Pull all air traffic controllers from private airports and shutdown all routes for private jets, then this government shutdown will be done by tomorrow morning.
That’s not how it works, like at all. Private airports don’t have controllers, and the ones I presume you are thinking of (smaller PUBLIC airports) the controllers are either employed or funded by the FAA.
Absolutely no English speaker doesn't read 'PJs' as 'pyjamas'.
That's what PJ's means. It means pyjamas, it always has.
I didn't mean to ruin your cool moment, but it's better to know now than to be out on the real world trying to project an air of casual wealth when all you're doing is confusing people about nightwear.
> Absolutely no English speaker doesn't read 'PJs' as 'pyjamas'.
While I agree that “pajamas” is the most common meaning of PJs, there is a certain socio-economic class in the US in which “PJs” is used far more often in speech to refer to private jets than pajamas.
I’m a “language guy”, and it was a new one to me when I started spending more time around people who were referring to, and often users of, PJs.
While the person you were responding to took a crass line, their linguistic intent was very clear to me.
FAA could restrict who flies in and out of airports, why not target private jets? It’s like closing traffic for cars but letting busses in. Much better unit economics in terms of passengers serviced.
