TYSflyer
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:44 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:57 pm

Flighty wrote:
Why is linking a small city to the capital important if linking Los Angeles with more people per flight to it is not important? That is really is a mystery to me...

But yes, l learned the eastern US has a wealth of middle-sized cities like Knoxville (nice airport by the way). Cities like this explain not only the slot system, but kind of the whole hub & spoke industry model. The top 100 cities in the USA are mostly in the East and they are all important and valuable - together, they form the largest global airline market, and largest regional economy, and concentration of wealth, in the world, AFAIK.




Thanks for the nice comments about TYS. I agree that the people of L.A. or any large western city are no less important than any person in a small/medium eastern city. However if you could guarantee that the resultant 10 flights a day between LAX-DCA, if the slots are lifted, will be priced similarly to the current TYS-DCA and have better yields than I would agree with you those routes would make more sense. Currently I did a random sampling of flights in June. TYS-DCA were in the $400-500 range and LAX-DCA were around $500. Now granted one is on a 50 seat RJ and the other is a 737-800. I don't have access to the RASM for the flights but obviously for the consumer the LAX flight is priced better which is going to result in better LFs and potentially more flights (if DCA wasn't slot constrained).

However, one thing I would certainly agree with you on is limiting the number of connections through DCA from the smaller airports. If these cities cannot sustain service to DCA without connections than I feel an argument that they should not have service at all to DCA could be made. A couple of years ago I flew Tys-DCA-Bos as it was the cheapest flight and it was my first flight on E190. The Outbound TYS flight was overbooked and the DCA - Bos flight was pretty full. However there were numerous people on the TYS-DCA connecting on to DCA-BOS. Same story for the return flight. Not really sure why it was the cheapest itinerary. It makes more sense to run these connections through PHL and CLT.
 
mernest
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:51 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:37 pm

By law, a certain number of slots are restricted to small jets and prop planes. If you wish to increase the size of the planes, you need to look at the usage of small planes relative to the commuter slot quota to determine whether putting the hard limit on air carrier slot usage vs. commuter slot usage, changing the quota, or eliminating the quota achieves the desired goals
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 2436
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:12 pm

mernest wrote:
By law, a certain number of slots are restricted to small jets and prop planes. If you wish to increase the size of the planes, you need to look at the usage of small planes relative to the commuter slot quota to determine whether putting the hard limit on air carrier slot usage vs. commuter slot usage, changing the quota, or eliminating the quota achieves the desired goals


According to a 2012 GAO publication it's 11 out of the 60 hourly operations which are designated for "commuter" aircraft

11 out of the 60 hourly slots allowed under the High Density Rule slots at Reagan National are reserved for and require the use of smaller aircraft used for commuter flights.


At the time they estimated about 30-40% of operations were commuter aircraft operations, far more than the 11 hourly slots would require.

FAA officials estimated that 30 to 40 percent of air carrier slots are operated in commuter aircraft slots based on a review of published


http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648219.pdf

So there's a definite floor which ensures some access to smaller aircraft. But many, many additional slots which are unrestricted air carrier slots are being used for small aircraft flights today.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:01 am

TYSflyer wrote:
Flighty wrote:
Why is linking a small city to the capital important if linking Los Angeles with more people per flight to it is not important? That is really is a mystery to me...

But yes, l learned the eastern US has a wealth of middle-sized cities like Knoxville (nice airport by the way). Cities like this explain not only the slot system, but kind of the whole hub & spoke industry model. The top 100 cities in the USA are mostly in the East and they are all important and valuable - together, they form the largest global airline market, and largest regional economy, and concentration of wealth, in the world, AFAIK.




Thanks for the nice comments about TYS. I agree that the people of L.A. or any large western city are no less important than any person in a small/medium eastern city. However if you could guarantee that the resultant 10 flights a day between LAX-DCA, if the slots are lifted, will be priced similarly to the current TYS-DCA and have better yields than I would agree with you those routes would make more sense. Currently I did a random sampling of flights in June. TYS-DCA were in the $400-500 range and LAX-DCA were around $500. Now granted one is on a 50 seat RJ and the other is a 737-800. I don't have access to the RASM for the flights but obviously for the consumer the LAX flight is priced better which is going to result in better LFs and potentially more flights (if DCA wasn't slot constrained).

However, one thing I would certainly agree with you on is limiting the number of connections through DCA from the smaller airports. If these cities cannot sustain service to DCA without connections than I feel an argument that they should not have service at all to DCA could be made. A couple of years ago I flew Tys-DCA-Bos as it was the cheapest flight and it was my first flight on E190. The Outbound TYS flight was overbooked and the DCA - Bos flight was pretty full. However there were numerous people on the TYS-DCA connecting on to DCA-BOS. Same story for the return flight. Not really sure why it was the cheapest itinerary. It makes more sense to run these connections through PHL and CLT.


The fact that fares are similar to places like TYS as to LAX explains why I'm not certain that we would see as much substitution as some folks assume from the small cities to the large cities in the absence of a perimeter rule. It might make sense to take a frequency from TYS for LAX, but it also might make sense to make 4 738s to DFW into 3 321s.

I'm not sure that I understand your argument about connections. Virtually all of the small markets can fill 37-50 seaters with O&D. But if the profit maximizing strategy is to fly larger (lower CASM) aircraft and serve some connections, why is that a bad thing? It might cost only 15 percent more to fly a CR7 versus a CR2 on TYS-DCA. If the ~35 percent increase in seats leads to more than 15 percent more revenue, that's a good move.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
jplatts
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:02 am

AWACSooner wrote:
jplatts wrote:
Delta and Southwest should both get additional beyond-perimeter slots at DCA Airport. Delta could use an additional beyond-perimeter slot for nonstop service to Seattle. Southwest could use beyond-perimeter slots for nonstop service to San Antonio and San Diego, both of which currently lack nonstop service from DCA, and could use additional beyond-perimeter slots to destinations that competitors serve nonstop from DCA, such as Denver, Las Vegas, or Phoenix.

Or WN can make good on the promise several years ago to serve OKC before they reneged.


OKC is within the DCA perimeter and is closer to DCA than DAL and HOU are.

Other within-perimeter destinations that Southwest could go to nonstop from DCA include Boston, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Hartford, Louisville, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Raleigh/Durham.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:22 pm

jplatts wrote:
Delta and Southwest should both get additional beyond-perimeter slots at DCA Airport. Delta could use an additional beyond-perimeter slot for nonstop service to Seattle. Southwest could use beyond-perimeter slots for nonstop service to San Antonio and San Diego, both of which currently lack nonstop service from DCA, and could use additional beyond-perimeter slots to destinations that competitors serve nonstop from DCA, such as Denver, Las Vegas, or Phoenix.


As Alaska already serves Seattle they would not let Delta operate the route. Perimeter rule exemptions are 1 route/1 carrier.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:37 pm

Kind of sad when senators and congressmen get involved with airport operations and pass laws that stifle growth and inconvenience many fliers. Let the market dictate the level of service it can support. Airlines are always looking for new markets and flights, but with some current laws, its the flying public that loses out. The Wright amendment strangled DAL for years and now the airport is able to serve many more customers. The perimeter rule is hampering both LGA and DCA unnecessarily. I understand the need for slot limits, but not blocking out other cities from access to both airports.
 
blockski
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:28 pm

rbavfan wrote:
jplatts wrote:
Delta and Southwest should both get additional beyond-perimeter slots at DCA Airport. Delta could use an additional beyond-perimeter slot for nonstop service to Seattle. Southwest could use beyond-perimeter slots for nonstop service to San Antonio and San Diego, both of which currently lack nonstop service from DCA, and could use additional beyond-perimeter slots to destinations that competitors serve nonstop from DCA, such as Denver, Las Vegas, or Phoenix.


As Alaska already serves Seattle they would not let Delta operate the route. Perimeter rule exemptions are 1 route/1 carrier.


This isn't true.

LAX: 1x Alaska, 2x AA, soon to be 1x Delta
DEN: 3x Frontier, 1x UA
SFO: 1x UA, 1x Virgin

The unique destinations for each carrier are:

Alaska: SEA 2x, Portland 1x
Delta: 1x SLC
JetBlue: 1x San Juan
Southwest: 1x Austin
AA: 3x PHX, 1x LAS
 
jplatts
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:11 pm

TYSflyer wrote:
I always find it amusing how people have differing opinions when discussions arise like this. I am sure it falls largely based on the size of the city/airport that you use/follow. You have the crowd that feels every airport that serves less than a million passengers should be closed and those people drive to the nearest large/medium sized airport (please note I am being somewhat facetious with that statement) versus those that realize the utility of the small airport. I personally feel that an argument for limiting small RJs makes more sense for LGA than DCA. I find it somewhat ridiculous noting the number of RJs on routes like BNA-LGA and many similar sized markets. However I think linking small cities to the nations capital is important. Also I think many people forget that the flow of traffic is not just one direction. Do not forget that many of these small cities play an important role for our nation's government. Huntsville plays a role with the space program. Knoxville has Oak Ridge National Lab. I am sure people can rattle off numerous others. So don't think that these flights are just to benefit local politicians and small communities. However this is just my opinion, and I realize I live in a small community so I am biased.


I agree that it is not simply about local politicans but actually a combination of government travel from the smaller communities to DC, travel by federal government employees and officials based in the DC area to the smaller communities, and tourists visiting Washington, D.C. from the smaller communities.
 
jplatts
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:15 pm

blockski wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
jplatts wrote:
Delta and Southwest should both get additional beyond-perimeter slots at DCA Airport. Delta could use an additional beyond-perimeter slot for nonstop service to Seattle. Southwest could use beyond-perimeter slots for nonstop service to San Antonio and San Diego, both of which currently lack nonstop service from DCA, and could use additional beyond-perimeter slots to destinations that competitors serve nonstop from DCA, such as Denver, Las Vegas, or Phoenix.


As Alaska already serves Seattle they would not let Delta operate the route. Perimeter rule exemptions are 1 route/1 carrier.


This isn't true.

LAX: 1x Alaska, 2x AA, soon to be 1x Delta
DEN: 3x Frontier, 1x UA
SFO: 1x UA, 1x Virgin

The unique destinations for each carrier are:

Alaska: SEA 2x, Portland 1x
Delta: 1x SLC
JetBlue: 1x San Juan
Southwest: 1x Austin
AA: 3x PHX, 1x LAS


Congress can change the law and add additional beyond-perimeter slots that would allow Delta and Southwest to operate nonstops out of DCA to beyond-perimeter destinations that are served nonstop out of DCA by competitors. Congress should grant Delta and Southwest additional beyond-perimeter slots in the interest in improving competition on beyond-perimeter air travel out of DCA.
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4604
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:46 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Or [unserved points] can connect through Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit and other midwest hubs, just as we the people do.


Better would be one-stop flights with minimal time-on-ground through a non-hub city - WN used to be very good combining non-hub traffic flows; they're not any more. All the airlines seem to avoid one-stop flights like the plague.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11996
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:19 pm

masseybrown wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Or [unserved points] can connect through Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit and other midwest hubs, just as we the people do.


Better would be one-stop flights with minimal time-on-ground through a non-hub city - WN used to be very good combining non-hub traffic flows; they're not any more. All the airlines seem to avoid one-stop flights like the plague.



??? WN still has plenty of one-stops. I flew the middle leg of an MCI-STL-PIT-BNA-FLL yesterday.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3939
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:54 pm

Airports are public facilities to be operated for the public benefit, meaning the system as a whole, including small-market access where the demand is there. Airlines don't have to like that, Wall Street doesn't have to like it, and Airliners.net laissez-faire purists don't have to like it. Airlines are businesses that make money, but they are also stewards of a public trust, and they are properly required by the government to be good stewards of that trust where necessary. The laissez-faire view is based upon bad assumptions about what society and business are, and how they interact.

DCA is rightly and properly slotted by the local authority (MWAA, however tatty their competence) somewhat below capacity, so that can operate without delay. (A lesson PANYNJ would be well-advised to learn.) The local authority can restrict the perimeter around DCA and push most longer-haul traffic out to IAD, a larger facility built for that purpose. Congress a) adding a few slots so that Western Congresscritters in larger markets that can support flights have a nonstop option, but not b) getting rid of the perimeter altogether, is a reasonable accommodation to a national interest. DOJ requiring that AA-US give up some slots for LCC access, was also a reasonable, not burdensome, national intervention.

American wisely didn't just decide to get rid of service to smaller markets and go to all dense-market flights after AA-US, probably, as Knope said, because they have a better profit profile for the station, with higher margins on a large number shorter flights on smaller aircraft. But even if AA did slash smaller markets and go all big-market at DCA, Congress would find some way to make their life miserable, which AA well knows, and Congress would be well within their rights to do so. The United States has never been a pure laissez-faire capitalist system, no matter how much a few purists might want us to be, which is for the common good. DCA is a public resource, and Greensboro, Rochester, and Dayton have as much right of access as ORD, LAX, and ATL. And that's how it should be. Fortuantely, the presence of Congress will help DCA remain that way. :)

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:15 pm

masseybrown wrote:
Better would be one-stop flights with minimal time-on-ground through a non-hub city - WN used to be very good combining non-hub traffic flows; they're not any more. All the airlines seem to avoid one-stop flights like the plague.

It turns out the best service between SAN and DCA is just what you suggested. Starting in 2012, actually as part of that year's Beyond-Perimeter case, WN was awarded DCA-AUS; WN had put a 'bonus' on their application for AUS: they would continue the flight as a direct, 1-stop, no-change tag-on to SAN. (WN didn't apply for nonstop SAN-DCA authorization; only AS did.)

Today, with, as far as I know, no official requirement that they continue to do so, WN still offers SAN-AUS-DCA-AUS-SAN service providing the quickest, most consistent, and most convenient, service between Reagan Airport and Lindbergh Field! Other cx sometimes offer thru flights with hub-stops (that may or may not actually require a change of a/c) but I'm not aware of anyone else that does what WN does on a permanent basis. (Hopefully AS will do something next year, via DAL?, along the lines of what WN offers.)

WN also offers 2-3X daily nonstops from SAN to BWI, and they even tried SAN-IAD for a brief time. I would expect that if/when there is another Beyond-Perimeter hearing for DCA, WN will point to their efforts, since the last Congressional hearing, to provide the best service between SAN and the DC-area, with the hope of receiving the rights to fly nonstop between SAN and DCA. (I would also expect to see AAG try to get such authority, and with the traffic between the 2 airports, I hope to see at least 2 cx get permission to serve the route!)

bb
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4604
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:02 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
??? WN still has plenty of one-stops. I flew the middle leg of an MCI-STL-PIT-BNA-FLL yesterday.


They don't go where I want to go. ;)
 
legend500
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:18 pm

blockski wrote:
Quite simply, the goal is not to serve as many passengers as possible at DCA.

DCA and IAD were planned and created to be operated as an airport system. That is the direct charge given to MWAA when they took over airport operations from the FAA. That is what they are legally mandated to do. MWAA wants to maximize value given the current constraints at DCA, but is not seeking to change those constraints. The response to those constraints was to build IAD (a decision made 60-some years ago!), and that's the plan.


This is an underappreciated facet of the discussion. DCA represents the same democratic ideal that the Senate does - it's not about numbers, it's about giving the states the best access to the capital possible. While this is obviously just an ideal, it serves as a good general rule to follow in how to allocate service, and is a good part of the reason for MWAA's existence. IAD and BWI are the numbers airports, DCA the access airport.

knope2001 wrote:
Alaska could kill their three DCA- DAL flights to send those slots west.

American is of course the wild card. They have by far the most slots and by far the most small aircraft at DCA. But look at what they are doing today within perimeter with their slots. They already have chosen to run EJets and RJ (not mainline) in several comparably big within-perimeter markets. They could easily flood high-volume Florida with more mainline flights (by trimming RJ flying) if they thought the market was there to profitably do so but they apparently don’t.


...anyone see the obvious trade here? :duck: There's no rule preventing AA from going back into DAL when AS leaves. :bomb:

727200 wrote:
1) I remember talking to a pilot one time years ago who said, "DCA is a political airport nothing more." Guess he was right.
Boy, was he.

SurfandSnow wrote:
Meanwhile, AA could propose markets like ABQ, COS or SAT with the E-175. I think changing business models/strategies and ever more capable fleets have opened up many additional beyond-perimeter possibilities from DCA since the last round of slots became available.


I love all the love for my former home airport here, but I'm about to cause a riot with my next sentence. DCA-SAT is adequately served by DCA-AUS, and neither AA or WN is going to give up the premium they charge people flying into SAT after connecting at DAL, DFW & HOU. Especially for AA, there's no reason to use a slot for SAT when they have a kinda-focus-city 90 minutes away (which seems ridiculous by Northeast Corridor standards, but by Texan standards is a few blocks.).
 
ASQ400
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:59 pm

CV990A wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:
Will DCA be "full" in 5 years? 10 years?


I would argue DCA is full NOW - the new RJ concourse isn't going to solve any of the main congestion issues. Metro to IAD will help, but I'm concerned the length of the trip, especially from downtown proper, will be a turn-off, and DCA will remain the 'preferred' airport for those going to / from Washington itself.

As far as public transport goes, BWI has an Acela station and is only 5 miles farther than IAD. When you combine that with the fact that BWI serves a whole second city, you start to wonder who the hell thought Dulles was a good idea.
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:17 am

ASQ400 wrote:
As far as public transport goes, BWI has an Acela station and is only 5 miles farther than IAD. When you combine that with the fact that BWI serves a whole second city, you start to wonder who the hell thought Dulles was a good idea.


The planners, who understood the Washington area would grow well to the south and west of the city in Virginia, and that a new airport could be built where land was (at the time) cheap.

Acela was a future dream, as was rail service direct to Dulles (almost there, now, not that it will be very good).
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:24 am

BobPatterson wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
As far as public transport goes, BWI has an Acela station and is only 5 miles farther than IAD. When you combine that with the fact that BWI serves a whole second city, you start to wonder who the hell thought Dulles was a good idea.


The planners, who understood the Washington area would grow well to the south and west of the city in Virginia, and that a new airport could be built where land was (at the time) cheap.

Acela was a future dream, as was rail service direct to Dulles (almost there, now, not that it will be very good).

Acela wasn't around at the time, but the tracks next to BWI were. I would've expanded that airport instead of building Dulles, which was isolated in the 60's and is still pretty far away from everything.
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:02 am

IAD is 26 miles from downtown DC, while BWI is 35 miles away.

2.8 million people live in Northern Virginia and all are much closer to IAD than to BWI.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:40 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
Airports are public facilities to be operated for the public benefit, meaning the system as a whole, including small-market access where the demand is there. Airlines don't have to like that, Wall Street doesn't have to like it, and Airliners.net laissez-faire purists don't have to like it. Airlines are businesses that make money, but they are also stewards of a public trust, and they are properly required by the government to be good stewards of that trust where necessary. The laissez-faire view is based upon bad assumptions about what society and business are, and how they interact.

DCA is rightly and properly slotted by the local authority (MWAA, however tatty their competence) somewhat below capacity, so that can operate without delay. (A lesson PANYNJ would be well-advised to learn.) The local authority can restrict the perimeter around DCA and push most longer-haul traffic out to IAD, a larger facility built for that purpose. Congress a) adding a few slots so that Western Congresscritters in larger markets that can support flights have a nonstop option, but not b) getting rid of the perimeter altogether, is a reasonable accommodation to a national interest. DOJ requiring that AA-US give up some slots for LCC access, was also a reasonable, not burdensome, national intervention.

American wisely didn't just decide to get rid of service to smaller markets and go to all dense-market flights after AA-US, probably, as Knope said, because they have a better profit profile for the station, with higher margins on a large number shorter flights on smaller aircraft. But even if AA did slash smaller markets and go all big-market at DCA, Congress would find some way to make their life miserable, which AA well knows, and Congress would be well within their rights to do so. The United States has never been a pure laissez-faire capitalist system, no matter how much a few purists might want us to be, which is for the common good. DCA is a public resource, and Greensboro, Rochester, and Dayton have as much right of access as ORD, LAX, and ATL. And that's how it should be. Fortuantely, the presence of Congress will help DCA remain that way. :)
Jim


While airports are public facilities, airlines are private businesses for profit. Airlines make money on each passenger and the more passengers on a larger aircraft, I.E 90 seats+ as opposed to 50 seat aircraft, the more profit, the more people accommodated on each flight, the more jobs created for support staff and more income for the airport , I.E landing fees based on weight, fuel taxes, PFC fees, etc. Small cities have access to LGA and DCA but it should be via a one stop connection. Should Beckley,WV, Erie,PA, Florence,SC, and the like have non-stop access to these airports if they demand it and why? The government has done foolish things in the past regarding aviation and that have worked to the detriment of airports, airlines and a large number of flyers. The perimeter rules at DCA and LGA, the Wright amendment which artificially stunted the growth of DAL and cost jobs and income at DAL. If the cities you mention can support service with 90+ seat airliners, fine, but when a slot is wasted on a 34 passenger Dash-8 or a 50 seat RJ which many times are not full, it flies in the face of good business practices. If it adds an hour or so for a 25-35 passengers to connect to LGA or DCA, it makes more sense to service the greater number and those who connect are making the system more efficient as flights from hub airports to LGA and DCA will have higher load factors and the slot remaining can be used for a new city that can support a mainline aircraft. When a bus line route has few passengers, its dropped and the bus is redeployed to a busier route carrying more passengers.
They price some of us pay for living in a small city means you can't offer what a larger city offers. Its a trade off, small cities, less traffic, lower taxes, reasonable housing etc, large cities, more job opportunities, more entertainment venues, more transportation options etc. Amtrak loses money because it serves small stations that do not provide enough passengers to cover the cost of the service. The government owns amtrak, need I say more? This country is full of those who feel they are entitled to many things, the gimme generation. The government is planing to reduce the EAS program, a pork barrel program that wastes millions to serve a handful. Let the airlines work to serve the most people and the few remaining can connect. By the way, I don't have a problem with slots at airports that are runway restrained.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:34 am

BobPatterson wrote:
IAD is 26 miles from downtown DC, while BWI is 35 miles away.

2.8 million people live in Northern Virginia and all are much closer to IAD than to BWI.

And how many live in the Baltimore area? I'd guess it's close
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3939
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:45 am

Sorry, Cheapgreek, but your assumptions are all wrong, contrary to a sound understanding of what air travel is. Not interested in hashing it again in detail, but airlines are stewards of a public good, a reality that Wall Street doesn't have to like. Making money must go hand in hand with keeping major destinations connected with medium-and smaller-markets. And Congress is right to watch DCA closely and make sure that that public facility benefits not only Wall Street, but their constituents. "Greater number" is a secondary concern to first making sure those who can reasonably be connected directly are. "Greater number" is quite frankly not the only principle a public facility has to reflect, when demand for that facility outweighs its capacity.

No one says smaller cities have to have everything a larger city offers. But certain things, like air transportation within reasonable limits, should be available. Speaking of EAS, too many Congresscritters' districts have EAS for the Trump administration's idiotic plans to eliminate the program to go through. It may get pared, but it won't go away.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:10 am

cheapgreek wrote:
While airports are public facilities, airlines are private businesses for profit. Airlines make money on each passenger and the more passengers on a larger aircraft, I.E 90 seats+ as opposed to 50 seat aircraft, the more profit, the more people accommodated on each flight, the more jobs created for support staff and more income for the airport , I.E landing fees based on weight, fuel taxes, PFC fees, etc. Small cities have access to LGA and DCA but it should be via a one stop connection. Should Beckley,WV, Erie,PA, Florence,SC, and the like have non-stop access to these airports if they demand it and why? The government has done foolish things in the past regarding aviation and that have worked to the detriment of airports, airlines and a large number of flyers. The perimeter rules at DCA and LGA, the Wright amendment which artificially stunted the growth of DAL and cost jobs and income at DAL. If the cities you mention can support service with 90+ seat airliners, fine, but when a slot is wasted on a 34 passenger Dash-8 or a 50 seat RJ which many times are not full, it flies in the face of good business practices. If it adds an hour or so for a 25-35 passengers to connect to LGA or DCA, it makes more sense to service the greater number and those who connect are making the system more efficient as flights from hub airports to LGA and DCA will have higher load factors and the slot remaining can be used for a new city that can support a mainline aircraft. When a bus line route has few passengers, its dropped and the bus is redeployed to a busier route carrying more passengers.
They price some of us pay for living in a small city means you can't offer what a larger city offers. Its a trade off, small cities, less traffic, lower taxes, reasonable housing etc, large cities, more job opportunities, more entertainment venues, more transportation options etc. Amtrak loses money because it serves small stations that do not provide enough passengers to cover the cost of the service. The government owns amtrak, need I say more? This country is full of those who feel they are entitled to many things, the gimme generation. The government is planing to reduce the EAS program, a pork barrel program that wastes millions to serve a handful. Let the airlines work to serve the most people and the few remaining can connect. By the way, I don't have a problem with slots at airports that are runway restrained.


The airlines are the ones deciding, based on their profit motives, the size of aircraft and the cities to be served by them on flights to Washington DCA. You seem to be saying that the airlines should be forced to change their profit-making plans based on your concept of best practices.

I'd suggest that publicly-owned airports do not exist for the purpose of maximizing airline profits, or even for solely maximizing passenger counts through the airport. Surely, an important function of the airport is also to promote and make available convenient service, wherever possible, to all who live within the region. I think this is best accomplished by airports deciding the number of flights they can safely accommodate, and by airlines deciding the best mix of destinations (large and small cities) to make their operations profitable.

The size of aircraft to be used should of course be determined, in each instance, by each airline.

DCA can manage the problem of a limited number of slots by requiring longer-distance flights to make use of Dulles IAD.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:44 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
Sorry, Cheapgreek, but your assumptions are all wrong, contrary to a sound understanding of what air travel is. Not interested in hashing it again in detail, but airlines are stewards of a public good, a reality that Wall Street doesn't have to like. Making money must go hand in hand with keeping major destinations connected with medium-and smaller-markets. And Congress is right to watch DCA closely and make sure that that public facility benefits not only Wall Street, but their constituents. "Greater number" is a secondary concern to first making sure those who can reasonably be connected directly are. "Greater number" is quite frankly not the only principle a public facility has to reflect, when demand for that facility outweighs its capacity.

No one says smaller cities have to have everything a larger city offers. But certain things, like air transportation within reasonable limits, should be available. Speaking of EAS, too many Congresscritters' districts have EAS for the Trump administration's idiotic plans to eliminate the program to go through. It may get pared, but it won't go away.

Jim

Small cities have access by way of connections. For the greater good of the many, use the slots where they can accomplish the most good and for small cities in your words, "can reasonably be connected" via one stop flights. Is it unreasonable to expect small cities to make a connection to reach LGA and DCA? Whats the harm to small cities to make one connection? Its absurd to think 25-35 passengers should go before 100+ passengers. Bus and train services match the demand and small cities need to connect for most destinations. This an issue we will never agree on, To ignore the needs of the many for the few who still have access via one stop connections will never make sense for the airlines and the flying public, but in Washington, clear rational thinking have never been the hallmark of that crowd.
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:33 am

cheapgreek wrote:
This an issue we will never agree on, To ignore the needs of the many for the few who still have access via one stop connections will never make sense for the airlines and the flying public, but in Washington, clear rational thinking have never been the hallmark of that crowd.


Sounds like you have closed your mind to the possibility that others might have more sound arguments than you have (we will never agree....).

You indicate that it might delay folks from smaller towns only an hour or so extra to instead fly through a connecting point. Can you possibly demonstrate this to be so, on average? They might have to fly away from DC to connect and then wait a couple of hours for the next flight?

What will be the additional cost to those passengers?

Can you demonstrate that ANY passengers on larger aircraft are now being denied access to DCA because a smaller aircraft is utilizing a slot?

I'm looking forward to your evidence. It might change my mind.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
capitalflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:35 pm

What gets lost is that flights to many of these smaller cities have much higher fares, especially with AA (in most cases) being the only ones serving the route. That means they are making more money.

I would be curious to see which ones of these regional routes would be eliminated if all stipulations were taken off of the slots. My guess is that a surprising number would still remain. One of the shortest flights, DCA-ORF, no doubt would stay. In fact, I feel reasonably confident that there are exactly zero EAS communities served by non-stop flights to DCA. Most if not all of DCA destinations are 1. Sci/tech hubs 2. military hubs 3. vacation destinations 4. political hubs. With DCA being the Nation's Capitol's airport, flights from places like RDU, ORF, ROC make total sense because of the government.

Can you name 5 destinations that would be lost if restrictions were taken off slots at DCA?

Another thing that gets lost is that LGA is a HUB!! Of course it has flights to Schenetady, LGA is its closest hub. DCA is also a mini-hub, and that could become more the case once security checkpoint is moved and 35x is no more, making connections much easier.
 
jplatts
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:01 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
What gets lost is that flights to many of these smaller cities have much higher fares, especially with AA (in most cases) being the only ones serving the route. That means they are making more money.

I would be curious to see which ones of these regional routes would be eliminated if all stipulations were taken off of the slots. My guess is that a surprising number would still remain. One of the shortest flights, DCA-ORF, no doubt would stay. In fact, I feel reasonably confident that there are exactly zero EAS communities served by non-stop flights to DCA. Most if not all of DCA destinations are 1. Sci/tech hubs 2. military hubs 3. vacation destinations 4. political hubs. With DCA being the Nation's Capitol's airport, flights from places like RDU, ORF, ROC make total sense because of the government.

Can you name 5 destinations that would be lost if restrictions were taken off slots at DCA?

Another thing that gets lost is that LGA is a HUB!! Of course it has flights to Schenetady, LGA is its closest hub. DCA is also a mini-hub, and that could become more the case once security checkpoint is moved and 35x is no more, making connections much easier.


Southwest already has nonstops out of BWI to RDU, ORF, and ROC. Southwest currently does 6-7 daily nonstops between BWI and RDU, and Southwest might be able to add nonstop service between DCA and RDU if it can get extra slots at DCA. Are the customers who travel Southwest between BWI-RDU actually going to DC, or are they going to Baltimore, or are they connecting at BWI to destinations in the Northeastern US?
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3939
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:04 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
Small cities have access by way of connections. For the greater good of the many, use the slots where they can accomplish the most good and for small cities in your words, "can reasonably be connected" via one stop flights. Is it unreasonable to expect small cities to make a connection to reach LGA and DCA? Whats the harm to small cities to make one connection? Its absurd to think 25-35 passengers should go before 100+ passengers. Bus and train services match the demand and small cities need to connect for most destinations. This an issue we will never agree on, To ignore the needs of the many for the few who still have access via one stop connections will never make sense for the airlines and the flying public, but in Washington, clear rational thinking have never been the hallmark of that crowd.


Yes, it is very unreasonable. Connections can add hours to a flight and are an unacceptable alternative. Sorry, again, your view of "many versus few" is based upon bad assumptions of what both a society and the industry are. Smaller metro areas that can support air service need direct connection too. What's absurd is thinking that somehow these communities don't have the same economic and social need for direct connection that very large communities do. A society is not just raw numbers of people, it is also communities, and they are part of the economic picture.

No one in ROC, BUF, or SYR should have to fly to EWR or PHL to get to DCA, all of these cities easily support service on 70-seat aircraft. EWR and PHL are terribly delay-prone airports, too, so the two additional hours added for flying out of one's way and sitting at another airport can easily turn into several hours more. Sorry, not acceptable. Nonstop flights to DCA and LGA are the *only* acceptable option.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:29 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
This an issue we will never agree on, To ignore the needs of the many for the few who still have access via one stop connections will never make sense for the airlines and the flying public, but in Washington, clear rational thinking have never been the hallmark of that crowd.


Sounds like you have closed your mind to the possibility that others might have more sound arguments than you have (we will never agree....).

You indicate that it might delay folks from smaller towns only an hour or so extra to instead fly through a connecting point. Can you possibly demonstrate this to be so, on average? They might have to fly away from DC to connect and then wait a couple of hours for the next flight?

What will be the additional cost to those passengers?

Can you demonstrate that ANY passengers on larger aircraft are now being denied access to DCA because a smaller aircraft is utilizing a slot?

I'm looking forward to your evidence. It might change my mind.


Your last sentence indicates you have somewhat of a closed mind also. Some cities with no N/S to DCA. SNA, TUS, RNO ,SMF ,SAN. Some cities with N/S are PDX 1 flight, SJC 1 flight, SEA 1 flight, LAS 1 flight. These cities could use more service as they serve a large population base. Connecting times vary so I cannot give figures on so many combinations. On connecting flights from PVD to DCA, connecting times were .51, 1.08,1.17, 1.40, .47, 1.27, 1.05, .56, and yes some were longer and I only choose commuter flights, not mainline. PVD has 6 N/S to DCA and BDL has 7 N/S to DCA,all RJ flights. If some of these flights were upgauged, BDL from 7 to 4 flights and PVD from 6 flights to 3, that would free up more slots to serve some of the airports I listed. My connecting flights through CLT and PHL in the past have been from 45 minutes to 2 hours on average. Years ago I watched Dash-8s by the dozens coming and going from LGA many times not full, using space and slots that could have accommodated many more passengers. Now that the Dash's are being parked, they are a rare sight, but my point is with some shifting of slots, upgauging some flights to reduce frequency, airlines won't be forced to place aircraft where the demand is low and start new service to those cities with no non-stop service.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos