I'm astonished that changing instrument approach procedures required only 50 hours and $11,000. I would have guessed an order of magnitude more than that.

I'd call that reading poorly-supported enough to be incorrect. The report establishes that waypoint names are changed somewhat frequently for reasons that are largely left to mystery, but can include "a basketball player I like died." Additionally, "This is on fire right now" suggests some relevant context beyond "a single reporter sent us a nosy email." So while it may technically be true that the email preceded the name change in the chain of causality, its framing as the principal cause appears to be a narrative built of incomplete information. The linked NYT article also mentions pushback from pilots.

> If I'm reading correctly the Florida waypoints referenced were renamed because a busybody NY Times reporter complained?

Do you suppose that if a so-called busybody complained about a waypoint the FAA didn’t care about, they’d bother to change it?

It was $11k. You could probably pay that with the change in your couch.

It's not like this money was actually spent. From what I understand, they calculated it in terms of time spent by full-time employees, who would need to be paid for that time regardless. People don't work at 100% efficiency, so this likely just meant a higher workload for a few people for a week or so.

Also, 11k is tiny when it comes to something like the FAA and it's not like it can be spent for something you deem more worthy once it's budgeted to them.

And I for one think removing names of assholes like Trump from places they have no right being is worth the little effort it takes.