Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 January 16

= January 16 =

What's preventing passenger airships from coming back?
Helium prices? Inability to make H2 safe? Time to recoup vehicle cost? If they came back would bigger than Hindenberg (up to a point) offer economy of scale for some routes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * For passenger use, the fact that speeds would be significantly lower than that of jet planes is a problem. There have been a number of experiments with Hybrid airships for cargo use... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If tickets can be made cheaper than jets without making it too crowded then pensioners who don't need to be anywhere anytime soon might want a go. Whether there's enough travel value seekers with a lot of time on their hands I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless it was shown there is a niche in the market that passengers would fill at super premium prices, I don't see that the development costs could ever be paid back. And I don't think you ever get past the Hindenburg.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As per AnonMoos' comment, cargo airships seem more likely to make a resurgence than passenger ones - see and  - though passenger airships as a tourist experience (rather than purely a means of getting from A to B) might become more common than currently - e.g. see . PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Passenger planes are very effective, fast and reliable today. Airships are ideal for Safari and alike touristic or even scientific surveillance since they are able to very silently hover and move. All other person transport cases where practicality, time and cost become relevant, helicopters and planes are simply better. --Kharon (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Hindenburg-class airships competed against ocean liners, not really planes (there were no scheduled commercial trans-Atlantic flights until just before WW2), which wouldn't be the case for an airship today, of course. Airships could theoretically use less fuel than jets do... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * TRAVELLERS could soon be flying in luxury blimps with see-through bottoms and double bedrooms (July 2018) reference the British Airlander 10 hybrid airship. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Prince consort and Queen consort
Why is the term Prince consort often used for a husband of a reigning queen, but Queen consort usually used for a wife of a reigning king? J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 16. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

US government shutdown
How can it possibly be legal to require government employees to work without being paid? I heard there was a suit filed... But are the courts operating? The situation seems nuts. Thanks. 2601:648:8200:4741:14A5:BE86:C93C:C276 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The government employees will be paid in the future, whether they work or not. Sleigh (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The government employees and contractors are under the aegis of the executive branch; in the U.S. the three branches of government operate more-or-less independently, with each responsible for a different aspect of governing. The legislative (congress) writes laws.  They are running fine, and they and their staff are getting paid.  The judicial (courts) interpret laws and try cases where the laws are violated, and as far as I know, they are still getting paid.  The executive branch administers the laws set by congress, mostly by spending money to do things congress told them to do.  If congress doesn't appropriate them any money, they don't get paid.  When we use "government shutdown" what we mean is that the budget has expired to pay the executive branch employees and contractors, so they can't be paid.  The government, being the government, can require whatever they want, and they can require certain "vital employees" to work even without pay, mostly security personnel.  This is a partial shutdown, because there are some parts of the administration that have been funded by separate bills, but those parts funded by the Omnibus spending bill which expired recently are basically not being paid.  The most recent such bill was the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 which would have expired on September 30, 2018, however it was extended via a series of Continuing resolutions until a month ago, when Trump announced his intention to veto any future appropriation bill that did not include funding for a border wall, and Senate leader Mitch McConnell agreed to support him in that endeavour.  The reason those "vital employees" continue to work without pay is that if they don't, they get fired, and then the government would just hire someone else to do their job.  There are lawsuits pending regarding the legality of this: .  -- Jayron 32 13:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are, unfortunately, only so many problems that can be solved with pizza. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that like "it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes"? --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we tried hamberders next time it'll work better? -- Jayron 32 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, "essential" federal employees continue to work because they're dedicated to their job and their mission — although reliable reporting has noted that many are beginning to simply not show up/call in sick because they have to find other work to pay the bills. The government can't just "hire someone else to do their job" at this point — for one, who the hell is going to accept a job that doesn't include pay? Moreover, human resources functions are not "essential" and those staffs have all been entirely furloughed, so the physical process of hiring can't take place. Never mind that it generally takes six months for a federal agency to hire a new employee, let alone an employee requiring such deep training and experience as weather forecasting or air traffic control. At a certain point, these things are going to start breaking down. We've missed one paycheck at this point — that's hard enough. Miss two or three or four paychecks? Those "essential" employees are going to start walking en masse because their mortgage payments aren't shut down, and those of us who are furloughed are just going to find other permanent employment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why say no when I already pre-agreed with you? Seems odd to take a contrary tone.  I never said that anything you just stated was wrong, nor do I disagree with any of it.  -- Jayron 32 20:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What I was saying "no" to was the idea that federal employees are showing up to work because they don't want to be fired and replaced. There's literally no way to replace anyone who quits until the shutdown's over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They could still be fired for not showing up, though. Replacement would come later. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Put yourself, say, in a TSA field manager's shoes. Firing someone for missing a day or two of work in the middle of a shutdown is only going to make your job (keeping a security checkpoint operating) *more* difficult, because that person is now not going to show up to work without pay *at all* as opposed to at least showing up three days a week. And as there is no way to replace that person until long after the shutdown is over, your choice is to ruthlessly enforce rules and rapidly attrite your available workforce, or operate in a manner which recognizes that your people have to be able to pay for gas to get to work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that they do want to be fired? That seems odd?  I understand the dedication to work, and belief in one's mission, but people also need paychecks eventually, and fear of unemployment is a complicating factor in why people stay in unfriendly working conditions, including reporting to work even without the expectation of pay.  Just "not working" is not an option for most people. -- Jayron 32 13:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying many people are willing to work with only the promise of future pay because they care about their missions and their work. The question is, how long can people afford to work without pay before they literally have to quit to find work that actually provides a paycheck *now*? Historically, federal workers like myself were willing to ride it out because these shutdowns were relatively short and things would work out. We're in completely uncharted waters at this point, going on a month. The number of people who can afford to spend their days working and *not* have a paycheck coming in for that work will start to drop precipitously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never said that people were not willing to work with only the promise of future pay because they care about their missions and their work. At no point did I say that people did not have that as a reason for working.  I also said that people who don't follow the orders of their superiors and report to work can be terminated with cause (aka fired), and that was a reason for working as well.  There are close to a million people affected by this furlough, and it can be certain that at least some of them do show up to work because they need to keep their jobs once the furlough is over, and if they didn't report to work, they fear being fired.  Those same people can also believe in the mission of their job.  People are quite capable of both believing in their work, and be in fear of losing their jobs for not reporting to work.  Also, insofar as there are lots of workers, there could be some who are motivated only by the fear, and not the love, and also some too who are only motivated by the love, and not the fear.  People can have different motivations.  They aren't all identical to you.  -- Jayron 32 14:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Earlier this week, Jimmy Fallon's monologue included a comment that unpaid federal workers might be going to Mexico to look for jobs! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Federal jobs offer some very valuable benefits like very good health care and retirement plan (Federal Employees Retirement System), job security and many special bonuses from companies who use that to build up goodwill with the federal system or just value federal Employees as most reliable customers. So these jobs turn out to be very attractive no matter they can also bring some problems. Anyway, general companies sometimes also run into financial trouble and cant pay their workers for some time or suddenly close down with owning you 2-3 month payment. So government shutdowns are far from the worst things that can happen to Employees. --Kharon (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually that's because the business in question literally doesn't have the cash in the bank to pay its employees, and it is waiting on some future influx to make them solvent again. That's not what is going on here.  The U.S. government has the cash on hand.  There's plenty of fully liquid assets in the treasury, just sitting there, that could be payed out.  They're just refusing to pay their employees as a bargaining chip in a petty fight over building a border wall.   -- Jayron 32 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)