内容摘要：Traveling is part of his routine. He meets with colleagues to exchange anecdotes and contacts, but also encounters local farmers and spends time in remote communities to understand how food and tradition intertwine.

Traveling is part of his routine. He meets with colleagues to exchange anecdotes and contacts, but also encounters local farmers and spends time in remote communities to understand how food and tradition intertwine.

But Willie Walsh, who heads aviation trade organization IATA, said the episode “begs some serious questions.”“How is it that critical infrastructure – of national and global importance – is totally dependent on a single power source without an alternative? If that is the case, as it seems, then it is a clear planning failure by the airport,” he said.

Walsh said “Heathrow has very little incentive to improve” because airlines, not the airport, have to pay the cost of looking after disrupted passengers.Friday’s disruption was one of the most serious since the 2010, which shut Europe’s airspace for days.

Passengers on about 120 flights were in the air when Friday’s closure was announced and found themselves landing in different cities, and even different countries.Mark Doherty and his wife were halfway across the Atlantic when the inflight map showed their flight from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport to Heathrow was returning to New York.

“I was like, you’re joking,” Doherty said.

He called the situation “typical England — got no back-up plan for something happens like this. There’s no contingency plan.”That will make a huge difference in communities like her home of Stonington, the busiest lobster fishing port in the country, Olsen said. It’s a tiny island town of winding streets, swooping gulls and mansard roof houses with an economy almost entirely dependent on commercial fishing, some three hours up the coast from Portland, Maine’s biggest city.

Olsen knows firsthand how much has changed over the years. Hundreds of fish and shellfish populations globally have dwindled to dangerously low levels, alarming scientists and prompting the restrictions and catch limits that Trump’s order could wash away with the stroke of a pen. But she’s heartened that the livelihoods of people who work the traps and cast the nets have become a priority in faraway places where they often felt their voices weren’t heard.“I do think it’s time to have the conversation on what regulations that the industry does need. We’re fishing different than we did 100 years ago,” she said. “If everything is being looked at, we should be looking at the regulations within the fishing industry.”

But if fishing and lobstering interests finally have a seat at the table, the questions become how much seafood can be served there — and for how long. Trump’s April 17 order, called “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,” promises an overhaul of the way America fishes, and cites a national seafood trade deficit of more than $20 billion as the reason to do it. The order calls on the federal government to reduce the regulatory burden on fishermen by later this month.It arrives at a time when conservation groups and many marine scientists say the ocean needs more regulation, not less. One oft-cited 2020