Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Senate Debating DCA Perimeter Restrictions  
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...-faa-rules-changes-reagan-national

Apparently the Senate will consider an amendment to alter the perimeter rule at DCA...But doesn't look like it will pass. Long overdue though.

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

"Hutchison's amendment would substantially increase the number of long-haul flights, a move Virginia and Maryland lawmakers have vigorously opposed because of noise complaints from residents living near the airport."

This argument is just as archaic as the perimeter rule itself. How ill-informed are these lawmakers? A 757 makes the same amount of noise if it's flying DCA-LGA as if it's flying DCA-SFO.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5388 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 1):
"Hutchison's amendment would substantially increase the number of long-haul flights, a move Virginia and Maryland lawmakers have vigorously opposed because of noise complaints from residents living near the airport."

VA lawmakers may have a point, but I think MD's argument is a red herring to try to protect BWI, which really isn't necessary imo because there is no way WN will downsize BWI significantly even if they do get a couple of DCA slots.

That being said, with the slot restrictions in place, the departure totals stay about the same, and the noise argument is invalid.


User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 2):
That being said, with the slot restrictions in place, the departure totals stay about the same, and the noise argument is invalid.

Right...that's my point. People concerned with noise should care about airplane movements--not where theose planes are headed. Noise has no place in the perimeter rule discussion today as long as the number of slots remains the same.


User currently offlinegoldenstate From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 566 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5214 times:

However you cut it, it's basically just federal legislators looking out for parochial interests.

Lift the perimeter and increase the slot count, and VA/MD legislators complain about noise or restricted airspace security.

Lift the perimeter and hold slots constant, and east coast/midwest legislators complain about small communities losing service to DCA as slots are reallocated to the large west coast markets.

And of course, keep the status quo and western lawmakers complain about lack of nonstop service from their home states to DCA.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11212 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5157 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 1):
A 757 makes the same amount of noise if it's flying DCA-LGA as if it's flying DCA-SFO.

That's really not true. A heavy 757 makes more noise than a lightly loaded 757.

With that said, a heavy 757 still makes less noise than the MD80s AA still flies. I live in Old Town, and the only planes I hear regularly are the MD80s. (I do hear the reverse field takeoffs since they don't follow the river, but they are few and far between.)

Engine technology has greatly improved over the years to the point where noise is simply not an issue anymore. As an elite on US, I *really* want the perimeter removed so they can add SFO, LAX, and SEA flights. From my house, I could be in San Francisco faster than it would take me to drive to and get through security at Dulles. 


(Besides, it makes NO sense that only Alaska can provide LAX and SEA flights. That is NOT competition.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinesmoot4208 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1294 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
As an elite on US, I *really* want the perimeter removed so they can add SFO, LAX, and SEA flights.

In the past and as of more recently, US has stated they would like to add LAX, SAN, and SFO. A few years ago they applied for SFO and SJU when the perimeter slots were available. For some reason, I would think if More became available. they would apply for SAN, SFO, LAX, SJU, and SMF (this one solely for political purposes).


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4976 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 2):
That being said, with the slot restrictions in place, the departure totals stay about the same, and the noise argument is invalid.

{Checkmark}

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
That's really not true. A heavy 757 makes more noise than a lightly loaded 757.

With that said, a heavy 757 still makes less noise than the MD80s AA still flies.

Yup. An A320 flying DCA-SFO/LAX would make less noise than the hourly MD-80s to ORD or ATL. It would obviously make some more noise than an A320 flying DCA-ORD, yes, but not much more.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11212 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

What they should do instead of having a perimeter limit is have a noise limit: you can fly wherever you want to from DCA as long as your plane is quieter than X decibles in Old Town between the hours of 2300 and 0600, and quieter than Y decibels in Old Town at other times.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

From my apartment in downtown DC, I can occasionally hear DC-9s at National.

I've never heard any of the beyond-perimeter A319s, 738s, or 757s.

The perimeter rule is completely silly. Noise is a red herring. The reason it stays there, in the end, is to protect nonstop flights to small cities within the perimeter that happen to be where key congresspeoples' district or state offices are located.

As someone who regularly flies from DC to SEA, PDX, and SFO/SJC, I am not unbiased, though...


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5354 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4875 times:

Here we go with our first-of-the-year discussion of the ongoing DCA perimeter rule debate in Congress; this has been going on for years, and will probably continue for several more...

Someone please wake me when something is actually decided...

bb


User currently offlinemd3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4782 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
What they should do instead of having a perimeter limit is have a noise limit: you can fly wherever you want to from DCA as long as your plane is quieter than X decibles in Old Town between the hours of 2300 and 0600, and quieter than Y decibels in Old Town at other times.

That is exactly what is in place now with the current curfew. It is enforced by aircraft type based on engine noise. Except there is no daytime restriction.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
The reason it stays there, in the end, is to protect nonstop flights to small cities within the perimeter that happen to be where key congresspeoples' district or state offices are located.

And the reason it gets brought up each new term is that key congresspeople without non-stop service would find it more convenient for their own schedules.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 10):
Here we go with our first-of-the-year discussion of the ongoing DCA perimeter rule debate in Congress; this has been going on for years, and will probably continue for several more...

Someone please wake me when something is actually decided...

Amen. This will resurface again in 5, 4, 3...

[Edited 2011-02-03 12:59:21]

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11212 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4756 times:

Quoting md3 (Reply 11):
That is exactly what is in place now with the current curfew. It is enforced by aircraft type based on engine noise. Except there is no daytime restriction.

I understand that, what I'm saying is that this should be the only limitation, not a perimeter. If the reason why the perimeter is still around is noise, then combat the noise. (I don't buy that we still need the perimeter to promote Dulles.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
As an elite on US, I *really* want the perimeter removed so they can add SFO, LAX, and SEA flights.
Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
it makes NO sense that only Alaska can provide LAX and SEA flights

Rumors abound that AS has hired a lobbying firm to petition for an extra pair of slots. My understanding is the extra pair would be used for DCA-SAN (US is welcome to DCA-SFO) and that they believe they could fill one of their newly-ordered 739ERs on that route.

By the way, AS's DCA-LAX is a code-share with DL. Since you can buy passage from either airline (or Expedia or Orbitz) fares stay moderate.


User currently offlinemd3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4639 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 13):
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 13):
Rumors abound that AS has hired a lobbying firm to petition for an extra pair of slots. My understanding is the extra pair would be used for DCA-SAN (US is welcome to DCA-SFO) and that they believe they could fill one of their newly-ordered 739ERs on that route.

By the way, AS's DCA-LAX is a code-share with DL. Since you can buy passage from either airline (or Expedia or Orbitz) fares stay moderate.

While SAN could be successful, I'm inclined to believe their executives when discussing DCA-PDX or another DCA-SEA flight as on their wishlist if they were to ever acquire another lon-range slot. A trans-con flight on a PNW-centric carrier who can't make LAX work, adding a new point-to-point route on the largest capacity aircraft in their history between two short-field airports wouldn't be logical to me. Especially for AS.

Speaking of DCA-LAX, that is so reasonable because it is a brutally under-performing route. There is no marketing being done, has poor timing for it's west-coast customers (read: 95% of loyal AS customers), and relies heavily on the DL codeshare to fill it's seats. If AS wasn't locked into the routing from their original slot application, it would have been abandoned and switched long ago.

Also, fun fact; Alaska like many airlines have government affairs offices in DC. Theirs is near Capital Hill. They have also used lobbyists for years on many matters, which would make sense to have them lobby to protect and gain DCA slots.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4238 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting md3 (Reply 14):
Alaska like many airlines have government affairs offices in DC. Theirs is near Capital Hill. They have also used lobbyists for years on many matters, which would make sense to have them lobby to protect and gain DCA slots.

Perhaps it AQ had been half as diligent, they would have gained the SNA-DCA continuation they wanted for their SNA-HNL route -- although I guess in retrospect it no longer matters.
Quoting md3 (Reply 14):
adding a new point-to-point route on the largest capacity aircraft in their history between two short-field airports wouldn't be logical to me

AS used to fly non-ER 739s IAD-SEA which many seem to have forgotten.


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

For all this talk about congressional interests I find it amusing that the key sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Not running for reelection) of Texas, represents a state with two major airline hubs and plenty of NS service to DCA from said hubs. Realistically, she has nothing to gain or lose either way, because IAH and DFW are two cities not in danger of losing NS service to DCA if more beyond perimeter slots are granted.

User currently offlinedeltairlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8894 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4409 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 16):
For all this talk about congressional interests I find it amusing that the key sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Not running for reelection) of Texas, represents a state with two major airline hubs and plenty of NS service to DCA from said hubs. Realistically, she has nothing to gain or lose either way, because IAH and DFW are two cities not in danger of losing NS service to DCA if more beyond perimeter slots are granted.

DFW and IAH are one thing; my thoughts are she is looking to position DCA for flights to Austin (1315mi) and San Antonio (1381mi) - both of which are just outside of the perimeter and could easily support frequencies to DCA.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2740 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4375 times:

Perimeter exemptions granted since 2000 allow 12 round-trip flights a day beyond the 1,250-mile limit. They are:

DEN 1473 mi - 4
F9 3 X 320
UA 1 X 752

SLC 1848 mi - 1
DL 1 X 757

PHX 1976 mi - 3
US 1 X 752 and 2 X 320

LAS 2086 mi - 1
US 1 X 319

LAX 2308 mi - 1
AS 1 X 73H

SEA 2325 mi - 2
AS 2 X 73H


Certainly a few more cities could be granted slot pairs. Most notably SFO, the biggest hole in DCA's nonstop route map, also with SAN, AUS, SAT, PDX and maybe ABQ.

Interesting to see the politicians lining up along geographical sides here, rather than the usual party sides...  


User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4282 times:

As someone who flies to both LGA and DCA, I say get rid of the perimeter restrictions at both airports. I am not wild right winger or fundamentalist free marketeer or whatever, but I say let the markets figure this out.

There are WAY too many artificial flights out of both airports which airlines fly only to keep control of those slots. What a waste.

Let the airlines use the slots for the best business case possible and if that means LGA-SFO or DCA-LAX, let it be.

Seriously.

Those are both gold mine airports and those could be useful routes instead of running LGA-PHL or empty LGA-SYR or DCA-LGA/JFK every 30 minutes when the markets don't support that.

This pilot says 'lift those restrictions!'.

The noise argument is tired and old. New airplanes are not noisy. And there will probably be fewer MD-80 movements with the lifting of the rule than if they keep in in place as those 'noisy' planes can't make the west coast anyway from the east coast. It'll be 757s or 320s and they aren't very noisy, even at full thrust.

This is a rule that was never 'in date' and now it is surely 'out of date'.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 19):
As someone who flies to both LGA and DCA, I say get rid of the perimeter restrictions at both airports. I am not wild right winger or fundamentalist free marketeer or whatever, but I say let the markets figure this out.

There are WAY too many artificial flights out of both airports which airlines fly only to keep control of those slots. What a waste.

Let the airlines use the slots for the best business case possible and if that means LGA-SFO or DCA-LAX, let it be.

Seriously.

      Great post!

People complain so much about RJ operations clogging up airports... opening up the West Coast would replace at least 10 RJs a day at DCA and at least 20 at LGA with big planes, probably packed to capacity. That would benefit a lot of travelers.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4178 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):

That's really not true. A heavy 757 makes more noise than a lightly loaded 757.

That's what I thought too, although you could still (in theory at least) have a heavy 757 flight within the perimeter. . . just pack it with cargo instead of topping off the wings with fuel.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4050 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 18):
UA 1 X 752

The slot exemptions are not based on aircraft type. United regularly operates an A-32X on DCA-DEN (as it was tonight)


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8406 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
What they should do instead of having a perimeter limit is have a noise limit: you can fly wherever you want to from DCA as long as your plane is quieter than X decibles in Old Town between the hours of 2300 and 0600, and quieter than Y decibels in Old Town at other times.

This is a good way to clear the BS out of the noise argument. Why not require a noise REDUCTION, and a full repeal of the perimeter rule. Airlines could gladly accommodate that (although UA would be against).

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 19):
As someone who flies to both LGA and DCA, I say get rid of the perimeter restrictions at both airports. I am not wild right winger or fundamentalist free marketeer or whatever, but I say let the markets figure this out.

There are WAY too many artificial flights out of both airports which airlines fly only to keep control of those slots. What a waste.

Glad to see this clear reasoning on a.net. +1.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
From my apartment in downtown DC, I can occasionally hear DC-9s at National.

I've never heard any of the beyond-perimeter A319s, 738s, or 757s.

From my apartment in Rosslyn, I can hear them all. The MDs are the loudest, but there's no mistaking a heavy 757 either. The A319/320s and 737s aren't too bad.

Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
What they should do instead of having a perimeter limit is have a noise limit: you can fly wherever you want to from DCA as long as your plane is quieter than X decibles in Old Town between the hours of 2300 and 0600, and quieter than Y decibels in Old Town at other times.

So much of that depends on climb/descent rate, which can often depend on weather or other factors. When they're landing downriver with a low ceiling, it gets pretty loud at my place even with the 320s and 737s. At other times (cold and clear, takeoffs on 1), there's a massive difference. Sometimes the MDs are perfectly tolerable, sometimes they're damn loud. The former outnumber the latter significantly, so you get into the classic cost-benefit regulatory crap. Having been at work far too long today, I'll skip out now.


25 CharlieNoble : I think the best solution to this problem would be to allow only 727s to use the airport for a couple of weeks (at Flaps 40 no less)...after that the
26 cph-r : Speaking of DCA and 757's, do FedEx still fly their weekly flight into DCA? If they do, where do they park? I can't remember seeing a dedicated cargo
27 washingtonian : Yeah...As somebody mentioned, Austin and San Antonion might gain service. Also, I'm sure American and United would love to jump into some transcons f
28 Post contains images saab2000 : It was IAD-BWI with a fuel stop in DCA if the winds were too high.....
29 kgaiflyer : But some of the most egregious noise-makers aren't coming from DCA. Every once in a while at my workplace (at MD routes 355 and 118) I will look up at
30 saab2000 : It is a long stretch to refer to either the 340-300 or the 340-600 as egregious noisemakers. AFAIK, the biggest NIMBYs in the DC area are along the Po
31 kgaiflyer : Actually -- at the departure time of the European bank of planes, it's quite common in northern Montco. But true, you can't always tell a 77W from a
32 md3 : It uses the hanger area down by A. There's a small FedEx and airline cargo facility there.
33 gigneil : United would be against since they already fly a full schedule of silent aircraft. That's the only reason I can think of. United could fill a plane t
34 kgaiflyer : No -- not really.. Here over the route 118 corridor, planes are still climbing to cruising altitude. Remember Montco is on the Potomac River and bord
35 ScottB : If you REALLY want to make sure that slots are put to the highest and best uses, the government should confiscate all the slots and auction off, say,
36 gigneil : I would never, ever confuse Montgomery County with Howard County. Wealthy, but backwards place that is. I understand that planes are on climbout stil
37 seabosdca : Better yet, the government could just auction all the slots off, pay current slotholders using part of the auction proceeds, and then make slots free
38 Post contains images point2point : Both good ideas but...... this is government and politics...... they'll be so much haggling and bickering and horse-trading and threats of shutting d
39 saab2000 : Best yet, the gov't could stay out of it for the most part. Believe it or not, I'm partially in favor of a partial re-regulation of aviation. But runn
40 Flighty : That would be a reason to be in favor. Actually I was saying United would oppose navigation freedoms out of DCA because of their competing facility a
41 kgaiflyer : That wasn't a complaint, by the way. This is a sophisticated place chock full of frequent flyers. There are no NIMBY's this side of DCA. It's been ex
42 D L X : Come on down! We'd love to have you. I'll be the one with the cute dog. I've never really understood this argument since it's the government that bui
43 PI767 : Yes, back in the days a variety of airlines flew that route as a way to link DCA with out-of-perimeter airports. American and Braniff (versions 1 and
44 GSPflyer : I live in the flight path of GSP. I always notice the Allegiant MD-80's (in mid afternoon) because they are incredibly loud compared to the normal CRJ
45 CALPSAFltSkeds : The government should get out of the range issue business instead of letting senators decide if the mileage range should be increased to airports wher
46 slcdeltarumd11 : That is kind of a neat way around the perimeter rule Is there any chance that airlines could get more frequencies for the exceptions. It has been rum
47 saab2000 : With taxpayer money. Our money. Anyway, I'm not some wild capitalist absolutist. But I think the Perimeter Rules at DCA and LGA are outdated and need
48 washingtonian : Here is a question. Could somebody identify me the name or information about the actual statute that mandates the perimeter rule and the few exemption
49 smoot4208 : I agree. The LGA would be a win win situation for NYC. AA/DL could move some trans cons to LGA. Then use those open JFK slots for new INTL destinatio
50 seabosdca : The DCA perimeter rule is in the U.S. Code (49 U.S.C. 49109), as is permission for DOT to grant 12 exemptions (49 U.S.C. 41718). DOT can choose the e
51 catiii : I think the issue lost in all this is the impact on UA at Dulles. UA made a business decision at Dulles based on restrictions that Congress put in pla
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Politicians/Community Haggling Over DCA Perimeter posted Wed Jul 7 2010 21:28:54 by point2point
Interesting New Proposal For The DCA Perimeter posted Tue Jul 28 2009 07:20:57 by LHCVG
DCA Slot Restrictions posted Sat Apr 11 2009 14:25:42 by JA
Herb Kelleher Links Wright And DCA Perimeter Rules posted Sat Apr 23 2005 03:29:37 by FlyingTexan
LGA/DCA/DAL Restrictions...Your Thoughts? posted Mon Jun 16 2003 05:56:01 by OzarkD9S
Senate Passes FAA Reauth. Without DCA Amendment posted Sun Apr 18 2010 15:07:50 by rjpieces
Bill Proposed To Loosen Perimeter Rule At DCA posted Fri Mar 14 2008 12:35:09 by D L X
Status Of Seating Restrictions Into DCA posted Mon Aug 27 2007 18:12:07 by Torch23
US/HP And DCA Beyond Perimeter Slots posted Tue Sep 13 2005 05:15:24 by 737-990
Restrictions At DCA Being Loosened posted Wed Jul 13 2005 20:28:01 by CV990A