capitalflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:37 pm

Last week, DC area congress critters and senators sent a letter to their colleagues opposing new slots and slot exemptions that have sometimes been included in the FAA reauthorization.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/l ... n-national

With continued record growth at DCA and the threat of additional "district express" flights for those who don't have a nonstop to their district, what is the capacity of DCA?

Will DCA be "full" in 5 years? 10 years? Should MWAA actually be looking to quickly reach that passenger and flight capacity so as to then force future growth to IAD to help its shrinking domestic service?

I think 2021 will be an important year. New concourse at DCA will be completed, marking the point at which DCA is likely fully built out and the Silver Line to IAD will (hopefully) have been operating for 2 years, perhaps with a new UA concourse in the design phase at that point.
 
User avatar
CV990A
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 6:04 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:05 pm

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.
Kittens Give Morbo Gas
 
sagechan
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:06 pm

From the article “We, too, strongly oppose any attempts by other members to dictate operations at these airports for their own personal convenience at great cost to our communities and constituents.”

The irony of using the term "dictat[ing] operations" when the restrictions are the market distortion is hilarious. Other than perhaps slots, remove all restrictions from DCA/LGA/DAL and let airlines work it out. Of course my Senator is mentioned, no surprise there.
733, 734, 738, 744, 752, 772, A319, A320, A321, A332, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH8, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:16 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.


DCA is full now partly because of allowing small airliners taking up valuable slots. Both DCA and LGA should restrict any plane with less than 90 seats. Both airports will never have more runways than they do now. Its the political hacks who want non-stop service from their district to both LGA and DCA.
 
commavia
Posts: 10709
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:24 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
DCA is full now partly because of allowing small airliners taking up valuable slots. Both DCA and LGA should restrict any plane with less than 90 seats. Both airports will never have more runways than they do now. Its the political hacks who want non-stop service from their district to both LGA and DCA.


As has been discussed numerous times before, it's all about what the public policy goal is. If the goal is simply to push as many passengers through DCA as possible, at the lowest possible average fares, then I absolutely agree that lifting all restrictions would be the path to accomplishing that goal. In fact, in that instance, I don't even think DCA would have to put a floor on the size of the airplane - the market would naturally gravitate towards larger and larger aircraft to maximize the revenue potential of each slot. The example of the AA slot divestiture was instructive - AA largely divested slots being used from small jets, and all were taken up by low fare airlines operating EMB190, 737 or A320 family aircraft holding 2-3x as many seats per departure.

More broadly, I'm not sure that arbitrarily defining a floor on aircraft size would - in and of itself - necessarily increase competition in all cases. Indeed, I could see it harming competition. There are countless markets - at DCA and also LGA - where one or multiple nonstop competitors rely on their ability to use smaller aircraft in order to compete with the dominant carrier(s) on the route. AA, for example, would almost certainly not be flying nonstop - or at least would have far less capacity - from DCA to ATL, DTW or MSP if not for RJs. Delta, for example, would almost certainly not be flying nonstop - or at least would have far less capacity - from LGA to IAH, DFW and CLT if not for RJs. And on and on.
 
Byrdluvs747
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:37 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
DCA is full now partly because of allowing small airliners taking up valuable slots. Both DCA and LGA should restrict any plane with less than 90 seats.


Thats just a plain bad idea, as it would kill off a lot of service to smaller communities.

This is the nations capital we're talking about. Im sure many in congress would rather see service from DCA spread out to many communities in the US rather than concentrated in 15x daily routes to cities like LAX and SFO.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
TransGlobalGold
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:40 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:55 pm

I remember the calls (not from politicians) to close DCA after 9/11. That did not set well then, npor will it ever.
 
LoudounHound
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:43 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:45 pm

Most people miss the point. Shouldn't a community be able to decide where and how to invest taxpayer dollars in infrastructure improvements? I don't agree that communities should always adjust to "market demands" no matter what. The DC area, as represented by the MWAA (whose members are appointed by elected officials), should have the right to direct growth to IAD for any number of reasons, to include traffic management, road capacity, airport capacity, noise, security, etc. It's really no different than zoning restrictions. Why can't the DC area choose to invest in IAD and direct growth there without Congressional interference? How can you realistically plan otherwise?
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3939
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:27 am

What west-of-perimeter city that wants a DCA flight and can support one still doesn't have one? I can't think of any. Can't pretty much any Hill critter who wants to fly home, and their airport can economically support a nonstop DCA flight, do so? I really hope none of the 535 have their heart set on, say, Boise or Spokane.

DCA is probably at about where it ought to be competitively.The AA-US transaction got the LCC's substantially more access, even while smaller communities largely retained what they have. It is not clear why DCA would need more exemption slots.

Also, DCA is uncongested. Unlike New York City, where the airports are slotted above their all-weather capacity, DCA is properly slotted. That's part of why it's so great to use--it's not a delay mess like LGA or EWR. DCA should stay uncongested. Once the new security stations are built, and the "Goodbye 35X" regional concourse is built, DCA will probably be adjusted to its higher post AA-US passenger counts, and will be even better.

Jim
Last edited by DCA-ROCguy on Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
airliner371
Posts: 2220
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:53 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:30 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
What west-of-perimeter city that wants a DCA flight and can support one still doesn't have one? I can't think of any. I really hope no Hill critter has their heart set on, say, Boise or Spokane.

I can think of SAN, OAK/SJC/SMF, SAT that could all support out of perimeter flights in addition to additional frequencies and compeititon on existing routes.
Take a little time and enjoy the view.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:47 am

Byrdluvs747 wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
DCA is full now partly because of allowing small airliners taking up valuable slots. Both DCA and LGA should restrict any plane with less than 90 seats.


Thats just a plain bad idea, as it would kill off a lot of service to smaller communities.

This is the nations capital we're talking about. Im sure many in congress would rather see service from DCA spread out to many communities in the US rather than concentrated in 15x daily routes to cities like LAX and SFO.


Killing off service to small cities is what is needed. Service to DCA and LGA is not a right, but considering both airports having limited access, it would be in the flying public's interest to move as many people as possible to make the best use the limited number of slots. Small cities can connect to both airports by a one change of planes at many hub airports. Having 50 seat RJ's taking up the slots that a 737 or 757 or A320 could use is a waste of resources. This entitlement attitude that every city has a right to non-stop service to DCA and LGA is misguided and a waste of slots. Whats better, accommodating 50 passengers or 150?. Majority rules when one considers that with the use of one slot, more people can be accommodated.
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:14 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
What west-of-perimeter city that wants a DCA flight and can support one still doesn't have one? I can't think of any. Can't pretty much any Hill critter who wants to fly home, and their airport can economically support a nonstop DCA flight, do so? I really hope none of the 535 have their heart set on, say, Boise or Spokane.

How about San Diego?

Not just Hill critters but about 300 pax per day each way fly between DCA and SAN - plus, who knows how many more WOULD fly nonstop rather than a nonstop from BWI or IAD that they use now? It is, I suspect, still one of the largest unserved domestic markets in the U.S., certainly in the top 3!

I don't know the numbers for other unserved cities out west (Beyond-Perimeter) but someone, somehow, sure needs to get SAN hooked up...

bb
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:41 am

SANFan wrote:
DCA-ROCguy wrote:
What west-of-perimeter city that wants a DCA flight and can support one still doesn't have one? I can't think of any. Can't pretty much any Hill critter who wants to fly home, and their airport can economically support a nonstop DCA flight, do so? I really hope none of the 535 have their heart set on, say, Boise or Spokane.

How about San Diego?

Not just Hill critters but about 300 pax per day each way fly between DCA and SAN - plus, who knows how many more WOULD fly nonstop rather than a nonstop from BWI or IAD that they use now? It is, I suspect, still one of the largest unserved domestic markets in the U.S., certainly in the top 3!

I don't know the numbers for other unserved cities out west (Beyond-Perimeter) but someone, somehow, sure needs to get SAN hooked up...

bb

Okay - Someone help me out.

I remember flying from DCA to SAN some years ago on a USAirways A319.

If the service already existed, then why was it killed? If it was killed, then why would we want it back?
 
jplatts
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:56 am

cheapgreek wrote:
Byrdluvs747 wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
DCA is full now partly because of allowing small airliners taking up valuable slots. Both DCA and LGA should restrict any plane with less than 90 seats.


Thats just a plain bad idea, as it would kill off a lot of service to smaller communities.

This is the nations capital we're talking about. Im sure many in congress would rather see service from DCA spread out to many communities in the US rather than concentrated in 15x daily routes to cities like LAX and SFO.


Killing off service to small cities is what is needed. Service to DCA and LGA is not a right, but considering both airports having limited access, it would be in the flying public's interest to move as many people as possible to make the best use the limited number of slots. Small cities can connect to both airports by a one change of planes at many hub airports. Having 50 seat RJ's taking up the slots that a 737 or 757 or A320 could use is a waste of resources. This entitlement attitude that every city has a right to non-stop service to DCA and LGA is misguided and a waste of slots. Whats better, accommodating 50 passengers or 150?. Majority rules when one considers that with the use of one slot, more people can be accommodated.


Some of the airports in smaller cities that have nonstop service to DCA actually serve capital cities of U.S. states, and as such should continue to have nonstop service to DCA since some of the travel to and from DCA from the smaller cities is on official government business by government officials. Cities in this category include Albany, NY, Burlington, VT (which serves Montpelier, VT), Charleston, WV, Columbia, SC, Des Moines, IA, Jackson, MS, Lansing, MI, Madison, WI, Manchester, NH (which serves Concord, NH), and Providence, RI.
 
jplatts
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:00 am

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.
 
910A
Posts: 827
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:11 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:01 am

kgaiflyer wrote:
SANFan wrote:
DCA-ROCguy wrote:
What west-of-perimeter city that wants a DCA flight and can support one still doesn't have one? I can't think of any. Can't pretty much any Hill critter who wants to fly home, and their airport can economically support a nonstop DCA flight, do so? I really hope none of the 535 have their heart set on, say, Boise or Spokane.

How about San Diego?

Not just Hill critters but about 300 pax per day each way fly between DCA and SAN - plus, who knows how many more WOULD fly nonstop rather than a nonstop from BWI or IAD that they use now? It is, I suspect, still one of the largest unserved domestic markets in the U.S., certainly in the top 3!

I don't know the numbers for other unserved cities out west (Beyond-Perimeter) but someone, somehow, sure needs to get SAN hooked up...

bb

Okay - Someone help me out.

I remember flying from DCA to SAN some years ago on a USAirways A319.

If the service already existed, then why was it killed? If it was killed, then why would we want it back?


From January 2014:

DALLAS (AP/WJLA) - American Airlines and US Airways will drop year-round, daily nonstop flights from Washington's Reagan National Airport to Detroit, San Diego and 15 other cities because of the deal they made to win government approval of their merger.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/ameri ... ties-99328
 
BobPatterson
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:29 am

It is impossible for DCA to serve all cities in the United States.

If that limitation is acknowledged, then the most logical plan would be to have the more distant cities serviced from IAD and BWI, and the maximum number of closer-in cities serviced from DCA.

Some congressmen and senators are just going to have to use an airport other than DCA.

Or they can connect through Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit and other midwest hubs, just as we the people do.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:05 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
What west-of-perimeter city that wants a DCA flight and can support one still doesn't have one? I can't think of any. Can't pretty much any Hill critter who wants to fly home, and their airport can economically support a nonstop DCA flight, do so?


Lest we not forget that AS, B6 and WN are no stranger to p2p DCA ops. For political reasons, WN might prioritize something like ABQ over OAK or RNO over LAS. AS may very well have a better shot getting SLC (what a statement that application would make to DL!) and SMF than their seemingly obvious suspects like SAN and SJC. 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.
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
LeaderOne
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:22 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:14 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
Also, DCA is uncongested. Unlike New York City, where the airports are slotted above their all-weather capacity, DCA is properly slotted. That's part of why it's so great to use--it's not a delay mess like LGA or EWR. DCA should stay uncongested. Once the new security stations are built, and the "Goodbye 35X" regional concourse is built, DCA will probably be adjusted to its higher post AA-US passenger counts, and will be even better.

Jim


Believe it or not, DCA is capped at 62 movements an hour, which is close to the max VFR capacity of a commercial airport with a one-runway operation. DCA is essentially a one-runway operation airport. However, about 10 or so of those slots are designated for general aviation aircraft. DCA's general aviation traffic plummeted after 9/11 and hasn't really recovered since. So, you have at least 10 or so slots that are still pretty much unused. If they really want to increase traffic, they should give those GA-designated slots to the airlines because the capacity is there.

Oh, and DCA ranked in the bottom half for major airport on-time arrivals last year...not all that much better than LGA or EWR.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/subject_ar ... 2/table_04
Leader-1
 
User avatar
hispanola
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:13 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:00 am

DCA's on-time performance is poor because they have too many slots. Robert Crandall has spoken about this and he has a point. If the airport wasn't so congested, everyone would arrive on time, flights would be shorter, and airlines wouldn't have to spend so much on fuel. This would be better for the environment and would give the airlines a better offering than they currently have (long waits, plenty of taxiing, delays galore), which causes many commuters to take the train to New York. It's time for more A321s and 757s to fly into the airport.

Sometimes people need to accept that an airport can't grow anymore. If it's full it's full. BWI and IAD should take on some of DCA's excess.
From Co. Down living in PNA.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:26 am

jplatts wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
Byrdluvs747 wrote:

Thats just a plain bad idea, as it would kill off a lot of service to smaller communities.

This is the nations capital we're talking about. Im sure many in congress would rather see service from DCA spread out to many communities in the US rather than concentrated in 15x daily routes to cities like LAX and SFO.


Killing off service to small cities is what is needed. Service to DCA and LGA is not a right, but considering both airports having limited access, it would be in the flying public's interest to move as many people as possible to make the best use the limited number of slots. Small cities can connect to both airports by a one change of planes at many hub airports. Having 50 seat RJ's taking up the slots that a 737 or 757 or A320 could use is a waste of resources. This entitlement attitude that every city has a right to non-stop service to DCA and LGA is misguided and a waste of slots. Whats better, accommodating 50 passengers or 150?. Majority rules when one considers that with the use of one slot, more people can be accommodated.


Some of the airports in smaller cities that have nonstop service to DCA actually serve capital cities of U.S. states, and as such should continue to have nonstop service to DCA since some of the travel to and from DCA from the smaller cities is on official government business by government officials. Cities in this category include Albany, NY, Burlington, VT (which serves Montpelier, VT), Charleston, WV, Columbia, SC, Des Moines, IA, Jackson, MS, Lansing, MI, Madison, WI, Manchester, NH (which serves Concord, NH), and Providence, RI.


How does one compare Charleston, WV with San Diego, Des Moines, IA with Seattle or Jackson, MS with the many much larger cities throughout the country? Being a capital city is no basis for having non-stop service to DCA or LGA. From these small cities you list are many connections that can be made with one change of planes. Is a government official more important than other citizens who travel to DCA? Useage of DCA and LGA should be determined by the number of people using the service, not creating a group of privileged politicians who feel they are above the average citizen. It boils down to moving the maximum number of people per flight, not catering to the small number of those who feel its their right to have non-stop service to the detriment of many more people.
 
ty97
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 1:06 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:25 am

kgaiflyer wrote:
SANFan wrote:
DCA-ROCguy wrote:
What west-of-perimeter city that wants a DCA flight and can support one still doesn't have one? I can't think of any. Can't pretty much any Hill critter who wants to fly home, and their airport can economically support a nonstop DCA flight, do so? I really hope none of the 535 have their heart set on, say, Boise or Spokane.

How about San Diego?

Not just Hill critters but about 300 pax per day each way fly between DCA and SAN - plus, who knows how many more WOULD fly nonstop rather than a nonstop from BWI or IAD that they use now? It is, I suspect, still one of the largest unserved domestic markets in the U.S., certainly in the top 3!

I don't know the numbers for other unserved cities out west (Beyond-Perimeter) but someone, somehow, sure needs to get SAN hooked up...

bb

Okay - Someone help me out.

I remember flying from DCA to SAN some years ago on a USAirways A319.

If the service already existed, then why was it killed? If it was killed, then why would we want it back?


IIRC, some DCA out-of-perimeter slots are locked to a specific route, other out-of-perimiter slots are flexible/open and can be moved around at the airline's choosing. US had one of these flexible slots and used it on DCA-SAN. Following the merger with AA, they moved this slot to a second daily DCA-LAX.
 
commavia
Posts: 10709
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:06 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
Killing off service to small cities is what is needed. Service to DCA and LGA is not a right, but considering both airports having limited access, it would be in the flying public's interest to move as many people as possible to make the best use the limited number of slots. Small cities can connect to both airports by a one change of planes at many hub airports. Having 50 seat RJ's taking up the slots that a 737 or 757 or A320 could use is a waste of resources. This entitlement attitude that every city has a right to non-stop service to DCA and LGA is misguided and a waste of slots. Whats better, accommodating 50 passengers or 150?. Majority rules when one considers that with the use of one slot, more people can be accommodated.


Well, again, it all depends on how one defines "the flying public's interest." Contrary to the narrative most prevalent here on A.net, not everyone defines "the flying public's interests" as maximum seats at minimum fares. I totally agree - alas, it's hard to argue - that if left to its own devices, without any restrictions in place, DCA would naturally gravitate towards tons of 737s and A320s flying to big cities, and not much else. Small cities and flights using RJs would be dropped in favor of bigger planes going to bigger markets. But there are those - right or wrong - who don't believe that is the best public policy.

SANFan wrote:
How about San Diego?

Not just Hill critters but about 300 pax per day each way fly between DCA and SAN - plus, who knows how many more WOULD fly nonstop rather than a nonstop from BWI or IAD that they use now? It is, I suspect, still one of the largest unserved domestic markets in the U.S., certainly in the top 3!

I don't know the numbers for other unserved cities out west (Beyond-Perimeter) but someone, somehow, sure needs to get SAN hooked up...


At this point, I strongly suspect that, given all the government/military traffic and the fact that SAN is just a huge city and major market in and of itself, it has to be by far the largest beyond-perimeter market without a nonstop to DCA.

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.


At this point, it seems hard to imagine there being the political will to keep progressively expanding beyond-perimeter exemptions at DCA unless, perhaps, it was "spread around" like the last expansion was - where basically all the airlines got the equal right to move one existing slot from within-perimeter to beyond-perimeter. I agree that if Delta got another beyond-perimeter exemption, it seems quite plausible that it might add DCA-SEA. That said, I could also see Delta making a case internally to resume a second daily DCA-SLC, or also to launch a second daily DCA-LAX.

LeaderOne wrote:
However, about 10 or so of those slots are designated for general aviation aircraft. DCA's general aviation traffic plummeted after 9/11 and hasn't really recovered since. So, you have at least 10 or so slots that are still pretty much unused. If they really want to increase traffic, they should give those GA-designated slots to the airlines because the capacity is there.


That is public policy I would strongly support. At highly-demanded, congested airports like DCA and LGA, I would strongly support limiting or even eliminating GA traffic and freeing up airspace and airfield capacity for commercial aircraft that can serve 50 up to 250 passengers, as opposed to 5-10, at a time.

hispanola wrote:
Sometimes people need to accept that an airport can't grow anymore. If it's full it's full. BWI and IAD should take on some of DCA's excess.


Sure. And that's what is happening. Unless the perimeter is removed, DCA's growth is closer to its end than its beginning. At this point, pretty much the only meaningful, significant growth potential left for the airport is progressive upgauging by the two largest low fare operators - so JetBlue replacing E190s with A320s, and Southwest replacing -700s with -800s - and upgauging by network carriers, with that skewed almost entirely towards AA which obviously has by far the largest RJ operation at the airport. And that will happen. AA is steadily shifting more and more 50-seat flying to 65- and 76-seat flying, and that will continue. But at this point, realistically, more and more of the growth in capacity at WAS metro airports is going to shift to BWI and IAD because - as said - it has to.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 6045
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:40 pm

ty97 wrote:

IIRC, some DCA out-of-perimeter slots are locked to a specific route, other out-of-perimiter slots are flexible/open and can be moved around at the airline's choosing. US had one of these flexible slots and used it on DCA-SAN. Following the merger with AA, they moved this slot to a second daily DCA-LAX.


To be clear there are 4 out of perimeter slots not locked into a route, given to the 4 (at the time) legacy carriers in exchange for them giving up an in-perimeter slot the last time the out of perimeter slots were expanded (same time 4 out of perimeter slots were also granted for new/limited slot holding entrants).

US used it for SAN, DL SLC, UA SFO, and AA LAX. After the US/AA merger as you said the SAN flight was moved to LAX, and starting later this month DL is moving the SLC flight to LAX as well.

All other out-of-perimeter slots are locked into a route. So the airline would need to get permission to move it which brings along the risk of it being put up for competition and taken from them.
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:52 pm

commavia wrote:
SANFan wrote:
How about San Diego?
Not just Hill critters but about 300 pax per day each way fly between DCA and SAN - plus, who knows how many more WOULD fly nonstop rather than a nonstop from BWI or IAD that they use now? It is, I suspect, still one of the largest unserved domestic markets in the U.S., certainly in the top 3!

At this point, I strongly suspect that, given all the government/military traffic and the fact that SAN is just a huge city and major market in and of itself, it has to be by far the largest beyond-perimeter market without a nonstop to DCA.

Well, I wouldn't say SAN is a huge city but it IS a major market (not just a suburb of LA!), and it certainly is the largest unserved market in the U.S. from DCA!

Polot wrote:
To be clear there are 4 out of perimeter slots not locked into a route, given to the 4 (at the time) legacy carriers in exchange for them giving up an in-perimeter slot the last time the out of perimeter slots were expanded (same time 4 out of perimeter slots were also granted for new/limited slot holding entrants).

US used it for SAN, DL SLC, UA SFO, and AA LAX. After the US/AA merger as you said the SAN flight was moved to LAX, and starting later this month DL is moving the SLC flight to LAX as well.

All other out-of-perimeter slots are locked into a route. So the airline would need to get permission to move it which brings along the risk of it being put up for competition and taken from them.

Precisely! Good, quick summary of the situation. I'll only add that those 4 flexible Beyond-Perimeter routes you first mentioned were part of the last Awards case completed in 2012.

The US/AA nonstop between Reagan Airport and Lindbergh Field ended on May 22, 2014; US began flying the route on June 8, 2012.

bb
 
tphuang
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:26 pm

hispanola wrote:
DCA's on-time performance is poor because they have too many slots. Robert Crandall has spoken about this and he has a point. If the airport wasn't so congested, everyone would arrive on time, flights would be shorter, and airlines wouldn't have to spend so much on fuel. This would be better for the environment and would give the airlines a better offering than they currently have (long waits, plenty of taxiing, delays galore), which causes many commuters to take the train to New York. It's time for more A321s and 757s to fly into the airport.

Sometimes people need to accept that an airport can't grow anymore. If it's full it's full. BWI and IAD should take on some of DCA's excess.

totally agreed. Once the transportation to IAD gets better, they should just get rid of these exemptions and have all long distance flight out of BWI/IAD.

And also, I'm hugely in favour of reduce the slots even more and making the landing fees fixed for single aisle aircraft rather than based on number of passengers, so the airlines will actually start flyhing A321s rather than ERJ-45. And while they are at it, do the same as LGA. It's ridiculous that regional jets are used so much on slot restricted airports
 
DCAfan
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:22 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:02 pm

The main problem with IAD for the domestic carriers is that the debt load is way too high. I believe it will be 20 years before the domestic industry will be willing to make major investments at Dulles. So go ahead in the meantime and continue to saddle DCA with artificial constraints and see where it gets you.
 
sagechan
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:53 pm

I find it funny in the upgauge or else commentary ingnores the fact for the dominate carrier there are reasons to serve smaller markets, though unrestricted probably would see some shuffling upward, but not all. Plus if you crammed all 321s and 739s or 757s into DCA or LGA the facilities would probably burst from overflowing.
733, 734, 738, 744, 752, 772, A319, A320, A321, A332, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH8, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS
 
SWALUV
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:17 am

sagechan wrote:
I find it funny in the upgauge or else commentary ingnores the fact for the dominate carrier there are reasons to serve smaller markets, though unrestricted probably would see some shuffling upward, but not all. Plus if you crammed all 321s and 739s or 757s into DCA or LGA the facilities would probably burst from overflowing.



I agree. They're already packed enough as it is. I couldn't imagine it all being 321s, 739s, and 75s. You'd be stepping over everyone.
 
727200
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:30 am

1) I remember talking to a pilot one time years ago who said, "DCA is a political airport nothing more." Guess he was right. 2) Why should DL or SW get additional slots to make up a SLC or OAK or anything flights? So DL can say "flight will go from SLC..or no lets move it to SEA...forget that we will now move it to someplace else." Just like the HDN slot they kept playing games with. Let all of them present their case like a route authority, with priority given to flights beyond 1500 miles.
 
capitalflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:18 am

The other piece of the equation is fares. DC's population is growing (bigger than Boston!), with lots of young people with money moving in. More people means more demand for flights from close in DCA. Which in turn, given that DCA is nearly at its seat capacity, means fares are bound to go up. This might level the playing field between DCA and IAD fare-wise eventually.

The debt load at IAD is an issue, but a bit less so now since MWAA got permission to shift funds from DCA to help cover costs so fees for airlines don't go any higher.

Upgauging is not the complete answer. It will happen some to add seats, but there is only so much space on the tarmac. I doubt you could park a 757/321 at every gate and have them all fit.

SAN would be the only additional perimeter exemption I would allow. That said, if AA wanted to go to SAN, they could do it now using one of their other exemptions. Any more than just that one exemption would be unnecessary.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:37 am

sagechan wrote:
I find it funny in the upgauge or else commentary ingnores the fact for the dominate carrier there are reasons to serve smaller markets, though unrestricted probably would see some shuffling upward, but not all. Plus if you crammed all 321s and 739s or 757s into DCA or LGA the facilities would probably burst from overflowing.


I think its unreasonable to expect that all new flights would be all 321s and 739s or 757s . Using aircraft with a minimum of 90 seats leaves open the possibility of a wide variety of large RJ's and 717,737-7, and A319s. Reality dictates that the limited number of slots should be used to transport the most passengers per flight. Small cities that cannot fill a 90+ seat plane would have to make a one stop connection through a hub airport, its what already the majority of passengers from small airports do today. Non-stop service to DCA and LGA is not a right but airports like DCA need to maximize their limited runway capabilities.
Part of the reason for major airlines offer non-stop flights to DCA from small cities is that the perimeter rule prevents them from starting service beyond the 1500 mile limit, so to keep the slot, they offer service with 50 seaters and hope some day that silly restriction will be lifted as was the Wright amendment at DAL.
 
sagechan
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:43 am

cheapgreek wrote:
sagechan wrote:
I find it funny in the upgauge or else commentary ingnores the fact for the dominate carrier there are reasons to serve smaller markets, though unrestricted probably would see some shuffling upward, but not all. Plus if you crammed all 321s and 739s or 757s into DCA or LGA the facilities would probably burst from overflowing.


I think its unreasonable to expect that all new flights would be all 321s and 739s or 757s . Using aircraft with a minimum of 90 seats leaves open the possibility of a wide variety of large RJ's and 717,737-7, and A319s. Reality dictates that the limited number of slots should be used to transport the most passengers per flight. Small cities that cannot fill a 90+ seat plane would have to make a one stop connection through a hub airport, its what already the majority of passengers from small airports do today. Non-stop service to DCA and LGA is not a right but airports like DCA need to maximize their limited runway capabilities.
Part of the reason for major airlines offer non-stop flights to DCA from small cities is that the perimeter rule prevents them from starting service beyond the 1500 mile limit, so to keep the slot, they offer service with 50 seaters and hope some day that silly restriction will be lifted as was the Wright amendment at DAL.


It's a fair argument and of course everything wouldn't be largest available option, but maximum throughput isn't necessarily the same as maximum public value. It would all depend on what priorities you set. You can make a good argument that having nonstops from smaller cities to the nations capital is more of a public good then another beach flight or additional frequency to LAX. I'd also argue that a minimum aircraft size is just as distorting as the perimeter rule is. Let the the airlines decide what works best. It is possible that a Dash from CRW is a better generator of profit than a 320 to Florida. I'm just saying I'd rather see arbitrary restrictions removed. Operational restrictions like slots may be valid though.
733, 734, 738, 744, 752, 772, A319, A320, A321, A332, MD88, CRJ, CR7, CR9, DH8, DH3, S340, ER4, E170, E175, E190/CO, NW, US, AC, NH, AA, UA, DL, WN, WS
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:38 am

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.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:25 am

sagechan wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
sagechan wrote:
I find it funny in the upgauge or else commentary ingnores the fact for the dominate carrier there are reasons to serve smaller markets, though unrestricted probably would see some shuffling upward, but not all. Plus if you crammed all 321s and 739s or 757s into DCA or LGA the facilities would probably burst from overflowing.


I think its unreasonable to expect that all new flights would be all 321s and 739s or 757s . Using aircraft with a minimum of 90 seats leaves open the possibility of a wide variety of large RJ's and 717,737-7, and A319s. Reality dictates that the limited number of slots should be used to transport the most passengers per flight. Small cities that cannot fill a 90+ seat plane would have to make a one stop connection through a hub airport, its what already the majority of passengers from small airports do today. Non-stop service to DCA and LGA is not a right but airports like DCA need to maximize their limited runway capabilities.
Part of the reason for major airlines offer non-stop flights to DCA from small cities is that the perimeter rule prevents them from starting service beyond the 1500 mile limit, so to keep the slot, they offer service with 50 seaters and hope some day that silly restriction will be lifted as was the Wright amendment at DAL.


It's a fair argument and of course everything wouldn't be largest available option, but maximum throughput isn't necessarily the same as maximum public value. It would all depend on what priorities you set. You can make a good argument that having nonstops from smaller cities to the nations capital is more of a public good then another beach flight or additional frequency to LAX. I'd also argue that a minimum aircraft size is just as distorting as the perimeter rule is. Let the the airlines decide what works best. It is possible that a Dash from CRW is a better generator of profit than a 320 to Florida. I'm just saying I'd rather see arbitrary restrictions removed. Operational restrictions like slots may be valid though.


If the perimeter rule was dropped, those non-stop flights on Dash's and 50 seat RJ's would vanish. Its a bit of an exaggeration to say its possible that a Dash from CRW is a better generator of profit. than a 320 to Florida which flights by the way are not effected by the perimeter rule. All I am trying to say its better to serve more people per flight and those small cities still would have service via a one stop connection. Sort of like the HOV lanes on the highways, does not matter who you are but how many of you there are. Also those from small cities could use already existing connecting flights to DCA thereby freeing up slots to serve a greater number of passengers.
 
commavia
Posts: 10709
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:48 am

cheapgreek wrote:
All I am trying to say its better to serve more people per flight and those small cities still would have service via a one stop connection.


And all I - and others - are trying to say is that not everyone thinks that way. There is certainly no question that, in the U.S. in general, the most common view of how to define the "public good" is maximum throughput at minimum fares. However, that isn't a 100% consensus view - particularly when it comes to DCA and LGA. There are plenty of people who define "public good" differently, based on varying other criteria including access, nonstop connectivity, hub connectivity, etc.
 
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 3:46 pm

I have doubts that the removal of perimeter rules would lead to the blossoming of service and widespread replacement of small aircraft with big that some here envision. Some new routes and some increase in average capacity? Sure. But I don’t think it would be nearly as dramatic and “for the greater good” as some envision.

1. Multiple airlines would glom onto a small number of big markets…quite a bit of added nonstop capacity to places like LAX and SFO, perhaps to the point of arms-race oversaturation.
2. Softening traffic on hub routes which currently serve 1-stop DCA traffic to the west coast, perhaps leading to smaller aircraft or a flight or two fewer to those hubs.
3. A scant few new routes out of the possible wish list of places like SAN, SAT, ABQ, BOI, OAK, SNA, OKC, SJC, SMF, etc. Maybe as few as one or two.
4. The majority of the routes served by Ejets/CR9 and smaller still served.

Here’s what I would expect:

Delta, United, JetBlue don’t have a whole lot to work with. Every beyond-perimeter flight they add means paring back some existing DCA flying back. Delta would add SEA and perhaps another LAX, United would increase DEN,SFO, probably LAX, but that might be it from these carriers. United has their Dulles hub to protect as well. I don't see JetBlue making a significant move here.

Alaska could kill their three DCA- DAL flights to send those slots west. But with more DCA competition it would hardly be a surprise if they felt it was important to keep up by using them in big markets like SEA/SFO/LAX. Alaska might be the most likely to do something like DCA-SAN or DCA-SJC, but it’s not a safe bet that SEA, SFO and/or LAX wouldn’t be seen as too important to not keep up.

Southwest has a comparably large portfolio at DCA and the most far-flung network so they seem to have the highest propensity for new city pairs at DCA. But like everybody else they must make cuts to fund any new west coast flying. If they do squeeze a few slot pairs out, they have to be earmarked for places like Denver, Phoenix and/or Vegas versus new city pairs like ABQ, SAT, OKC, SAN.

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. Those two things suggest to me that they aren’t losing their shirts on RJ flying and that DCA demand isn’t a bottomless pit. If the perimeter rule were pulled it’s certain they’d shuffle some slots to add new flights, but again it’s hard to see it much beyond LAX, SFO, PHX, possibly SEA. Routes like SMF, PDX, SJC burn a lot of aircraft time and might be no better than marginal, and it doesn’t help that AA is more of an also-ran in a lot of those secondary beyond-perimeter cities. If their making money getting people to pony up $330 each way flying to Huntsville, it doesn’t seem likely that will get the ax in favor of marginal long-haul flying.

Again, I don’t see zero change, zero new cities pairs, and zero increase in average seats. But I don’t think it would be nearly the shakeup and blossoming that many expect. Mostly a bunch of LAX, SFO, SEA and DEN funded primarily by trims around the edges, not widespread RJ market drops.
 
Flighty
Posts: 8304
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:21 pm

LeaderOne wrote:

Believe it or not, DCA is capped at 62 movements an hour, which is close to the max VFR capacity of a commercial airport with a one-runway operation. DCA is essentially a one-runway operation airport. However, about 10 or so of those slots are designated for general aviation aircraft. DCA's general aviation traffic plummeted after 9/11 and hasn't really recovered since. So, you have at least 10 or so slots that are still pretty much unused. If they really want to increase traffic, they should give those GA-designated slots to the airlines because the capacity is there.

Oh, and DCA ranked in the bottom half for major airport on-time arrivals last year...not all that much better than LGA or EWR.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/subject_ar ... 2/table_04


The capacity is only "there" if the airport operates effectively at 62 movements an hour. Does it?

Anyway, DCA should probably be allocated using a rolling auction process. You buy a slot for a 48 month period, say. Then at the end of 48 months, you can buy it again or not. You do NOT regulate where the plane goes or what kind of plane it is. That's my view.
 
izbtmnhd
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:26 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
a new UA concourse in the design phase at that point.


The UA IAD concourse has been in the design phase for 30+ years!
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:38 pm

commavia wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
All I am trying to say its better to serve more people per flight and those small cities still would have service via a one stop connection.


And all I - and others - are trying to say is that not everyone thinks that way. There is certainly no question that, in the U.S. in general, the most common view of how to define the "public good" is maximum throughput at minimum fares. However, that isn't a 100% consensus view - particularly when it comes to DCA and LGA. There are plenty of people who define "public good" differently, based on varying other criteria including access, nonstop connectivity, hub connectivity, etc.


We could back and forth on this topic, I always look at the practical side of things. I remember being at LGA and watching many Dash-8's coming and going and many were not full. Not only in my mind wasting a slot, but also slowing up the approaches and departures for many mainline planes. I would say that most people would like to see both airports being served with larger aircraft with more passengers, its impossible to please everyone, but its to the advantage of the many to accommodate more, not less passengers. LGA and DCA should be no different than other airports and the goal of airports is to serve as many passengers as possible. What hardship would occur if those passengers on 50 seat RJ's had to make a connection to DCA or LGA? They are already making connections on flights to other cities and life goes on for them. Also some of these 50 seat flights many times are not full. Why should LGA and DCA be any different? The Wright amendment was the wrong amendment for DAL when looks at the level of service it enjoys today. Another advantage is that larger planes can operate with fewer frequencies, going from 3-4 50 seat flights to 2 90 seat flights. "A slot is a terrible thing to waste". I have been waiting to use that old phrase.
I hope someday to see the perimeter rule done away with, it creates barriers to starting new service and wastes limited resources and puts the interest of a very few ahead of the many. We have to agree on disagreeing.
 
TYSflyer
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:44 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:52 pm

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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 8304
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:59 pm

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.
Last edited by Flighty on Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
blockski
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:03 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
We could back and forth on this topic, I always look at the practical side of things. I remember being at LGA and watching many Dash-8's coming and going and many were not full. Not only in my mind wasting a slot, but also slowing up the approaches and departures for many mainline planes. I would say that most people would like to see both airports being served with larger aircraft with more passengers, its impossible to please everyone, but its to the advantage of the many to accommodate more, not less passengers. LGA and DCA should be no different than other airports and the goal of airports is to serve as many passengers as possible. What hardship would occur if those passengers on 50 seat RJ's had to make a connection to DCA or LGA? They are already making connections on flights to other cities and life goes on for them. Also some of these 50 seat flights many times are not full. Why should LGA and DCA be any different? The Wright amendment was the wrong amendment for DAL when looks at the level of service it enjoys today. Another advantage is that larger planes can operate with fewer frequencies, going from 3-4 50 seat flights to 2 90 seat flights. "A slot is a terrible thing to waste". I have been waiting to use that old phrase.
I hope someday to see the perimeter rule done away with, it creates barriers to starting new service and wastes limited resources and puts the interest of a very few ahead of the many. We have to agree on disagreeing.


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.

Same can be said of LGA, given the common management with JFK and EWR via the PANYNJ.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:32 pm

DCAfan wrote:
The main problem with IAD for the domestic carriers is that the debt load is way too high. I believe it will be 20 years before the domestic industry will be willing to make major investments at Dulles. So go ahead in the meantime and continue to saddle DCA with artificial constraints and see where it gets you.
Nope. The main problem with IAD for the domestic carriers is that a majority of people traveling to and from DC prefer the location of DCA.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:37 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 am in favor of small airports and they do the most good in offering service to hub airports where they can transfer to cities all across the country. However, LGA and DCA are limited access airports and that will never change and use a slot for 50 or less passengers flies in the face of practicality and misusing a slot. When one lives in a small metro area, there are advantages and disadvantages. Quiet surroundings, no traffic jams, etc. On the flip side, less choices for employment, less entertainment venues, limited travel options. Most government business is done on-line, no real urgent need for Huntsville or other small cities to have non-stops to DCA or LGA. I too live live in a small town and I accept that a one change of planes is a way of life for me. Its never caused me problems or made travel very difficult. It boils down to offering service to most of the population and not treating some airports as sacred cows. Changing planes works for the majority of flyers and people are used to it. Again, my point of view.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:43 pm

Why should there be 23 non stop flights a day between ORD and DCA and two between SFO and DCA? Why is it important for MSY to have access to DCA but not SAT? If we want to maintain some access to smaller airports, why couldn't the slots be categorized by size (Large hub, medium hub, small hub)?
 
User avatar
DDR
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:49 pm

If DCA is really the preferred airport of choice, then the airlines need to price it as such. Want to fly to DCA instead of one of the other airports, prepare to pay 30% more. That would reduce a lot of the cities with current service, allowing the airlines to use mainline aircraft to replace rj's while not adding so many flights to over tax the airport.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:58 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
DCAfan wrote:
The main problem with IAD for the domestic carriers is that the debt load is way too high. I believe it will be 20 years before the domestic industry will be willing to make major investments at Dulles. So go ahead in the meantime and continue to saddle DCA with artificial constraints and see where it gets you.
Nope. The main problem with IAD for the domestic carriers is that a majority of people traveling to and from DC prefer the location of DCA.


Which makes sense. From DC itself, unless your timing and location works well for the 5A metrobus, you're looking at a rather expensive Uber or cab ride plus a lot of time out to Dulles.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:49 pm

DDR wrote:
If DCA is really the preferred airport of choice, then the airlines need to price it as such. Want to fly to DCA instead of one of the other airports, prepare to pay 30% more. That would reduce a lot of the cities with current service, allowing the airlines to use mainline aircraft to replace rj's while not adding so many flights to over tax the airport.


As soon as you do that, others carriers will undercut you and your loads will drop. Now with so many low cost carriers, the majors have lost some of their pricing power. Look how fares are dropping on TATL fares with the new crop of ULCC airlines. The next few years will be very interesting, both domestically and international.
 
User avatar
DDR
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: DC Area Lawmakers to Colleagues: Hands Off DCA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:52 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
DDR wrote:
If DCA is really the preferred airport of choice, then the airlines need to price it as such. Want to fly to DCA instead of one of the other airports, prepare to pay 30% more. That would reduce a lot of the cities with current service, allowing the airlines to use mainline aircraft to replace rj's while not adding so many flights to over tax the airport.


As soon as you do that, others carriers will undercut you and your loads will drop. Now with so many low cost carriers, the majors have lost some of their pricing power. Look how fares are dropping on TATL fares with the new crop of ULCC airlines. The next few years will be very interesting, both domestically and international.


True, but they fly larger aircraft which helps the congestion issue. Senators and Congressmen aren't above flying a LCC are they?

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