Every day that the shutdown continues, its strain on U.S. air travel becomes harder to ignore. Now, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ordered a 10% reduction in scheduled flights across 40 of the nation’s busiest airports, claiming that unpaid and overworked air traffic controllers face mounting fatigue amid the ongoing government shutdown. Is this a necessary move or simply a political ploy?

FAA Orders Major Flight Cuts: Up To 10% Fewer Flights At 40 U.S. Airports

The move, described as “proactive” and unprecedented in FAA history, aims to reduce risk as the shutdown enters its sixth week. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said the decision was made out of concern for safety, not politics.

“We are starting to see evidence that fatigue is building in the system in ways that we feel we need to relieve some of that pressure,” Bedford said. “If the pressures continue to build even after we take these measures, we’ll come back and take additional steps.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy added that the government “cannot wait for an incident” before acting, noting that controller absences and extended shifts are creating untenable working conditions.

How It Will Affect Travelers

The FAA’s order will impact 40 high-volume markets, including New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, and Los Angeles. A 10% cut at Chicago O’Hare, for example, could eliminate over 120 daily flights, more than 14,000 seats. But that’s somewhat speculative, as we have not been given details yet.

We do know that Airlines have been told to reduce schedules starting Friday. The directive will remain in place until further notice. Carriers are now scrambling to adjust flight plans, reassign crews, and notify customers ahead of what was expected to be a record holiday travel season.

Here’s what American Airlines has said:

United Airlines:

For passengers, the fallout will be felt through longer delays, tighter connections, and a spike in cancellations as the system contracts. With staffing already thin, a single weather event or equipment issue could now cascade into nationwide disruptions.

The Politics Behind This

Duffy blasted the New York Times for framing this as political:

But is a 10% across-the-board cut at all 40 major airports really the “safe” bet? Currently, some FAA control centers are having no staffing issues while others are having more severe issues. Wouldn’t it make more sense, if there was genuine safety concerns, to target where the staffing shortage actaully is?

I do like the filibuster, but if Republicans are serious about reopening the government, it’s time for a Senate rule change making only a simple majority needed for cloture, such that the slim Republican majorities can pass a clean bill and reopen the government immediately.

There’s a lot to hash out on many policy issues, but holding American hostage who receive food stamps or travel and not paying federal workers for several weeks is unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

The FAA says this is about safety, not politics, but the optics tell a more complicated story. A blanket 10% cut across all 40 major airports feels more like a headline-grabbing move than a data-driven solution to localized staffing problems. If the real issue is controller fatigue in certain regions, that’s where resources and relief should be directed, not a sweeping reduction that punishes the entire system.

At the same time, it’s hard to fault the agency for trying to get ahead of a potential safety crisis. When the people guiding 45,000 daily flights are exhausted and unpaid, “business as usual” isn’t sustainable. The deeper failure lies with Congress, which continues to use everyday Americans as leverage in a political standoff. It’s not just travelers who are caught in the middle, it’s the workers keeping them safe.

Until lawmakers end the shutdown, these cuts are only the beginning.