Wanted: more nonstop flights to Washington
It's easy to find a nonstop flight from LAX to just about any major city in the U.S. -- except Washington. Thanks to a 44-year-old prohibition designed to help the then-fledgling Dulles International Airport, transcontinental flights aren't allowed into or out of the airport closest to the nation's capital. Under the "perimeter rule," points more than 1,250 miles west of Reagan National Airport are off-limits to most direct flights. That's far enough to reach Dallas, Wichita and Fargo, but not Denver, Las Vegas, Seattle, San Francisco or Los Angeles.
The restriction has been relaxed ever so slightly over the last decade, allowing a total of 12 round-trip flights to six cities outside the perimeter -- including one (count 'em, one) to LAX. The lucky carrier holding the rights to that route is Alaska Airlines.
The perimeter rule has outlived its original purpose -- Dulles is now busier than Reagan National. But the rule is still supported by the agency that oversees both airports, as well as Virginia's senators and some local activists. This side argues that the rule is important to limit noise pollution around Reagan National, preserve service to smaller cities in the eastern half of the country and protect Dulles.
The third argument is hard to stomach, considering how well established Dulles is. Favoring Dulles over Reagan National is tantamount to favoring Dulles' dominant carrier (United Airlines) over Reagan National's (US Airways). In a concession to the first two concerns, Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and five others have proposed to let the airlines serving Reagan National shift some of the flights now going to "large hub airports" to any airport beyond the existing perimeter.
The bill's sponsors have since agreed to allow only two dozen such shifts per day, said Doug Parker, chief executive of US Airways. The result would be fewer flights to highly competitive destinations within the perimeter, such as Atlanta and Chicago, and more to the West -- probably 12 more each day to LAX, San Francisco and San Diego.
In an interview Monday, Parker argued that the change wouldn't increase the noise level because the longer flights would be made either by the planes already in use today or larger ones that are actually quieter on takeoff and landing. It's also worth noting that the longer flights would account for only about 6% of the daily traffic at Reagan National.
The best argument for lifting the perimeter rule is that it would promote competition on transcontinental routes, which should make flights from LAX to Washington less expensive. That's what happened when Congress eliminated a similar rule handicapping Love Field in Dallas four years ago. It can, and should, happen for service to Washington too.
The fate of the proposal is tied to a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. That measure has been stalled largely because of a dispute over a House-passed provision that would make it easier for employees at FedEx to unionize. House and Senate negotiators have been meeting informally, but there won't be a vote on a final version unless its Senate sponsors can line up 60 votes. They're rushing to reach that threshold this week, Parker said; here's hoping that the perimeter rule will be left at the gate.
-- Jon Healey
As one of the two airports being slot-controlled (the other being LGA), Reagan National's slots are hard to come by. So, even if you remove the rule, there aren't whole lot of slots available to bring in additional routes, unless, the existing ones are cut. Also, established careers at National (especially US Airways, Delta and American) are the ones that would benefit from this. There is nothing wrong with that, but, don't expect the fares to go down dramatically. The other problem at National is the small runways, on the potomac river with virtually no room widen. This means, big birds like 767 cannot land (even the 757s cannot land using the River Visual Approach, that is unique to National). There is enough demand from all that corporate clients in downtown, Crystal City, Arlington and Alexandria, the chances for low fares is minimal. That does not mean that we should shut National for longer flights. They should be introduced in a phased manner 1) by not drastically increasing new flights (which will get legitimate opposition from the people living around it) 2) by not eliminating services to small communities.
Dulles will survive fine, because it is a major international hub and serves the entire Washington Baltimore metro area. Also, it has captive users from the two most affluent counties in the USA (Loudoun and Fairfax).
Posted by: Siva Vayalii | July 13, 2010 at 08:25 AM
One problem with running transcon service into Reagan is the relatively short runways. Reagan's longest (RWY 19/01) is only 6869 feet long, making takeoffs for larger jets a problem in hot conditions. By comparison, the runways at LAX range from 12,091 to 8925 feet long. Reagan is not somewhere you want to fly a heavy jet (747, 767, Airbus 330) into in bad weather.
Posted by: Jim Atkins | July 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Why in god's name would anyone want to make it easier for the inmates of the Beltway to escape to the West Coast? The only positive impact I can see is it might get Pelosi to stop spending millions of dollars on her private military jets and in flight booze.
Posted by: sfindependent | July 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM
The runways are definitely an issue but the ease of getting into DC would make the LAX-Ntl route desirable. Anyone heading to Dulles from the District has a 30-60 minute cab ride at minimum; at rush hour or anytime there are tie-ups, it can run up to 90 min. Planning enough time either way from Dulles can eat into a day. Plus there's no public transportation from Dulles. Ntl's nearly 1/2 the distance from DC plus has a Metro subway stop so travel to/from is almost effortless. As someone who travels frequently between the 2 cities, I'd sacrifice the chance to take the biggest jet if I had more convenience once on the ground in DC.
Posted by: Lynnie | July 13, 2010 at 11:42 AM
FYI..It is easier to fly into Baltimore Washington (BWI) and get to Downtown DC than it is to fly into Dulles. It's less than a 30 min ride to the Hill and Downtown, plus there is a direct train to Union Station. The number of LAX and SFO non stops isn't much better at BWI than it is at DCA, but if the times are right, it's an easier flying experience.
Posted by: Balto | July 14, 2010 at 04:44 AM
Lynnie says in her post that there's no public transportation to and from Dulles.
The Metrobus 5A runs from Le Enfant Plaza to Dulles and costs about $5 each way. The Washington Flyer, a private concern, runs busses from Dulles to the West Falls Church Metro station.
I understand why people may want to use National over Dulles, but it is absolutely wrong to say there is no public transporation from Dulles.
Posted by: DKB | July 14, 2010 at 06:52 AM
I think there also used to be an awkward work-around where planes flying from National to remote destinations would first puddle jump to Dulles, then fly to LAX or wherever from there. This also undermines the whole noise/congestion argument (since the flights are already happening) and concerns about runway length (since you didn't change planes at Dulles, just ouched down and took off again).
Posted by: DC Native | July 14, 2010 at 09:24 AM
Having bigger planes at National--especially heavily loaded takeoffs--is a challenge for the community below. The airport is practically downtown with takeoffs going right next to some of the most expensive real estate. In LA, the poor schlubs in El Segundo know they have to put up with LAX, but imagine the enthusiastic response if you sent the long-hauls out of Santa Monica.
Posted by: Bob Matthews | July 14, 2010 at 09:40 AM
you write," Under the "perimeter rule," points more than 1,250 miles west of Reagan National Airport are off-limits to most DIRECT flights"
There's a big difference between direct and nonstop flights. One can now easily fly "direct" to Reagan National (e.g. Southwest).
A nonstop flight does as its name suggests: flies from one airport to another without stopping. A direct flight, on the other hand, makes stops along the way. citation:
http://www.smartertravel.com/travel-advice/difference-nonstop-direct-flights.html?id=336285
Posted by: charlie s | July 14, 2010 at 10:58 AM
They are building a metro line to Dulles so many of the transportation issues to and from DC are moot. The signs are already in place if you've traveled in or out of Dulles lately. I was just there at the end of May. I don't particularly care what size plane I fly in - even across country - but I do prefer the ease of flying in and out of a smaller airport.
Posted by: Lynda | July 14, 2010 at 01:59 PM
I think it would be great if there were at least several daily non-stops from DCA to LAX. Afterall, U.S. Airways has three daily non-stops from DCA to Phoenix, so why not to L.A.?
Posted by: Lee | July 14, 2010 at 02:35 PM
I think it would be great if there were at least several daily non-stops from DCA to LAX. Afterall, U.S. Airways has three daily non-stops from DCA to Phoenix, so why not to L.A.?
Posted by: Lee | July 14, 2010 at 02:35 PM
The biggest beneficiaries of allowing long distance flights out of National will be: 1. Business travelers 2. Senators and House of Representatives from the US Congress. As a long time resident of metro DC area, I don't have much gripe with using Dulles airport. The airport has steadily improved over the years (adding the additional runway and additional parking). I was pleasantly surprised by the newly operational Aero train system within the airport and the expanded security check area. The only needed change would be the replacement of the makeshift concourses C &D used by United Airlines, which operates its East Coast hub in Dulles and its Star Alliance partners. The long awaited Metro rail connection to the airport has finally started, though date of completion is not until 2017 (Phase 2).
Majority of the traveling public in the metro Washington Baltimore area's 8+ million population does not live in downtown Washington. They mostly live in the suburbs (Northern Virginia and Suburban Maryland). They mostly drive to Dulles and National (except those who have access to the Metro train can travel to National using train) and would not see any big difference.
So, we can say, it would be a good thing to add few more flights to National (without affecting the local communities), it would do much good for the traveling public and the region to open up the airport.
Posted by: Siva Vayali | July 15, 2010 at 11:32 AM
The biggest beneficiaries of allowing long distance flights out of National will be: 1. Business travelers 2. Senators and House of Representatives from the US Congress. As a long time resident of metro DC area, I don't have much gripe with using Dulles airport. The airport has steadily improved over the years (adding the additional runway and additional parking). I was pleasantly surprised by the newly operational Aero train system within the airport and the expanded security check area. The only needed change would be the replacement of the makeshift concourses C &D used by United Airlines, which operates its East Coast hub in Dulles and its Star Alliance partners. The long awaited Metro rail connection to the airport has finally started, though date of completion is not until 2017 (Phase 2).
Majority of the traveling public in the metro Washington Baltimore area's 8+ million population does not live in downtown Washington. They mostly live in the suburbs (Northern Virginia and Suburban Maryland). They mostly drive to Dulles and National (except those who have access to the Metro train can travel to National using train) and would not see any big difference.
So, we can say, it would be a good thing to add few more flights to National (without affecting the local communities), it would do much good for the traveling public and the region to open up the airport.
Posted by: Siva Vayali | July 15, 2010 at 11:32 AM
In my concluding thoughts, I said "So, we can say, it would be a good thing to add few more flights to National (without affecting the local communities), it would do much good for the traveling public and the region to open up the airport."
Please read it as "So, we can say, it would be a good thing to add few more flights to National (without affecting the local communities), it would NOT do much good for the traveling public and the region to open up the airport."
Posted by: Siva Vayali | July 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Anyone who believes opening up Washington Reagan National's perimeter rules will lower fares is dreaming, unless the Senators write it as a requirement into the legislation.
In 2000 and again in 2003, Congress permitted a limited number of exemptions for flights to go beyond the perimeter. The stated reason was to increase competition and lower fares. However, after an initial low introductory fare, the airlines gaining the ex- perimeter slots charged what the market would bear. The average fare to Phoenix from National, for example, was $210 in 2000. A nonstop flight was inaugurated in 2001, and the average fare was again $210. In 2007, the average fare was $248. Similarly, service was inaugurated from National to Seattle in 2001 – the average fare was $188. The year before, the average fare was $189. In 2007, it was $226. For Salt Lake City, nonstop service was inaugurated from National in 2001. The average fare that year was $178; the year before it had been $176. In 2007 it was $235. And there are plenty of other examples.
So the effort to breach National Airport’s perimeter law is nothing to do with increasing competition and lowering fares, and everything to do with increasing the revenue an airline can earn from a slot it currently uses for short-haul service within the perimeter.
The competition for National is at Washington Dulles and BWI. Many travelers opt to pay a higher price for the convenience of National, while still others opt to take the slightly longer trip to Washington Dulles or BWI. It’s a free market – you pay your money and take your choice.
The perimeter law prioritizes use of National Airport’s limited capacity for the short-haul, downtown traveler, for whom the ground segment is a significant portion of their door-to-door trip time. If this limitation is expanded, airlines will shift their use of existing slots from short to longer flights because longer flights generally generate greater revenue.
For example, the National-Chattanooga service typically generates $3 million to $4 million a year in revenue. The San Francisco market is worth around $130 million a year. If you have a slot with no perimeter limitations, which route would you use the slot for? No one should blame the airlines for trying to push Congress to change the rules for their financial benefit, but it would be bad public policy for legislators to agree to their demands.
The slot and perimeter limitations also are the basis for the compact reached over 20 years ago between Congress, the aviation community, and National Airport’s neighbors, that ended efforts to close the airport. This compact, in the view of this Task Force, should not be changed without the mutual agreement of all the parties concerned. It certainly should not be done in conference behind closed doors.
National today operates with a high level of reliability and civility. The airport’s facilities were rebuilt in the 1990s at a cost of approximately $1 billion to match the capacity established by Congress that is inherent in the slot and perimeter laws. Consequently, at peak times, all gates are in use and the airport’s landside capacity is near its limit. Any significant expansion will overtax the facilities, planes will have to wait for gates, TSA queues likely will expand, baggage delivery will be less punctual, and it will become much harder to find a parking space. Undermining the convenience and civility of National Airport for everyone is not the way to reduce the inconvenience of traveling between Dulles or BWI and the region’s federal center.
About eight years ago, high density rules at Chicago O’Hare and New York LaGuardia were eliminated, and the result was chaos, as airlines overscheduled. The FAA still is looking for a means of balancing the capacity of those airports with the demand for service. Happily, at National the High Density and Perimeter Rules had been made law by Congress, so our region avoided the fate of Chicago O’Hare and New York LaGuardia. You cannot put a quart into a pint pot without causing problems.
The slot and perimeter limitations also are the basis for the compact reached over 20 years ago between Congress, the aviation community, and National Airport’s neighbors, that ended efforts to close the airport. This compact, in the view of this Task Force, should not be changed without the mutual agreement of all the parties concerned. It certainly should not be done in conference behind closed doors.
After 9/11, the Secret Service had National Airport shut in the misguided belief that it would improve the nation’s security. It took three weeks and two days to persuade the White House to allow National to reopen. I’d rather deal with Congress than the Secret Service, but perhaps we’d better all be grateful for what we’ve got. After all, National’s rules really do work well; they optimize use of a scarce resource for the greater good, so why muck them about?
Posted by: Leo Schefer | July 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM