Rep. Henry Cuellar, with the support of his colleagues from Texas, tried to amend the perimeter rule at DCA to allow flights to SAT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... 8b3791a92e

Rep. Cuellar cited the need for non-stop access for patients at military hospitals to come to facilities in the DC area. However, his amendment is worded in such a way that it would only apply to a facility in San Antonio. Additionally, DCA is only 4 miles closer to Walter Reed than IAD. A veiled attempt at getting a non-stop flight for himself to DCA.

SAT is 130 miles beyond the 1250 statute miles perimeter.

If allowed, would AA or WN switch one of in perimeter flights to SAT? I am assuming that these would be the two likely candidates for such a slot and that SAT does not fit in to the slot strategy for UA, DL, etc. If a slot pair to SAT were open, would anybody sacrifice a current slot to take it?

At least SAT has someone trying hard to get them a nonstop to DCA. That's more than I can say for a certain city in So Cal!

AA, DL and UA are the only carriers you mentioned that could start SAT-DCA immediately if they wanted. (And DL and UA you, correctly I believe, ruled them out. DL already moved their "flexy-award" SLC-DCA authority to LAX-DCA, and a few years ago, AA moved theirs from SAN-DCA to LAX-DCA as well. I can't see them moving their awards again...)

WN's single beyond-perimeter slot, AUS-DCA, is NOT flexible and I really don't expect the folks in Austin, or at WN for that matter, would be inclined to move that slot to SAT even if they could!

Maybe this congressman should expend his efforts to try to get another full Beyond-Perimeter hearing scheduled. (Although given the current state of Congress...)

Good luck to SAT but I don't see this attempt working.

bb

Now that I've taken the time to read the linked article, a lot of what I posted above is not relevant. Sorry.

This attempt to get SAT-DCA approved is trying to simply get an exception to the Perimeter Rule and, in effect, let a carrier move an "inside the perimeter" flight to the Texas city that is 131 miles outside the current perimeter for DCA.

It's original, but it doesn't look like it's going to work.

Of note, I DO take exception to this statement from the SAT C of C:

A transportation issue paper by a group of San Antonio-area chambers of commerce noted that San Antonio is the “largest medium-sized market outside of the perimeter to not have nonstop access to DCA.”

If that in fact is what they stated, they might want to research that statement...

bb

SANFan wrote:

Of note, I DO take exception to this statement from the SAT C of C:

A transportation issue paper by a group of San Antonio-area chambers of commerce noted that San Antonio is the “largest medium-sized market outside of the perimeter to not have nonstop access to DCA.”

If that in fact is what they stated, they might want to research that statement...

bb

I think SAN is classified as a "large-sized" market, hence the distinction. Whether SAN is large or medium I guess is all a matter of perspective.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Of note, I DO take exception to this statement from the SAT C of C:

A transportation issue paper by a group of San Antonio-area chambers of commerce noted that San Antonio is the “largest medium-sized market outside of the perimeter to not have nonstop access to DCA.”

If that in fact is what they stated, they might want to research that statement...

bb

I think SAN is classified as a "large-sized" market, hence the distinction. Whether SAN is large or medium I guess is all a matter of perspective.

Yeah, I thought about that possibility but that's still a technicality IMHO. Not a huge deal but it still bothers me.

bb

There should be one...and only one amendment to the whole stinking thing and it can be done on a single line.


"DCA is not longer bound by any 'perimeter rule' and all flights are allows to operate to any airport in the United States of America".

Real Simple. It should be opened up and let further competition ensue.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

There should be one...and only one amendment to the whole stinking thing and it can be done on a single line.


"DCA is not longer bound by any 'perimeter rule' and all flights are allows to operate to any airport in the United States of America".

Real Simple. It should be opened up and let further competition ensue.

As a Washingtonian, I think that's a terrible idea. DCA is already at maximum capacity as it is, and it would further deteriorate IAD's ability to thrive, just as the political meddling in recent years has done. Opening flights up to anyone going anywhere will still leave politicians upset and left out, and the resulting split of domestic ops at one airport and international at the other can only be a negative thing for the region. If anything, they should go back to the hard rule of no beyond perimeter flights at all. Making exceptions to appease powerful legislators is exactly how this issue came about in the first place. People seem to forget that IAD was constructed to effectively replace DCA.

Congress can enact legislation that would give Southwest Airlines additional beyond-perimeter slots that would allow Southwest to serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Congress should enact legislation that would give Southwest, Delta, and United extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA in order to level the playing field at DCA and in order to improve competition at DCA.

If Congress enacts legislation that grants Southwest extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA, Southwest could serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Southwest also is the dominant carrier at SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN.

But, wasn't the A321neo inaugural from SFO to DCA? Or am I just dumb?

SANFan wrote:

At least SAT has someone trying hard to get them a nonstop to DCA. That's more than I can say for a certain city in So Cal!

Didn't US operate a nonstop from your home airport to DCA prior to the merger?

SANFan wrote:

FlyPNS1 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Of note, I DO take exception to this statement from the SAT C of C:

If that in fact is what they stated, they might want to research that statement...

bb

I think SAN is classified as a "large-sized" market, hence the distinction. Whether SAN is large or medium I guess is all a matter of perspective.

Yeah, I thought about that possibility but that's still a technicality IMHO. Not a huge deal but it still bothers me.

bb

It's probably the largest medium hub (as defined by the FAA) without service.

jplatts wrote:

Congress can enact legislation that would give Southwest Airlines additional beyond-perimeter slots that would allow Southwest to serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Congress should enact legislation that would give Southwest, Delta, and United extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA in order to level the playing field at DCA and in order to improve competition at DCA.

If Congress enacts legislation that grants Southwest extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA, Southwest could serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Southwest also is the dominant carrier at SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN.

And Congress should be fine with just screwing all the other airlines, I take it?

jplatts wrote:

Congress can enact legislation that would give Southwest Airlines additional beyond-perimeter slots that would allow Southwest to serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Congress should enact legislation that would give Southwest, Delta, and United extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA in order to level the playing field at DCA and in order to improve competition at DCA.

If Congress enacts legislation that grants Southwest extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA, Southwest could serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Southwest also is the dominant carrier at SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN.

Actually AA is the dominant carrier at PHX, but Southwest is a close second.

jetero wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Congress can enact legislation that would give Southwest Airlines additional beyond-perimeter slots that would allow Southwest to serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Congress should enact legislation that would give Southwest, Delta, and United extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA in order to level the playing field at DCA and in order to improve competition at DCA.

If Congress enacts legislation that grants Southwest extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA, Southwest could serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Southwest also is the dominant carrier at SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN.

And Congress should be fine with just screwing all the other airlines, I take it?

Congress was perfectly happy to do that last time when it let the four (at that time) legacy carriers move one of their slots to beyond perimeter as they please and made the other airlines compete for fixed routes.

If Congress did want to do this, I would hope they would stipulate that the in-perimeter flight given up for SAT could only be where there are multiple flights by the airline to the destination. So for WN no giving up OMA, only destinations with multiple flights like MDW, FLL etc.

atcsundevil wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

There should be one...and only one amendment to the whole stinking thing and it can be done on a single line.


"DCA is not longer bound by any 'perimeter rule' and all flights are allows to operate to any airport in the United States of America".

Real Simple. It should be opened up and let further competition ensue.

As a Washingtonian, I think that's a terrible idea. DCA is already at maximum capacity as it is, and it would further deteriorate IAD's ability to thrive, just as the political meddling in recent years has done. Opening flights up to anyone going anywhere will still leave politicians upset and left out, and the resulting split of domestic ops at one airport and international at the other can only be a negative thing for the region. If anything, they should go back to the hard rule of no beyond perimeter flights at all. Making exceptions to appease powerful legislators is exactly how this issue came about in the first place. People seem to forget that IAD was constructed to effectively replace DCA.

Aren't domestic ops already split in the region? I think a SAT-DCA flight replacing say an underperforming CMH-DCA flight (let's say WN), actually helps IAD in that CMH-IAD will then have less CMH-DCA competition; UA can get more Ohio pax to fly to IAD with it, thus increase of frequency is warranted. Using CMH, CMH is closer to be a feeder region into the IAD hub or connect through IAD with greater frequency, than a long distance low frequency market like SAT, where those pax would be more inclined to connect in closer hubs like DFW or IAH.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

There should be one...and only one amendment to the whole stinking thing and it can be done on a single line.


"DCA is not longer bound by any 'perimeter rule' and all flights are allows to operate to any airport in the United States of America".

Real Simple. It should be opened up and let further competition ensue.

That would sharply increase the value of DCA slots by entrenched carriers. In that regard it's not so much the free market solution that you seek.

Now, if you wanted to add a slot auction for a majority of slots at peak hours, sure -- bring it. Carriers would upgauge DCA ops, lots of small cities would lose non-stops to DCA entirely, and IAD would further wither. But it would be a more efficient use of assets. We'd still have Congressmen whining about how difficult it is to get home on taxpayer money, however.

cledaybuck wrote:

jetero wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Congress can enact legislation that would give Southwest Airlines additional beyond-perimeter slots that would allow Southwest to serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Congress should enact legislation that would give Southwest, Delta, and United extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA in order to level the playing field at DCA and in order to improve competition at DCA.

If Congress enacts legislation that grants Southwest extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA, Southwest could serve SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN nonstop from DCA. Southwest also is the dominant carrier at SAT, PHX, LAS, and SAN.

And Congress should be fine with just screwing all the other airlines, I take it?

Congress was perfectly happy to do that last time when it let the four (at that time) legacy carriers move one of their slots to beyond perimeter as they please and made the other airlines compete for fixed routes.

I think we can all agree DCA is a lot more competitive than it ever has been before with the addition of WN and B6 (fares down 10% over 10 years), So in that way, the stated goals worked.

910A wrote:

SANFan wrote:

At least SAT has someone trying hard to get them a nonstop to DCA. That's more than I can say for a certain city in So Cal!

Didn't US operate a nonstop from your home airport to DCA prior to the merger?

Yes, US Air was one of the Big 4, along with AA, UA & DL, that got 1 'free' "flexi-slot" that they could use wherever they wanted (beyond perimeter.) US selected SAN-DCA, then merged with AA, and AA moved that "flexi-slot" north 100 miles to LAX. So when the dust settled, AA ended up with 2 DCA-slots, both of which they are using between LAX and DCA (along with AS and DL which also have a single slot to DCA to LAX.) SAN-DCA operated from June 2012 to May 2014.

jplatts wrote:

Congress should enact legislation that would give Southwest, Delta, and United extra beyond-perimeter slots at DCA in order to level the playing field at DCA and in order to improve competition at DCA.

Huh? Your simple solution to the topic being discussed would be great but it just doesn't work that way... You might want to read up a bit on the DCA Beyond Perimeter history and the situation at DCA.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

There should be one...and only one amendment to the whole stinking thing and it can be done on a single line.
"DCA is not longer bound by any 'perimeter rule' and all flights are allows to operate to any airport in the United States of America".
Real Simple. It should be opened up and let further competition ensue.

Another great (and simple!) solution which John McCain (R - Az) last tried about 18 years ago. Perhaps he'll try again, while he's still in office, but I doubt the result would be any different.

bb

SANFan wrote:

Of note, I DO take exception to this statement from the SAT C of C:

A transportation issue paper by a group of San Antonio-area chambers of commerce noted that San Antonio is the “largest medium-sized market outside of the perimeter to not have nonstop access to DCA.”

If that in fact is what they stated, they might want to research that statement...

bb

It's the qualifier "medium-sized market."


Saying it's a travesty that the biggest medium-sized city doesn't have DCA access is like saying it's a travesty that the tallest toddler isn't allowed to ride the big roller coaster.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

There should be one...and only one amendment to the whole stinking thing and it can be done on a single line.


"DCA is not longer bound by any 'perimeter rule' and all flights are allows to operate to any airport in the United States of America".

Real Simple. It should be opened up and let further competition ensue.

But then the Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Arkansas, MIssissippi and Kentucky delegations lose their nonstops!

jetero wrote:

I think we can all agree DCA is a lot more competitive than it ever has been before with the addition of WN and B6 (fares down 10% over 10 years), So in that way, the stated goals worked.

Is there a source for that? I used to fly up to NYC 10 years ago for under $100.

I think WN has done little if anything to affect fares out of DCA.

D L X wrote:

It's the qualifier "medium-sized market."


Saying it's a travesty that the biggest medium-sized city doesn't have DCA access is like saying it's a travesty that the tallest toddler isn't allowed to ride the big roller coaster.

In fairness, it is a widely used term in the airport world. FAA hub classifications can be found here: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_c ... ategories/

That doesn't mean I disagree with your point, though.

I imagine the SAT folks are under a lot of pressure because air service has been stagnant while AUS is growing like gangbusters. Since service to DCA is a political issue, this is actually one of few areas in which airport management can effect new air service.

D L X wrote:

jetero wrote:

I think we can all agree DCA is a lot more competitive than it ever has been before with the addition of WN and B6 (fares down 10% over 10 years), So in that way, the stated goals worked.

Is there a source for that? I used to fly up to NYC 10 years ago for under $100.

I think WN has done little if anything to affect fares out of DCA.

Well it's the DoT OD database, I have access to a proprietary database but I'm sure it can be found on BTS/RITA. Here are one-way average fares:

2008: $198

2016: $182

This excludes bag and other ancillary fees.

Average fares to all NYC airports did go up over this period of time, but slightly.

2008: $151

2016: $159

(Not discounting your experience--I'd just assume more people are paying closer to the average these days than they were in 2008, when there was wider variation.)

jetero wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

jetero wrote:

And Congress should be fine with just screwing all the other airlines, I take it?

Congress was perfectly happy to do that last time when it let the four (at that time) legacy carriers move one of their slots to beyond perimeter as they please and made the other airlines compete for fixed routes.

I think we can all agree DCA is a lot more competitive than it ever has been before with the addition of WN and B6 (fares down 10% over 10 years), So in that way, the stated goals worked.

That may be true, but I am not sure it has anything to do with what I said. My only point was Congress can make whatever law they want and had no problem giving four airlines special treatment before. I wouldn't put it past them to do it again.

cledaybuck wrote:

jetero wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Congress was perfectly happy to do that last time when it let the four (at that time) legacy carriers move one of their slots to beyond perimeter as they please and made the other airlines compete for fixed routes.

I think we can all agree DCA is a lot more competitive than it ever has been before with the addition of WN and B6 (fares down 10% over 10 years), So in that way, the stated goals worked.

That may be true, but I am not sure it has anything to do with what I said. My only point was Congress can make whatever law they want and had no problem giving four airlines special treatment before. I wouldn't put it past them to do it again.

Adding what? 4 beyond-perimeter flights? In exchange for Southwest, JetBlue, and Spirit getting how many slots? I'd say you're being hyperbolic.

Based on 4Q2016 data, the Top 5 extra-perimeter O&D markets that currently lack nonstop DCA service include:

1 - SAN 272 PPDEW
2 - SAT 177 PPDEW
3 - ABQ 115 PPDEW
4 - SMF 94 PPDEW
5 - SNA 93 PPDEW

Service in two of those markets (ABQ, SMF) would provide important nonstop links between airports serving western US state capital cities and the federal capital. Based on market demand and political expediency, these markets should receive top consideration for any additional extra-perimeter slots that may be allocated at some point in the future.

dolphinflyer wrote:

Based on 4Q2016 data, the Top 5 extra-perimeter O&D markets that currently lack nonstop DCA service include:

1 - SAN 272 PPDEW
2 - SAT 177 PPDEW
3 - ABQ 115 PPDEW
4 - SMF 94 PPDEW
5 - SNA 93 PPDEW

Service in two of those markets (ABQ, SMF) would provide important nonstop links between airports serving western US state capital cities and the federal capital. Based on market demand and political expediency, these markets should receive top consideration for any additional extra-perimeter slots that may be allocated at some point in the future.

In fairness, the better metric is O&D to all DC-area airports--BWI, DCA, and IAD as the lack of nonstop service distorts the statistics:

Calendar year 2016 PPDEW to all 3 airports:

SAN: 914
SAT: 531
SMF: 319
ABQ: 300
SNA: 214

IAD should have been given a dedicated heavy rail line from day one, but MWAA just had to get that parking revenue.

The Silver Line is a farce, and an entirely inefficient solution. Not installing an express track makes things even worse. Living in the DC area, I say just remove the perimeter restriction, but perhaps revoke some slots at the same time. Let the market work, instead of having regular fights over adding more exemptions.

OA940 wrote:

But, wasn't the A321neo inaugural from SFO to DCA? Or am I just dumb?

It was, but VX's SFO-DCA is also one of the 20 beyond-perimeter slot pairs. Discussed is that while WN has 2 slot pairs from DCA to AUS it's rather unlikely that WN would change one of them to SAT, and that Rep. Cuellar and his colleagues were trying to get SAT added as an exception without having to be one of the 20 "prized" beyond-perimeter slots via the NDAA.

WWads wrote:

IAD should have been given a dedicated heavy rail line from day one, but MWAA just had to get that parking revenue.

The Silver Line is a farce, and an entirely inefficient solution. Not installing an express track makes things even worse. Living in the DC area, I say just remove the perimeter restriction, but perhaps revoke some slots at the same time. Let the market work, instead of having regular fights over adding more exemptions.

MWAA didn't exist on day 1. It was formed in 1987, so like maybe day 9000. Before that, IAD (and DCA) were run by the FAA.

dolphinflyer wrote:

Based on 4Q2016 data, the Top 5 extra-perimeter O&D markets that currently lack nonstop DCA service include:

1 - SAN 272 PPDEW
2 - SAT 177 PPDEW
3 - ABQ 115 PPDEW
4 - SMF 94 PPDEW
5 - SNA 93 PPDEW

Service in two of those markets (ABQ, SMF) would provide important nonstop links between airports serving western US state capital cities and the federal capital. Based on market demand and political expediency, these markets should receive top consideration for any additional extra-perimeter slots that may be allocated at some point in the future.

ABQ is not the capital of New Mexico, but many if not most headed to Santa Fe (the capital) use ABQ due to much better flight options. That said, ABQ does have a national lab and the largest Department of Energy field office in the nation right off the end of the runway, so there are plenty of government workers that would appreciate a nonstop.

Jetero, thanks.

WWads wrote:

IAD should have been given a dedicated heavy rail line from day one

Meh. IAD is really far away, and really far outside the metro zone. It was only fairly recently that there was close to enough traffic between 495 and IAD to justify it.

Compare: is there enough traffic the extend metro to Woodbridge which is closer to the beltway than Dulles?

D L X wrote:

Jetero, thanks.

WWads wrote:

IAD should have been given a dedicated heavy rail line from day one

Meh. IAD is really far away, and really far outside the metro zone. It was only fairly recently that there was close to enough traffic between 495 and IAD to justify it.

Compare: is there enough traffic the extend metro to Woodbridge which is closer to the beltway than Dulles?

Since IAD opened under the jurisdiction of the FAA, it was supposed to be a shining example of federal government planning, a la YMX. IAD's innovation was the mobile lounge to minimize terminal development, but we all know the end of that.

It'd be very interesting to see the site selection studies. I'd suspect it was similar to DEN (no hotel within 10 miles when it opened), the difference being Stapleton was closed.

D L X wrote:

Jetero, thanks

Por nada.

jetero wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

jetero wrote:

I think we can all agree DCA is a lot more competitive than it ever has been before with the addition of WN and B6 (fares down 10% over 10 years), So in that way, the stated goals worked.

That may be true, but I am not sure it has anything to do with what I said. My only point was Congress can make whatever law they want and had no problem giving four airlines special treatment before. I wouldn't put it past them to do it again.

Adding what? 4 beyond-perimeter flights? In exchange for Southwest, JetBlue, and Spirit getting how many slots? I'd say you're being hyperbolic.

The four legacies got to move 4 existing flights to beyond perimeter. There were four new slots created for everyone else to compete for. WN got AUS, B6 got SJU, AS got PDX and VX got SFO. Not awarded were AC YVR, AS SAN, B6 AUS, F9 COS, SY LAS, and VX SFO (2nd frequency). These routes are locked in and can not be changes. The four legacies could (and still can) move their around at will. Those are the only 4 slots created. The rest were obtained in separate transactions which had nothing to do with beyond perimeter (US-DL slot swap and US-AA merger).

I would like to see the perimeter removed, but classify certain slots to be used for medium and small hubs (FAA definition) to maintain some service to smaller cities.

Genuine question: what is the value of a perimeter restriction? Why does it exist? It seems like so many holes have been punctured in the rule that now it seems like a thing that politicians like to keep around to use as leverage against airlines so they can get a nonstop flight to their favorite airport (which - surprise, surprise - is always in their district).

I agree with a comment made earlier: end the restriction altogether and let the market sift out the winning and losing routes, not Representatives from states X,Y and Z.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

There should be one...and only one amendment to the whole stinking thing and it can be done on a single line.


"DCA is not longer bound by any 'perimeter rule' and all flights are allows to operate to any airport in the United States of America".

Real Simple. It should be opened up and let further competition ensue.

Where do you put all the gates? IAD becomes a ghost town with the possible exception of the UA hub. DCA may need to get e new round of beyond perimeter flights, but small number. It's fairly well maxxed out already.

mooseofspruce wrote:

OA940 wrote:

But, wasn't the A321neo inaugural from SFO to DCA? Or am I just dumb?

It was, but VX's SFO-DCA is also one of the 20 beyond-perimeter slot pairs. Discussed is that while WN has 2 slot pairs from DCA to AUS it's rather unlikely that WN would change one of them to SAT, and that Rep. Cuellar and his colleagues were trying to get SAT added as an exception without having to be one of the 20 "prized" beyond-perimeter slots via the NDAA.

WN has 1 daily nonstop r/t (that's 1 set of slots) between AUS and DCA.

And, as has been discussed earlier in this thread, there are only 4 'flexi-awards' that can be moved; if your count of 20 Beyond-Perimeter slot -pairs is correct, that means 16 of them are permanent and locked in (read: cannot/may not be moved to another beyond-perimeter city.)

jetero wrote:

dolphinflyer wrote:

Based on 4Q2016 data, the Top 5 extra-perimeter O&D markets that currently lack nonstop DCA service include:

1 - SAN 272 PPDEW
2 - SAT 177 PPDEW
3 - ABQ 115 PPDEW
4 - SMF 94 PPDEW
5 - SNA 93 PPDEW

In fairness, the better metric is O&D to all DC-area airports--BWI, DCA, and IAD as the lack of nonstop service distorts the statistics:

Calendar year 2016 PPDEW to all 3 airports:

SAN: 914
SAT: 531
SMF: 319
ABQ: 300
SNA: 214

I agree that the total pax count to all 3 WAS airports must be considered, but the number of pax who actually DO fly into Reagan Airport, despite having to stop or change planes enroute is also very important. Those folks REALLY want to fly in and out of Reagan despite the fact that they could fly nonstop into Dulles or BWI. We don't -- although maybe the airlines do -- really know how many of travelers using IAD and BWI would fly into DCA if they could, but I'm sure that number would be considerable.

dolphinflyer wrote:

Service in two of those markets (ABQ, SMF) would provide important nonstop links between airports serving western US state capital cities and the federal capital. Based on market demand and political expediency, these markets should receive top consideration for any additional extra-perimeter slots that may be allocated at some point in the future.

I disagree that ABQ and SMF should receive top consideration. But in reality, IF there's another Beyond-Perimeter hearing, as with the last one, it will probably be up to the airlines as to which routes will be requested; as we know, economics and amount of potential traffic will help determine that. (And of course, politics will inevitably play a part as well.)

In support of this statement, and to bring the discussion back to the topic of this thread, it should be noted that during the last Beyond-Perimeter hearing in back in 2012, SAT-DCA was a route not applied for by any of the cx involved in the case; that includes WN who applied only for AUS-DCA, and got it!

bb

adlight105 wrote:

Genuine question: what is the value of a perimeter restriction? Why does it exist? It seems like so many holes have been punctured in the rule that now it seems like a thing that politicians like to keep around to use as leverage against airlines so they can get a nonstop flight to their favorite airport (which - surprise, surprise - is always in their district).

I agree with a comment made earlier: end the restriction altogether and let the market sift out the winning and losing routes, not Representatives from states X,Y and Z.

The perimeter restriction exists for a couple of reasons.

First is noise; DCA pre-dates jets, and a big part of the reason for building IAD was to accommodate jets. But DCA was too convenient, so it never closed and they instead decided to restrict the distance of flying as a partial means of restricting the size of planes and thus the noise. The perimeter was a gentlemans agreement among the airlines at first and then codified into law after deregulation. This is no longer necessary due to direct noise regulation.

The second is demand. Again, IAD was built to accommodated jets (longer runways, more buffer for noise, etc). There were no standards for what a modern airport would/should look like then. This was also before deregulation, so while the airport didn't catch on quickly as a commercial enterprise, it was nonetheless the only way to serve international flights into DC. Unlike Montreal, DCA couldn't handle bigger jets. After deregulation, formalizing the perimeter rule meant officially setting policy to push longer distance flights to IAD, helping to boost traffic there above a critical mass.

Today, the demand reason is why MWAA doesn't want to remove the perimeter. Things have reached somewhat of an equilibrium. Before all of the mergers, DCA was competitive among the legacy carriers but LCCs had no opportunity to serve it. Since mergers forced divestiture of slots and Congress has added perimeter exemptions, the net result is a) US and AA have 50% of the traffic (previously no airline had more than about ~25%), b) the entrance of Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America and Alaska means that there's a lot more competition at DCA - and that those airlines have specifically moved flights from IAD to DCA, and c) the beyond perimeter flights suck up O and D to DC that would otherwise use IAD, which draws traffic away from IAD.

MWAA's mandate is to operate the airport system as a whole. They don't need more traffic at DCA, they want more at IAD. And while DCA can thrive, they don't want that service to undermine the business case for serving IAD - particularly after IAD embarked on an expensive capital plan to accommodate large growth, only to see that plan somewhat undermined by approved mergers and new slot exemptions.

cledaybuck wrote:

jetero wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

That may be true, but I am not sure it has anything to do with what I said. My only point was Congress can make whatever law they want and had no problem giving four airlines special treatment before. I wouldn't put it past them to do it again.

Adding what? 4 beyond-perimeter flights? In exchange for Southwest, JetBlue, and Spirit getting how many slots? I'd say you're being hyperbolic.

The four legacies got to move 4 existing flights to beyond perimeter. There were four new slots created for everyone else to compete for. WN got AUS, B6 got SJU, AS got PDX and VX got SFO. Not awarded were AC YVR, AS SAN, B6 AUS, F9 COS, SY LAS, and VX SFO (2nd frequency). These routes are locked in and can not be changes. The four legacies could (and still can) move their around at will. Those are the only 4 slots created. The rest were obtained in separate transactions which had nothing to do with beyond perimeter (US-DL slot swap and US-AA merger).

What a cabal! 4 flights. That damned Congress!!

blockski wrote:

adlight105 wrote:

Genuine question: what is the value of a perimeter restriction? Why does it exist? It seems like so many holes have been punctured in the rule that now it seems like a thing that politicians like to keep around to use as leverage against airlines so they can get a nonstop flight to their favorite airport (which - surprise, surprise - is always in their district).

I agree with a comment made earlier: end the restriction altogether and let the market sift out the winning and losing routes, not Representatives from states X,Y and Z.

The perimeter restriction exists for a couple of reasons.

First is noise; DCA pre-dates jets, and a big part of the reason for building IAD was to accommodate jets. But DCA was too convenient, so it never closed and they instead decided to restrict the distance of flying as a partial means of restricting the size of planes and thus the noise. The perimeter was a gentlemans agreement among the airlines at first and then codified into law after deregulation. This is no longer necessary due to direct noise regulation.

The second is demand. Again, IAD was built to accommodated jets (longer runways, more buffer for noise, etc). There were no standards for what a modern airport would/should look like then. This was also before deregulation, so while the airport didn't catch on quickly as a commercial enterprise, it was nonetheless the only way to serve international flights into DC. Unlike Montreal, DCA couldn't handle bigger jets. After deregulation, formalizing the perimeter rule meant officially setting policy to push longer distance flights to IAD, helping to boost traffic there above a critical mass.

Today, the demand reason is why MWAA doesn't want to remove the perimeter. Things have reached somewhat of an equilibrium. Before all of the mergers, DCA was competitive among the legacy carriers but LCCs had no opportunity to serve it. Since mergers forced divestiture of slots and Congress has added perimeter exemptions, the net result is a) US and AA have 50% of the traffic (previously no airline had more than about ~25%), b) the entrance of Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America and Alaska means that there's a lot more competition at DCA - and that those airlines have specifically moved flights from IAD to DCA, and c) the beyond perimeter flights suck up O and D to DC that would otherwise use IAD, which draws traffic away from IAD.

MWAA's mandate is to operate the airport system as a whole. They don't need more traffic at DCA, they want more at IAD. And while DCA can thrive, they don't want that service to undermine the business case for serving IAD - particularly after IAD embarked on an expensive capital plan to accommodate large growth, only to see that plan somewhat undermined by approved mergers and new slot exemptions.

I think it probably worked more like:

-DCA couldn't accommodate the first generation of jet aircraft (707s) and therefore had a "natural" reach of about 1,000 miles

-IAD was built--people didn't think DCA would become a "loud" jet airport

-But DCA was able to accommodate the second generation (727s) of jet aircraft

-For political reasons, artificial limitations were placed on DCA to give locals the appearance that it was not expanding (people could still get flights to the same places they always got flights to, but nowhere else)

The fact that the federal government was running both airports at the time while setting policy for all U.S. airports meant that DCA was easy to use as an example.

SANFan wrote:

I agree that the total pax count to all 3 WAS airports must be considered, but the number of pax who actually DO fly into Reagan Airport, despite having to stop or change planes enroute is also very important. Those folks REALLY want to fly in and out of Reagan despite the fact that they could fly nonstop into Dulles or BWI. We don't -- although maybe the airlines do -- really know how many of travelers using IAD and BWI would fly into DCA if they could, but I'm sure that number would be considerable.

SANFan, I think that's a bit of an overstatement. For 25% of them, sure. For the remaining 75%, they probably took the lowest fare option from an airport that doesn't have the greatest service to any DC airport. What are your options from SAN, SAT, ABQ, etc? Maybe 5, 3, and 1 nonstop each? All of these markets are "used to" not flying nonstop to major destinations on the East Coast. DCA is a no-brainer.

blockski wrote:

adlight105 wrote:

Genuine question: what is the value of a perimeter restriction? Why does it exist? It seems like so many holes have been punctured in the rule that now it seems like a thing that politicians like to keep around to use as leverage against airlines so they can get a nonstop flight to their favorite airport (which - surprise, surprise - is always in their district).

I agree with a comment made earlier: end the restriction altogether and let the market sift out the winning and losing routes, not Representatives from states X,Y and Z.

The perimeter restriction exists for a couple of reasons.

First is noise; DCA pre-dates jets, and a big part of the reason for building IAD was to accommodate jets. But DCA was too convenient, so it never closed and they instead decided to restrict the distance of flying as a partial means of restricting the size of planes and thus the noise. The perimeter was a gentlemans agreement among the airlines at first and then codified into law after deregulation. This is no longer necessary due to direct noise regulation.

The second is demand. Again, IAD was built to accommodated jets (longer runways, more buffer for noise, etc). There were no standards for what a modern airport would/should look like then. This was also before deregulation, so while the airport didn't catch on quickly as a commercial enterprise, it was nonetheless the only way to serve international flights into DC. Unlike Montreal, DCA couldn't handle bigger jets. After deregulation, formalizing the perimeter rule meant officially setting policy to push longer distance flights to IAD, helping to boost traffic there above a critical mass.

Today, the demand reason is why MWAA doesn't want to remove the perimeter. Things have reached somewhat of an equilibrium. Before all of the mergers, DCA was competitive among the legacy carriers but LCCs had no opportunity to serve it. Since mergers forced divestiture of slots and Congress has added perimeter exemptions, the net result is a) US and AA have 50% of the traffic (previously no airline had more than about ~25%), b) the entrance of Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America and Alaska means that there's a lot more competition at DCA - and that those airlines have specifically moved flights from IAD to DCA, and c) the beyond perimeter flights suck up O and D to DC that would otherwise use IAD, which draws traffic away from IAD.

MWAA's mandate is to operate the airport system as a whole. They don't need more traffic at DCA, they want more at IAD. And while DCA can thrive, they don't want that service to undermine the business case for serving IAD - particularly after IAD embarked on an expensive capital plan to accommodate large growth, only to see that plan somewhat undermined by approved mergers and new slot exemptions.

Thanks for this. I still don't understand why a perimeter is the appropriate tool to address excess demand. Wouldn't raising landing fees do that? I understand that 9 times out of 10 a domestic carrier (US3 or otherwise) will want to use DCA over IAD for the convenience. It seems to me that MWAA should respond to this by raising fees at DCA to help balance out demand between their airports. How does PANYNJ handle demand smoothing between LGA and JFK? Or is that not an appropriate analogy?

adlight105 wrote:

blockski wrote:

adlight105 wrote:

Genuine question: what is the value of a perimeter restriction? Why does it exist? It seems like so many holes have been punctured in the rule that now it seems like a thing that politicians like to keep around to use as leverage against airlines so they can get a nonstop flight to their favorite airport (which - surprise, surprise - is always in their district).

I agree with a comment made earlier: end the restriction altogether and let the market sift out the winning and losing routes, not Representatives from states X,Y and Z.

The perimeter restriction exists for a couple of reasons.

First is noise; DCA pre-dates jets, and a big part of the reason for building IAD was to accommodate jets. But DCA was too convenient, so it never closed and they instead decided to restrict the distance of flying as a partial means of restricting the size of planes and thus the noise. The perimeter was a gentlemans agreement among the airlines at first and then codified into law after deregulation. This is no longer necessary due to direct noise regulation.

The second is demand. Again, IAD was built to accommodated jets (longer runways, more buffer for noise, etc). There were no standards for what a modern airport would/should look like then. This was also before deregulation, so while the airport didn't catch on quickly as a commercial enterprise, it was nonetheless the only way to serve international flights into DC. Unlike Montreal, DCA couldn't handle bigger jets. After deregulation, formalizing the perimeter rule meant officially setting policy to push longer distance flights to IAD, helping to boost traffic there above a critical mass.

Today, the demand reason is why MWAA doesn't want to remove the perimeter. Things have reached somewhat of an equilibrium. Before all of the mergers, DCA was competitive among the legacy carriers but LCCs had no opportunity to serve it. Since mergers forced divestiture of slots and Congress has added perimeter exemptions, the net result is a) US and AA have 50% of the traffic (previously no airline had more than about ~25%), b) the entrance of Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America and Alaska means that there's a lot more competition at DCA - and that those airlines have specifically moved flights from IAD to DCA, and c) the beyond perimeter flights suck up O and D to DC that would otherwise use IAD, which draws traffic away from IAD.

MWAA's mandate is to operate the airport system as a whole. They don't need more traffic at DCA, they want more at IAD. And while DCA can thrive, they don't want that service to undermine the business case for serving IAD - particularly after IAD embarked on an expensive capital plan to accommodate large growth, only to see that plan somewhat undermined by approved mergers and new slot exemptions.

Thanks for this. I still don't understand why a perimeter is the appropriate tool to address excess demand. Wouldn't raising landing fees do that? I understand that 9 times out of 10 a domestic carrier (US3 or otherwise) will want to use DCA over IAD for the convenience. It seems to me that MWAA should respond to this by raising fees at DCA to help balance out demand between their airports. How does PANYNJ handle demand smoothing between LGA and JFK? Or is that not an appropriate analogy?

1) The perimeter rule is not about addressing excess demand.

2) MWAA cannot raise fees as you describe because it's against the law. Airport rates and charges in the U.S. aren't set by market mechanisms. They are set on a cost-recovery basis, by federal regulation. The only way MWAA would be able to increase rates at DCA would be by agreement with the airlines. The most recent agreement does provide for some cross-subsidization (albeit marginal) but the only reason AA signed up for it was for more gates at DCA.

3) U.S. airports do not handle demand smoothing, LGA, DCA, or otherwise. The FAA coordinates what minimal slot restrictions there are in the U.S. as a matter of interstate commerce. So, no, not an appropriate analogy.

adlight105 wrote:

blockski wrote:

adlight105 wrote:

Genuine question: what is the value of a perimeter restriction? Why does it exist? It seems like so many holes have been punctured in the rule that now it seems like a thing that politicians like to keep around to use as leverage against airlines so they can get a nonstop flight to their favorite airport (which - surprise, surprise - is always in their district).

I agree with a comment made earlier: end the restriction altogether and let the market sift out the winning and losing routes, not Representatives from states X,Y and Z.

The perimeter restriction exists for a couple of reasons.

First is noise; DCA pre-dates jets, and a big part of the reason for building IAD was to accommodate jets. But DCA was too convenient, so it never closed and they instead decided to restrict the distance of flying as a partial means of restricting the size of planes and thus the noise. The perimeter was a gentlemans agreement among the airlines at first and then codified into law after deregulation. This is no longer necessary due to direct noise regulation.

The second is demand. Again, IAD was built to accommodated jets (longer runways, more buffer for noise, etc). There were no standards for what a modern airport would/should look like then. This was also before deregulation, so while the airport didn't catch on quickly as a commercial enterprise, it was nonetheless the only way to serve international flights into DC. Unlike Montreal, DCA couldn't handle bigger jets. After deregulation, formalizing the perimeter rule meant officially setting policy to push longer distance flights to IAD, helping to boost traffic there above a critical mass.

Today, the demand reason is why MWAA doesn't want to remove the perimeter. Things have reached somewhat of an equilibrium. Before all of the mergers, DCA was competitive among the legacy carriers but LCCs had no opportunity to serve it. Since mergers forced divestiture of slots and Congress has added perimeter exemptions, the net result is a) US and AA have 50% of the traffic (previously no airline had more than about ~25%), b) the entrance of Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America and Alaska means that there's a lot more competition at DCA - and that those airlines have specifically moved flights from IAD to DCA, and c) the beyond perimeter flights suck up O and D to DC that would otherwise use IAD, which draws traffic away from IAD.

MWAA's mandate is to operate the airport system as a whole. They don't need more traffic at DCA, they want more at IAD. And while DCA can thrive, they don't want that service to undermine the business case for serving IAD - particularly after IAD embarked on an expensive capital plan to accommodate large growth, only to see that plan somewhat undermined by approved mergers and new slot exemptions.

Thanks for this. I still don't understand why a perimeter is the appropriate tool to address excess demand. Wouldn't raising landing fees do that? I understand that 9 times out of 10 a domestic carrier (US3 or otherwise) will want to use DCA over IAD for the convenience. It seems to me that MWAA should respond to this by raising fees at DCA to help balance out demand between their airports. How does PANYNJ handle demand smoothing between LGA and JFK? Or is that not an appropriate analogy?

It's not about 'excess demand,' it's about ensuring that IAD had a niche for service beyond just international flying. And no, it's not the most appropriate tool to accomplish that goal, but this is the status quo that we have - and MWAA wants to minimize changes to that balance between the two airports.

MWAA can't just raise fees at DCA.

And it's funny you mention the PANYNJ - they do have a perimeter rule at LGA for essentially the same reasons - to drive traffic to JFK, and to restrict traffic at the favored airport (LGA). The difference is that the Port Authority imposes their own perimeter rule; while the FAA created DCA's perimeter rule and thus they are codified in Federal Law.

blockski wrote:

adlight105 wrote:

blockski wrote:

The perimeter restriction exists for a couple of reasons.

First is noise; DCA pre-dates jets, and a big part of the reason for building IAD was to accommodate jets. But DCA was too convenient, so it never closed and they instead decided to restrict the distance of flying as a partial means of restricting the size of planes and thus the noise. The perimeter was a gentlemans agreement among the airlines at first and then codified into law after deregulation. This is no longer necessary due to direct noise regulation.

The second is demand. Again, IAD was built to accommodated jets (longer runways, more buffer for noise, etc). There were no standards for what a modern airport would/should look like then. This was also before deregulation, so while the airport didn't catch on quickly as a commercial enterprise, it was nonetheless the only way to serve international flights into DC. Unlike Montreal, DCA couldn't handle bigger jets. After deregulation, formalizing the perimeter rule meant officially setting policy to push longer distance flights to IAD, helping to boost traffic there above a critical mass.

Today, the demand reason is why MWAA doesn't want to remove the perimeter. Things have reached somewhat of an equilibrium. Before all of the mergers, DCA was competitive among the legacy carriers but LCCs had no opportunity to serve it. Since mergers forced divestiture of slots and Congress has added perimeter exemptions, the net result is a) US and AA have 50% of the traffic (previously no airline had more than about ~25%), b) the entrance of Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America and Alaska means that there's a lot more competition at DCA - and that those airlines have specifically moved flights from IAD to DCA, and c) the beyond perimeter flights suck up O and D to DC that would otherwise use IAD, which draws traffic away from IAD.

MWAA's mandate is to operate the airport system as a whole. They don't need more traffic at DCA, they want more at IAD. And while DCA can thrive, they don't want that service to undermine the business case for serving IAD - particularly after IAD embarked on an expensive capital plan to accommodate large growth, only to see that plan somewhat undermined by approved mergers and new slot exemptions.

Thanks for this. I still don't understand why a perimeter is the appropriate tool to address excess demand. Wouldn't raising landing fees do that? I understand that 9 times out of 10 a domestic carrier (US3 or otherwise) will want to use DCA over IAD for the convenience. It seems to me that MWAA should respond to this by raising fees at DCA to help balance out demand between their airports. How does PANYNJ handle demand smoothing between LGA and JFK? Or is that not an appropriate analogy?

It's not about 'excess demand,' it's about ensuring that IAD had a niche for service beyond just international flying. And no, it's not the most appropriate tool to accomplish that goal, but this is the status quo that we have - and MWAA wants to minimize changes to that balance between the two airports.

MWAA can't just raise fees at DCA.

And it's funny you mention the PANYNJ - they do have a perimeter rule at LGA for essentially the same reasons - to drive traffic to JFK, and to restrict traffic at the favored airport (LGA). The difference is that the Port Authority imposes their own perimeter rule; while the FAA created DCA's perimeter rule and thus they are codified in Federal Law.

Thanks blockski. I didn't know that there was not an ability to raise fees based on market demand. Might be unpopular to say, but I think that's a silly concept - and probably inhibits an airport's ability to grow/expand/offer the types of amenities global travelers would expect to have.

adlight105 wrote:

Thanks blockski. I didn't know that there was not an ability to raise fees based on market demand. Might be unpopular to say, but I think that's a silly concept - and probably inhibits an airport's ability to grow/expand/offer the types of amenities global travelers would expect to have.

It's a condition of receiving federal grants--can't receive federal subsidies paid from ticket taxes and then charge airlines (and, by extension, passengers) more than what the facilities cost. It's not "silly"---plenty of thought behind it--outdated, perhaps.

adlight105 wrote:

and probably inhibits an airport's ability to grow/expand/offer the types of amenities global travelers would expect to have.

Nope, that'd be the airlines that do that.

WWads wrote:

It was only fairly recently that there was close to enough traffic between 495 and IAD to justify it.

Arguably, the main reason the Metro link was finally built was because of growth around the Dulles Toll Road, not to connect IAD. Once there was enough traffic on the DTR (toll revenue) then it became possible to build Metro, even if it had been envisioned from the start. No traffic or growth in the Dulles corridor, no Metro.

DfwAussie wrote:

Where do you put all the gates? IAD becomes a ghost town with the possible exception of the UA hub. DCA may need to get e new round of beyond perimeter flights, but small number. It's fairly well maxxed out already.

Agreed. MWAA stated in their "Project Journey" (commuter gate renovation) presentation that DCA currently serves 23 million pax per year, 8 million more that DCA was built to handle. DCA is landlocked, close to highly populated residential areas, and can't efficiently (or legally) handle planes larger than 757/321, either in terms of performance or gate space. DCA needs perimeter and slot restrictions to keep it operating efficiently.