The Federal Aviation Administration said that it was investigating a near miss between two planes at Boston Logan International Airport that happened on Saturday morning.
The episode happened at about 11:30 a.m., when Delta Air Lines Flight 2351 performed a go-around to avoid another plane that was taking off from an intersecting runway, the F.A.A. said in statement. The agency did not identify the other plane involved.
A go-around is a standard maneuver in which a plane aborts a landing, repositions and tries again. The F.A.A. said information around the episode was preliminary.
Data from Flightradar24, a flight-tracking website, showed that the Delta flight, arriving from Dallas, aborted its approach for landing as American Airlines Flight 3161, bound for Charlotte, N.C., approached from an intersecting runway.
The two planes were a few hundred feet apart, the tracking data showed. The Delta plane landed around 10 minutes later, according to the tracking data.
Delta said the flight crew received an advisory from an onboard system warning of potential traffic while the plane was descending and coordinated with air traffic control to perform the go-around. The plane landed safely and the passengers deplaned normally, according to a spokesperson for the airline.
The plane, an Airbus A319, was carrying 129 passengers and six crew members, the spokesperson said.
American Airlines did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This was the latest in a string of near misses at U.S. airports in recent months. In April, an American Airlines regional jet flew dangerously close to an Air Canada regional jet after aborting its landing at Kennedy International Airport, according to the F.A.A.
The same month, the agency also investigated a close call between two Southwest Airlines jets at Nashville International Airport, in which an air traffic controller inadvertently directed an incoming plane into the path of a departing aircraft. The planes came within about 500 vertical feet of each other as the pilots reacted to onboard collision alerts, according to Flightradar24 and the F.A.A.

There’s a rumor swirling around that American Airlines may bring back former CEO Doug Parker to replace current CEO Robert Isom. When I first heard this, I thought “wait, there’s no way the board would do something like this, right?” However, the more I think about it, the more I think “wait, that’s exactly what American’s board would do, of course.” Let me explain…
Airline executives speculate Doug Parker may replace Robert Isom
In recent years, American has been falling further and further behind both Delta and United when it comes to financial performance. In reality, Delta is still strongest, while United has been pulling ahead at American’s expense, as it seems to be a zero sum game between the two airlines.
Simply put, the company has lacked a cohesive vision for so long. Premium… not premium… now premium again… who is to say?! It has now gotten to the point where management realizes they need to invest in customer experience, but one wonders if it’s too little too late, especially with the pace at which Delta and United are also investing in their products. It’s not easy to make up ground in these circumstances.
I’m not alone in wondering who will fix American, and when they’ll replace CEO Robert Isom. If American had a competent board, we would’ve seen a management change a long time ago. While I’m sure the board doesn’t want to admit that it has been asleep at the wheel, sooner or later, something’s gotta give.
The issue is that several board members are doubling down and don’t want to admit defeat, since they’re the same people who were behind the decision to choose Isom over Scott Kirby to lead American next (Kirby was president of American, and was then told he’d never be CEO, which is why he left to go to United, and there’s a lot of bad blood there).
So that brings us to the latest rumor that’s swirling around. Brian Sumers, who writes the Airline Observer (a paid subscription for full access) recently attended the IATA AGM in Rio de Janeiro, which is the one event each year attended by virtually every airline industry executive. While a lot of important stuff happens in official meetings, what’s equally interesting is what’s discussed off the record, and at the bars late at night. Airline executives love to gossip (who doesn’t?!).
Sumers explains that one of the most common topics of conversation among executives was whether Isom will make it through the end of 2026, and who will eventually replace him. I’ve shared my take in the past on who I think would be a good fit to replace Isom, but it seems industry executives have a different theory. The leading candidate to replace Isom, according to other executives? Well, it could be former American CEO Doug Parker (who was previously CEO of US Airways, and CEO of America West before that — he’s one of the industry’s longest serving airline CEOs).
The idea is that Parker has the industry experience and respect needed to turn the airline around… or something. Keep in mind Parker is still somewhat in the industry, as he’s on the board of Qantas. And he’s “only” 64, five years younger than Delta CEO Ed Bastian.
Parker would do nothing to fix American’s underlying problems
As a person, I respect Parker quite a bit. He seems like a kind, fair guy, he’s surprisingly pro union, and he has certainly done a lot for the airline industry over the years, being a leading voice during tough times (including going to Washington asking for bailouts).
However, if you ask me, Parker and Isom are almost identical in that regard — they’re both nice guys, but they lack a vision. Even as American started its slow descent under Parker, he had the same “oh, everything is fine” narrative that Isom now has. I actually suspect this might’ve been one of the reasons that Kirby was passed over in favor of Isom — Kirby is absolutely cutthroat, highly competitive, and wants to win, while neither Parker nor Isom have that mentality.
Replacing Isom with Parker would do absolutely nothing to fix American. The single biggest thing that American needs is a CEO who can excite employees, and who can get them to rally behind a vision. Period. End of story. Without that, there is no turnaround, because employees are just confused and indifferent, given the lack of direction they’ve been given.
Personally, I also think it needs to be an outsider, so that the board shows employees that they’re serious about change. Simply rearranging the America West deck chairs doesn’t send a message of actual change to employees. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — someone like Air France-KLM CEO Ben Smith would be the person to turn the airline around.
Now, do I think the odds of that happening are actually good? No, probably not. That would be way too out-of-the-box for American’s board. And American is an airline that probably more than any other promotes from within. That’s great in theory, but it’s also why there’s such groupthink, and how we’ve gotten to this point.
American actually has some decent executives now — recently appointed Chief Commercial Officer Nat Pieper is a bright guy, and I think he has the right idea with strategy, and he’s also sort of an outsider. That being said, my impression is that he might be more of a Glen Hauenstein type than a Bastian type (Hauenstein was Delta’s former president, and he was really the guy behind most of the strategy, even though you almost never heard from him).
Meanwhile Chief Customer Officer Heather Garboden has been the person behind many of the positive changes in recent times, but again, she’s from the America West “club,” and I’m not sure a 20+ year veteran of the company is really the person employees are going to rally around, because they’ve been let down too often. For that matter, I don’t know enough about her to wager a guess as to whether she can actually be innovative — virtually all the positive changes we’ve seen from American in recent times have just been obvious areas where the company is catching up with the competition.
One thing is for sure — the board can only ignore reality for so much longer. Or I dunno, maybe they can, because little about our corporate world makes sense.
Bottom line
American CEO Robert Isom just hasn’t been doing a great job leading the airline in the right direction, at least when you look at the company’s financial performance compared to that of competitors. While the idea seems sort of wild to me, many other industry executives reportedly think that the most likely successor to Isom is a return of Parker.
Replacing a nice guy who lacks strategy with a nice guy who lacks strategy just doesn’t strike me as a wise decision. Then again, American’s board is the whole reason we’re in this situation to begin with, given that they opted for Isom over former president Kirby to take over at American.
I’d like to think that there’s no way this could happen, but who really knows…

ST. LOUIS, Mo. (First Alert 4) – Jilly’s Cupcake Bar & Cafe shared Saturday that the business’ owner and founder, Jill Segal, has died.
Jilly’s Cupcake Bar & Cafe is a gourmet cupcake place in University City that opened in 2007 and has sold product in Schnucks and Dierbergs stores around the area. The business’ website says it has been a contestant on Food Network show Cupcake Wars three times, with two wins. It’s also been named one of the top 10 places to get a gourmet cupcake by USA TODAY.
The business also said in its announcement that there are open positions on the staff, including on the ownership team, but no information has been released regarding what’s next for the store.

A 32-year-old Indian techie living in the US for the past 11 years has turned to Reddit for advice as he faces a possible layoff and questions whether it is finally time to move back to India.
In a post titled, “I’m getting laid off. Is this my sign to move back to India? (Always wanted to move back)”, the man said that he had enjoyed a “pretty smooth” career and joined a top-tier tech company around 5 years ago. However, he admitted that he had become complacent and that remote work had made it difficult to build strong relationships with colleagues. “I am on the verge of getting laid off,” he wrote.
The techie, who said he is single, added that he is financially secure. He owns a fully paid 2BHK house in India worth around ₹1.7 crore and another 3BHK property valued at ₹2.2 crore, which still has a ₹1 crore loan. He also said he has $100,000 (around ₹94 lakh) in equity and $300,000 (around ₹2.8 crore) in his 401(k), which he plans to withdraw during his RNOR period over the next 2 years.
Despite trying to interview for jobs in the US, he said the market had been “brutal” and admitted he was struggling with burnout, stress and anxiety. “I did not feel like leaving without giving a try, so I have been trying to interview in USA, market is brutal and along with that, I am not up to the mark with interviewing,” he wrote.
“If I am moving, I was thinking to move back with a job offer but I have zero motivation to study right now and burnt out with all the stress and anxiety. so, I want to take a break (about 3 months) and search for a new job,” he added.
The techie said that he had always wanted to return to India, but was torn between staying in the US for another 2 years to pay off his loan and returning home to prioritise his mental well-being.
“I feel like I have become money-minded and running behind money looking at my circle, everyone is extremely talented or rich (SF Bay Area). It drives me to do better but never satisfied with what I have,” he said. He ended his post by asking fellow Reddit users what they would do in his situation.
(Also Read: Woman reveals how she went from a ₹6 LPA job in India to a ₹2 crore salary in the US)
What did social media say?
The post resonated with many users, several of whom encouraged him to take a break and move back to India.
One user wrote, “I would go back, you have saved decent money and made some assets. Those assets depending on where those are located would earn you rental, so you don’t have to think about basic living for next few months until you relax and find a job. You can repay loan with the 401k you are planning to withdraw and probably buy another property with the remaining.”
“I’m pro break OP. Thinking about just chilling for a while as well. Whats the worst case scenario? You dont find a job that pays well? You already have enough to take you through years/decades unless you go crazy with spending,” commented another.
“A lot of people might motivate you to stay back but don’t listen to them. I sense your frustration through your post! Do what your heart says! Prioritize your health!” wrote a third user.
“I understand the situation 100%. I wanna say go back, and I like to think I’d have the courage to do the same as well. I definitely feel pretty burnt out, and also life and age are giving me new perspectives on what’s more important. Is it really worth it to live with constant stress and anxiety? What’s even the point of life if you can’t be truly relaxed ever? Maybe chasing after more financial success isn’t all that important now,” said another.
(Disclaimer: This report is based on user-generated content from social media. HT.com has not independently verified the claims and does not endorse them.)

In the span of a single week, two deals reshaped the future of American media by concentrating something more valuable than content itself: control over how Americans find and consume it. As conservative billionaires effectively monopolize the future of content beyond cable, we are witnessing the corporate takeover of the American democratic square, rubber-stamped by a captured regulatory apparatus.
On Monday, Fox Corporation announced a $22 billion acquisition of Roku, the connected-television platform that sits inside half of all U.S. homes with broadband internet. Days earlier, Donald Trump‘s Justice Department waved through David Ellison’s $111 billion bid to merge Paramount with Warner Bros. Discovery, giving the son of Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison control over both CBS News and CNN. Paramount swiftly vowed to finalize the merger “as soon as possible.”
The scale of this quiet coup is staggering. For most of the past decade, the streaming wars were framed as a contest over content. Disney poured tens of billions into Disney+. Warner Bros. Discovery bet big on HBO Max. Paramount launched Paramount+ and nearly every major media company raced to create a direct-to-consumer service capable of competing with Netflix. Fox, by contrast, largely sat it out. It didn’t chase prestige television. It stuck with what it already had: news and sports. The deal would combine Fox’s news, sports and advertising businesses with Roku’s connected television platform. Fox says the combined company would become the third-largest television business in America by viewing share.
The Fox-Roku deal is not primarily about hardware. Roku still sells streaming sticks and smart televisions, but devices account for a relatively small portion of its business. The company increasingly operates as a connected-TV advertising platform built on an operating system that sits between viewers and content providers. That interface is not neutral. It is curated, ranked, monetized and constantly optimized using first-party data that tracks what people watch, when they watch it and how they respond to ads. In practical terms, Roku controls the television home screen. It can privilege its own content. Fox already owns Tubi, the free ad-supported streaming channel it acquired in 2020 for $440 million, which has grown into an advertising juggernaut accounting for roughly five percent of streaming viewership in the U.S. Now, with Roku’s operating system, Fox controls the discovery layer for every competitor streaming on that platform.
The billionaire takeover of our newsrooms is accelerating, and the political calculations behind it are flagrant.
For years, right-wing media dominance relied on the structural welfare state of basic cable. Millions of Americans with traditional cable packages have effectively subsidized Fox News through carriage fees, regardless of whether they watch the network. But that golden goose is dying. The Pew Research Center estimates that cable and satellite TV households were down to only 36 percent of the population in 2025; that number stood at a staggering 85 percent just a decade earlier. The cord-cutting revolution was supposed to democratize television, liberating citizens from corporate gatekeepers. Instead, it has laid the groundwork for an even more insidious form of control.
The Ellison deal deserves equal scrutiny and has received far less. The Justice Department’s senior leadership reportedly shut down the antitrust review before lawyers in the division could make their final recommendation — an intervention that is extraordinary by any historical standard. This allowed David Ellison, who took control of CBS only last August, to proceed toward ownership of both that network and CNN, giving him influence over what would amount to a Fox News-lite news operation at one outlet and a nominally centrist news outlet at another.
The billionaire takeover of our newsrooms is accelerating, and the political calculations behind it are flagrant. Ellison has spent months actively seeking to ingratiate himself with the Trump administration. The cozy, transactional nature of this new media elite was laid bare when Ellison, who held a lavish banquet for Donald Trump in April, was spotted rubbing shoulders with the Kushners at Washington’s elite Cafe Milano the night before a UFC spectacle on the White House South Lawn, streamed exclusively on his Paramount+. The warning signs are already there. Paramount reportedly refused to air an advertisement from the Freedom of the Press Foundation critical of its leadership and merger, citing a “conflict of interest.” That is what consolidation looks like in practice.
On one side, Fox controls distribution, data and a massive advertising engine. On the other, Ellison consolidates content production across multiple major networks. Between them sits a shrinking field of competitors, many of whom are financially weaker, structurally disadvantaged or dependent on access to platforms they do not control. The broader pattern is not subtle. Jeff Bezos still owns The Washington Post. Elon Musk owns one of the largest social media platforms in the country and has turned it into a right-wing echo chamber. Meanwhile, fewer outlets are willing to challenge power and have an incentive to avoid controversy.
Conservative billionaires are not winning the information wars because their ideas are more compelling. They are winning because they understand that in the attention economy, the chokepoint is distribution. He who controls the pipe controls the message. The Murdochs figured this out with satellite television. The Ellisons are figuring it out with streaming consolidation. And now Fox has figured it out with the operating system of connected television itself.