird (because they think you've lied to them since the posting is still up) by just sending out rejections that don't say that and just get the "we're no longer interested in you for this role" message across.
Nicer/more corporate language for both, of course.
The Biden admin did try to make large-scale investments in renewables and policy changes to encourage the energy transition in the US. The situation at the end of the admin was far better than when it started.
Why are you using a tone that implies that's not the case?
Literally just got back from a trip there and didn't find a single business or transaction that I couldn't pay for with various US-issued (Chase + BoA) Visa credit cards via tap.
Even more surprisingly to me - a pretty decent chunk of businesses even would accept AmEx. By no means all, but I recall it being basically nonexistent not that long ago.
And to be clear - much of my time was not in areas that get a ton of foreign tourist visitors.
Not saying your experience didn't happen, but given our very different experiences it might be something with your particular bank/issuer/card?
My experience matches yours. I found AmEx accepted maybe 50% of the time, if not less. But Visa or MasterCard were accepted 99% of the time, both big and small businesses.
I suspect you're right: it depends on the specific card/bank, not whether it's credit or debit.
Most Americans with the means to travel also have access to credit cards with no foreign transaction fees and by selecting "pay in local currency" you get the best exchange rate.
There's still an ongoing trick that some European businesses do where they'll try and get you to pay in dollars because they can arbitrarily set the exchange rate. It's obviously within "reason" but on the higher end for no purpose other than to make extra money. I find such behavior to be dishonest and deplorable.
There's also ATMs from Euronet that are conveniently placed in tourist areas that refuses to pay out Euro if you have a Euro card, you can only get money if you do an exchange and they do a 15% or so on top of a fixed rate. Also do things like charge for checking balance on account and don't tell you about before its done.
Thankfully though a lot of times these ATMs and such are avoided by American tourists because....we just use a credit card.
By the way, those fees are split with other folks. For example you might find that American Euronext ATM in a shopping plaza or outside of a storefront. Those European businesses are getting a cut of that exchange rate.
> credit cards with no foreign transaction fees and by selecting "pay in local currency" you get the best exchange rate.
I’d be interested to compare their rates to Wise. The credit cards here in New Zealand don’t come close. However we regularly get screwed down here, and sadly it’s not just foreign companies that do it.
> I’d be interested to compare their rates to Wise.
Well for US-based "no foreign transaction fees" credit cards the rate is 0. There's no additional fee. For cards with foreign transaction fees you'll see something like 1% that goes to Visa/Mastercard/whoever and then the bank will charge a fee too, typically a percent or two.
But that's one thing, and then you have the actual currency conversion rates. I found an excerpt from an article that I think explains it well enough [1].
"Typically, a purchase at a foreign merchant is made entirely in the local currency. The cardholder authorizes the purchase amount in the local currency, and the purchase price is not converted until the payment is processed.
When you make a purchase at an international store, you may be asked if you want to convert your purchase to your home currency. This service is provided at the point of sale as a value added service and allows you to know the converted price at that moment—but don’t be fooled; it comes at a cost.
While this may initially sound like a wise way to avoid fees, these charges are in addition to any foreign transaction fees your card may apply. These fees assessed by the merchant at the point of sale are called dynamic currency conversion or DCC. You can think of DCC as an added service and just like most services that make life easier, there’s a convenience charge. Plus, even when using DCC, you’ll usually be charged a foreign transaction fee by your card issuing bank unless your card has no foreign transaction fees."
tl;dr version is, at least for an American, get a "no foreign transaction fees" credit card and save 1%-3% on all transactions you may otherwise be charged a fee for, and if prompted by a local shop to exchange currency, don't, just pay in the local currency so they can't dishonestly set arbitrarily high exchange rates. Visa and Mastercard (among others) as mentioned in the article have better negotiated exchange rates so it's better to let them do any exchange that's needed to keep costs to a minimum.
Current use is still a problem AFAIK (not sure on weed).
That said I can confirm that a few years back a friend who had previously used/experimented with a wide variety of substances (EDM scene, psychs), had no trouble getting a clearance.
They disclosed all of it, said they weren't currently using it and wouldn't for as long as they were in the job role, passed the drug test, and that was fine.
That said, to add to the "lying is a bad idea" point: I believe some of their references were asked about if they'd ever known that friend to have a dependency + if they were aware of any current/very recent use.
OC had a point. If you take drugs in the way they are intended to be used, you can say no with a clear conscience. Whether the interviewer will accept that if they later find out you took drugs, I couldn't tell you.
However, arrivals stay pretty heavy right up until 23:59 even on schedule and if you've got a lot of delayed flights (not exactly uncommon at LGA) - you may still have a lot of departures going out in the 23:00 hour.
I would not be surprised to learn that they're staffed to an appropriate level for what the schedule says is supposed to be operating at that time, but a very inadequate level for what actually winds up operating at that time on many days.
Initial analysis suggests they were running about 75% of full capacity in flight ops in the 15min prior to the accident. I doubt they were staffed to 75% of the daytime peak.
reply