Quoting commavia (Reply 49): "The bill authorizes the creation of eight additional round-trip long-haul flights, or 16 slots, to Washington National Airport – beyond the 12 that are already allowed there. “Limited or non-incumbent” airlines such as JetBlue or Virgin America will be allowed to compete for four of the slots. And the four incumbent airlines, Delta, US Airways, United and American will each receive one additional slot, the aide says."

Ugh.    Congressional sausage-making at its finest.

So that makes the following seem likely:

- UA to SFO
- AA to LAX
- DL to SLC (second frequency)
- US to LAX or SAN

Then, the other four slots might be some combination of:

- B6 to AUS and/or LGB
- AS to PDX
- VX to SFO and/or LAX
- WN to... who knows where?

Quoting commavia (Reply 49): According to an AvWeek article out this morning, four the slots are designated for incumbent airlines AA, Delta, United and USAirways: "The bill authorizes the creation of eight additional round-trip long-haul flights, or 16 slots, to Washington National Airport – beyond the 12 that are already allowed there. “Limited or non-incumbent” airlines such as JetBlue or Virgin America will be allowed to compete for four of the slots. And the four incumbent airlines, Delta, US Airways, United and American will each receive one additional slot, the aide says."

That seems so incredibly arbitrary that it's hard to read. Labeling four legacy carriers as "incumbents" is inaccurate and is no reason to simply hand them all one of these valuable exemptions anyway. Why should any airline not have to create a well thought out proposal to explain the benefits that a new route would provide? The political involvement was already hard to swallow but I guess there's now no keeping up pretenses that this would be fair in any way.

I have heard that B6 is interested in DCA-AUS also.

Quoting commavia (Reply 49): It strikes me as a bit unfair that the only truly "non-incumbent" airline among the list of incumbent carriers is going to get the same one slot as the other three, all of which already have beyond-perimeter slots. To keep things equitable among them, AA should get 2, Delta and United should get 1 (additional) each, and USAirways 0, since they already have more than any of the other three.

It depends. If US uses the slot for a 4th PHX frequency then I'd be highly disappointed, but if they open up a new market (I'm thinking SAN) then it could be very good for the DCA customer. The only other carrier with a decent shot of starting a new route to SAN is WN, but as mentioned above they tend to shy away from such long routes.

SFO is also a great option for US as well. It opens up more travel on the Star Alliance network and could feed many flights to Asia. Even if United gets a SFO slot there is more than enough demand to support 2 DCA-SFO flights.

Quoting md3 (Reply 51): That seems so incredibly arbitrary that it's hard to read. Labeling four legacy carriers as "incumbents" is inaccurate and is no reason to simply hand them all one of these valuable exemptions anyway. Why should any airline not have to create a well thought out proposal to explain the benefits that a new route would provide? The political involvement was already hard to swallow but I guess there's now no keeping up pretenses that this would be fair in any way.

Arbitrary? Politicians? Never.   

It does strike me as a bit ridiculous, but it's sadly typical. I mean - look at USAirways. Is it really the best use of these scarce slots and in the public interests for them to have as many of these exemptions as they do, while AA and all but one of the large low-cost airlines have zero? Of course not, but that's what happens when you have the "right" politician working on your behalf in D.C.  

SANFan...I understand your argument for SAN-DCA and your stats proves its validity. It's 100% possible that AS will get nothing. I think AS has bigger opportunities with DCA besides SAN. I will stand corrected if AS announces new service between SAN-DCA; or for any airline.

I agree with everyone here that someone, most likely UA, should get at least one slot between SFO-DCA. SFO is a huge UA hub for the Western States and Asia as everyone knows. Could chronic year-round weather delays at SFO play a role in this?

Here's a question for everybody. If United gets SFO-DCA 2X daily, do they put a PS 757 on the route? Or even a 2-class 763 (not sure if DCA could handle this on a regular basis though)? It will eat into their yields on SFO-IAD, but they need to find a good balance. SFO-IAD will always have the most volume of seats, but it probably makes sense for SFO-DCA to have the most premium seats.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 56): If United gets SFO-DCA 2X daily

Well, again, at least according to a source quoted by AvWeek, it's not a question of if United gets DCA-SFO, but if United wants to use the 1 slot they're given on that route (which I agree they will). United is likely to get 1 slot, and I think they are extremely likely to put it on DCA-SFO.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 56): do they put a PS 757 on the route

Doubtful. It's a small subfleet and I don't think the market - especially flooded by a bunch of new capacity DCA-California - could profitably support it.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 56): Or even a 2-class 763 (not sure if DCA could handle this on a regular basis though)?

I think a 767 would be way overkill, especially since United stands to lose the most given their heavy exposure to IAD. A 2-class, non-PS 757 seems the most logical/appropriate.

So, just a crazy question.. will these be 8 new slots.. meaning 8 additional flights or are these conversions of 8 current slots into 8 out-perimeter slots? I mean, DCA is kinda full as it is and the addition of 8 additional slots will probably just add more to the congestion..

Just wondering.. I browsed the posts but didn't see anything (course, I didn't look TOO hard)

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 58): So, just a crazy question.. will these be 8 new slots.. meaning 8 additional flights or are these conversions of 8 current slots into 8 out-perimeter slots? I mean, DCA is kinda full as it is and the addition of 8 additional slots will probably just add more to the congestion..

I am not sure, but I believe these will be 8 new daily arrivals and 8 new daily departures in addition to the current DCA schedule.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 56): Here's a question for everybody. If United gets SFO-DCA 2X daily, do they put a PS 757 on the route? Or even a 2-class 763 (not sure if DCA could handle this on a regular basis though)?

I don't think they'll get 2x daily, based on what Commavia quoted.

But either way, I don't think p.s. is likely for a 1x/daily service into a market that's not quite as premium as New York. I understand the logic of wanting to concentrate the premium seats at DCA, but I expect a p.s. bird is just too much. Like others, I think a normal PMUA 757 is the most likely equipment.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 58): I mean, DCA is kinda full as it is and the addition of 8 additional slots will probably just add more to the congestion..

DCA has room for some more arrivals and departures. The worst congestion is inside the terminals, not on the ramp or in the air.

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 43): Don't count out SY as they are losing their MSP-LAN-DCA. on April 30th. Slot going back to Republic Airways. They (SY) will fight to get it back, or looking for MSP-DCA non-stop.

Hey 'King, hope the new year is going well for you.

Maybe I mis-understand your post but MSP is within the perimeter (as are DFW and IAH) so these cities are not involved in these precedings. These 8 new slots are for beyond-the-perimeter (which is 1,250 miles from DCA) routes only.

Can anyone provide the liink for the AvWkly article mentioned? Thanks in advance.

bb

Quoting point2point (Reply 41):

ABQ? Yes please? We already have...I think it's 1 or 2X daily to BWI, 1x daily to IAD, but a DCA flight? That would be very impressive considering our size. Unfortunately, it's all political, as anyone would guess, so we'll see an ABQ flight only if New Mexico politicians push hard enough for it. The one airline I can see doing an ABQ-DCA flight is US, with an A319, because there might be enough connecting traffic in DCA.. (Also, I'm sure US would do something like they offer when flying, say, PHX-DFW-CLT, or PHX-SAT-CLT, connect and transfer in ABQ.)

As for the other airlines' slots, is there any restriction on the equipment the airline uses? If DL happens to be sending out a full 752 every day, could they upgauge it to a 753, if Alaska's 738 is full, make it a 739, etc? Or are they stuck using a certain plane?

Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 62): As for the other airlines' slots, is there any restriction on the equipment the airline uses? If DL happens to be sending out a full 752 every day, could they upgauge it to a 753, if Alaska's 738 is full, make it a 739, etc? Or are they stuck using a certain plane?

The largest aircraft permitted into DCA is a 767-300. Also, the airline must have access to gates that can fit the aircraft, and the aircraft has to have sufficient take-off performance to leave DCA's short runway with a full passenger load and enough fuel for the flight.

The 739 falls short on runway performance for beyond-perimeter flights, as does the A321 to a lesser extent.

The 753 performs fine, but (like a 767) only fits at a few gates at the airport. DL and UA should both be able to use one if they really want to, although a 752 or 738 probably fits the expected passenger mix more closely, and with less impact on other operations.

For all these reasons, I would be surprised to see anything but 752, 738, or A320 equipment on these new flights.

[Edited 2012-02-01 09:03:25]

Quoting EricR (Reply 2): Anyone know why there so few beyond perimeter exceptions made for LGA, but DCA appears to get exceptions on occasions?

Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 62): ABQ? Yes please?

I second the motion. I would not rule out that possibility. There seems to be a lot of military traffic between ABQ and the DC area. I dont know how much of it goes to the Pentagon, but that is only a few minutes from DCA. In addition, I know there is a lot of govt business between ABQ and DC.

Quoting mah584jr (Reply 53): The only other carrier with a decent shot of starting a new route to SAN is WN, but as mentioned above they tend to shy away from such long routes.

WN has been running 2x daily SAN-BWI for years.

Quoting apodino (Reply 37): As for the specific carriers, I would expect US to put in for everything, but given the recent slot deal, US won't be awarded any more beyond perimeter slots without giving up existing slots.

I don't understand why the largest carrier at DCA, with by far the most feed, should not be awarded route authorities that could benefit the network even more. That said, maybe US would be willing to give up a current slot. Hmmm...DCA-SAN/LAX or DCA-JAN?

Quoting SANFan (Reply 39): What?! PDX is larger than SFO, SAN, AUS, SAT? I sure must've missed that census table... Please show me the figures to back up that statement!

The Portland metro is bigger than the SAT or AUS metros. SAT and AUS, of course, have more government traffic and are also shorter stage lengths which help the tilt.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): These slots were all awarded to an independent HP - PMUS never received any of these scarce exemptions.

Well, US was pretty much confined within the perimeter already.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): Perhaps this could have been a major reason why the HP certificate was kept?

Interesting and I do not remember anyone mentioning that at the time.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): The most populous state without nonstop service to DCA is Oregon, followed closely by Oklahoma and the territory of Puerto Rico. The only other state with any conceivable chance of supporting a flight would be New Mexico. I don't see any way in which Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, or the U.S. Virgin Islands could support daily commercial flights. Alaska and Hawaii are too far away for practical purposes, and I highly doubt Western Canada pre-clearance markets like YVR and YYC are in play here (if there is even enough demand for nonstop service to them in the first place).

DCA could pretty much support a flight anywhere in the country. Maybe not on a mainline aircraft everywhere, but there is no doubt in my mind that even the Dakotas could support an RJs worth of traffic daily.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): They could also link DCA with smaller markets in Texas and other Western states (COS, anyone?).

COS would be their best bet. Good call. Lots of gov traffic.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): Other airlines would probably say this is a waste of slots.

There are already plenty of pretty weak markets served with DCA slots, at least compared with major West Coast metros.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): US just got a bunch more DCA slots, and the gov't wasn't too happy. They probably will be trying to link DCA with major Western markets like SEA, SFO, and LAX, but if they are smart they will try to start stuff like AUS, OKC, SMF, ABQ, etc. In any case their chances of getting anything are probably very limited, due to their legacy nature and rights to 1/3 of all existing exemptions and 1/5 of those when its all said and done.

What if US gave up their existing DCA-LAS? Would that ever happen given the lack of a hub there now?

Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 62): The one airline I can see doing an ABQ-DCA flight is US, with an A319, because there might be enough connecting traffic in DCA..

I think it would be WN if anybody. They dominate ABQ and will probably want to make a splash. US doesn't much seem to care about ABQ anymore - they won't even give them a CLT flight.

Quoting IADLHR (Reply 64):

Three Air Force bases in the state, one large testing ground, an Army testing range, as well as two of the largest national labs that work with the military..I'd say that makes perfect sense for having a large chunk of traffic to DC being military/government related.

I definitely see there being a case for ABQ-DCA, as well as SAN-DCA, both for the same purpose, government related traffic. I'm not sure about the range of an ERJ-190, but if ABQ-DCA couldn't support an A319...US does fly the E190..and that's 99 seats instead of 124.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 56): Or even a 2-class 763 (not sure if DCA could handle this on a regular basis though)?

DCA only has narrowbodies. Although I don't know....is it a size/weight issue, ramp space, or part of the route rules?

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66):

That, and we're down to all CR2s to PHX, with the exception of 2 A319s a day. Oddly, when I took that flight a week or so ago...the A319 was packed full of people..and they're still cutting the available seats down. Hmm.

Let's remember the political elements in play here as well. Senator Patty Murray (WA) is the chair of the Senate Appropriations subcomittee for Transportation. This worked to SEA's advantage in the previous slot exemption allocations and Murray has previously alluded to getting a 3rd slot for SEA, with support from the State of Alaska delegation (although DCA-MSP-ANC is a more efficient routing to ANC, it is not good for JNU and the rest of Southeast Alaska).

DCA-PDX would also benefit Washington state - pretty much one entire Washington congressional district lives in the PDX catchment area, so I could see Murray brokering a PDX slot in addition to a 3rd SEA, but I think the SEA slot would be the priotity since it serves the big companies and is the center of her power base.

My only thought is, that AS which has a great service and performance record, plus adequate aircraft will get PDX-DCA.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66): I don't understand why the largest carrier at DCA, with by far the most feed, should not be awarded route authorities that could benefit the network even more. That said, maybe US would be willing to give up a current slot. Hmmm...DCA-SAN/LAX or DCA-JAN?

The argument goes that by giving slot exemptions to smaller players, it allows them to establish a better foothold while not contributing to the incumbent's domination. Obviously granting additional slots to US will always have network effects of it's own, but there is an equally strong argument for "spreading the wealth". Even though UA and AA, for instance, don't have the connectivity at DCA, they could route significant pax flows through LAX (either) or SFO (UA).

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66): There are already plenty of pretty weak markets served with DCA slots, at least compared with major West Coast metros.

I will grant that this is one benefit to some perimeter restrictions at DCA. Small markets need some love too, although I remain a fan of further relaxing the perimeter rule as it stands. One proposal made a while back would require trading existing slots from well-served hub routes to beyond-perimeter routes, in order to prevent small markets getting axed in favor West Coast flying.

Couple questions!

Wiil AA's bankruptcy effect wether or not they get a slot or will it be totaly ignored?

These new flights will mean 18 flights beyond the perimeter. Let's say there was no perimeter rule. How many 1250+ mile flights would there be? I'm thinking not many more than 18 so why bother with a perimeter rule.

Quoting Trucker (Reply 73): Let's say there was no perimeter rule. How many 1250+ mile flights would there be?

Way more than 18.

I'm guessing you'd have 5x or more daily to LAX, 5x or more to DEN, 4x or more to SFO, 3x to PHX, 3x to SLC, 3x to SEA, 1x to SAN, AUS, and maybe PDX or ABQ, and also maybe services to places like BUR, LGB, SNA, or OAK.

Quoting Trucker (Reply 73): why bother with a perimeter rule.

Because that would just be too easy, logical, and beneficial. It would also result in a significant number of southern and eastern congresscritters losing direct service to their districts or hometowns from DCA, so it won't happen anytime soon.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66): I don't understand why the largest carrier at DCA, with by far the most feed, should not be awarded route authorities that could benefit the network even more

I completely agree with that.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66): COS would be their best bet. Good call. Lots of gov traffic.

As a Colorado Springs native and having lived in DC for the past 15 years, I sincerely doubt that will happen.  

The 1x IAD-COS is usually a decent performer.... but its on an RJ. I don't think US could support an A319 to COS from DCA and we need to be carrying lots of people on these rare routes.

NS

I think US should apply for DCA-SAN and they need to dedicate this aircraft to the task...


View Large View Medium

Photo © Y. Hameleers

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 33): I could see AUS being a possibility but I have serious doubts about SAT. I don't know the pax numbers off the top of my head, but I would think there would be much bigger fish (as in, markets) to fry.

Actually, as SANFan's numbers show:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 42): Destination...1Q11 PDEW..2Q11 PDEW..3Q11 PDEW..ave PDEW over 3 quarters Bay Area*.............1528..............2170...............2035............1911 SAN.......................702................871................841..............805 SAT.......................480................562.................503.............515 AUS.......................383................488................438..............436 PDX.......................246................379.................405.............343 ABQ......................239................340.................330..............303 SMF......................196................324.................252..............257 TUS.......................192................202.................182..............192

SAT produces more traffic to WAS than AUS by a margin of roughly 20%; keep in mind that SAT hosts several large military installations. Yields are about 15% higher to AUS, so that would tend to suppress demand somewhat.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): VX gets 1x daily SFO, 1x daily LAX (since they can't be expected to support a new station with just one flight)

Why? SY and AS both opened DCA with single daily flights, so why would VX receive any different treatment?

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): UA: 1x daily DEN. IIRC, it was technically the PMCO certificate that was retained from the merger - could this service, originally awarded to a PMUA entity whose FAA operating certificate was officially surrendered, be in jeopardy???

Probably not. AA was unable to assume TWA's DCA-LAX slot exemption because AA didn't actually merge with TWA; AA purchased selected assets from TWA's bankruptcy estate. This was done to avoid certain onerous obligations like TWA's Karabu agreement with Carl Icahn. The slot exemptions can't be sold, and this would have effectively been a sale of the DCA-LAX exemption held by TW. DOT attempted to strip F9 of an exemption for MCI-LAX on the grounds that YX was never actually merged (as a carrier) into F9, but rather simply shut down with the marketing identity being used by the parent company for flights operated by other carriers; however, that finding was overturned by a judge recently.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): Congressmen enjoy multiple daily options when flying right into the capital city airport (SEA being the nearest airport with commercial service to Olympia). Service to SLC also offers politicians easy access to the Utah state capital. Then there's Nevada and California, whose citizens and economies benefit from these flights, but the politicians still have to connect when headed to the state capitals.

I think you're far overplaying the state capital angle here. Congressmen will be far more interested in non-stops to the airport closest to/within their district or home. You can bet that Harry Reid had a hand in getting an exemption granted to HP for DCA-LAS since he "lives" (as much as any Congressman "lives" in his home district/state) in Las Vegas. It just so happens that in several Western states, the state capital is in or near the largest city.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): In addition to SFO, other beyond-perimeter markets strong enough to support daily nonstop flights to DCA are: ABQ, AUS, LGB, OAK, OKC, PDX, SAN, SAT, SJC, SJU, SMF, and SNA.

OKC isn't beyond-perimeter.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66): I don't understand why the largest carrier at DCA, with by far the most feed, should not be awarded route authorities that could benefit the network even more.

The slot exemptions aren't being created to facilitate connections at DCA; they are being created to enable non-stop or one-stop travel from communities with little or no service to DCA.

Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 62): As for the other airlines' slots, is there any restriction on the equipment the airline uses? If DL happens to be sending out a full 752 every day, could they upgauge it to a 753, if Alaska's 738 is full, make it a 739, etc? Or are they stuck using a certain plane?

There are no restrictions on the equipment used by the airline apart from the functional constraints on DCA due to runway length and parking space at gates.

Quoting commavia (Reply 49): "The bill authorizes the creation of eight additional round-trip long-haul flights, or 16 slots, to Washington National Airport – beyond the 12 that are already allowed there. “Limited or non-incumbent” airlines such as JetBlue or Virgin America will be allowed to compete for four of the slots. And the four incumbent airlines, Delta, US Airways, United and American will each receive one additional slot, the aide says."

It is very disappointing that the legislation reserves exemptions for the existing incumbents. We can clearly see that money talks in Washington.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): HA probably doesn't have suitable aircraft for serving DCA, but I know there have been regularly scheduled widebodies at DCA in the past. Assuming a 767 could profitably get out West, HA could try to offer a direct link to Hawaii via one of their West Coast gateways

HA is problematic in that the 767 won't be in their fleet long-term.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66): The Portland metro is bigger than the SAT or AUS metros. SAT and AUS, of course, have more government traffic and are also shorter stage lengths which help the tilt.

That's not what apodino said though:

Quoting apodino (Reply 37): PDX is a given, as its the biggest city without a beyond perimeter.

And I beg to differ with that statement.

And last time I checked, PDX has a total of one daily year-round nonstop to the WAS area (UA to IAD!) Not even AS flys nonstop from PDX to the DC-area (IAD or BWI.) That doesn't tell me that there is a huge amount of actual traffic in the market.

In fact, I don't necessarily agree with all of those on this thread saying that PDX is a given. I think there's a good chance the route will be awarded but that would only be if Alaska were the recipient and since we have no idea how this is going to be handled, that might not be the case.

And I continue to wonder... if AS did get 1 slot, with their choice of what city to use it for, what would they do with it? PDX? LAX? SEA? SAN? SJC? In my opinion, that would be a very tough decision.

bb

Quoting SANFan (Reply 42): I've done my best to put together some traffic figures based on the 3 reported quarters of 2011 by DOT. If anyone has played around with those tables lately, things are done differently now and it is impossible to break out specific cities' numbers if they are considered multi-airport metro areas, such as NYC, WAS, SFO, LAX, etc. Here's what I came up with:

If you look at some of the other tables there, one of them has a breakdown by specific airports.....

Since a few folks have mentioned COS as a "why not?", I've added them to the traffic figures posted earlier:

Destination...1Q11 PDEW..2Q11 PDEW..3Q11 PDEW..ave PDEW over 3 quarters
Bay Area*.............1528..............2170...............2035............1911
SAN.......................702................871................841..............805
SAT.......................480................562.................503.............515
AUS.......................383................488................438..............436
PDX.......................246................379.................405.............343
ABQ......................239................340.................330..............303
SMF......................196................324.................252..............257
TUS.......................192................202.................182..............192
COS......................109................134.................124..............122

Maybe an RJ but would anyone want to tie up a precious slot for such a small market?

bb

That UA doesn't have LAX-DCA is kind of a joke.

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 4): Quoting EricR (Reply 2): Anyone know why there so few beyond perimeter exceptions made for LGA, but DCA appears to get exceptions on occasions? Because the U.S. Capitol and its 535 elected representatives are a 15-minute taxi ride away from DCA, not LGA.

Only sort of....

Quoting gigneil (Reply 6): Lol also LGA is a parking lot, and DCA is not.

...not to mention the alternatives for New York are better connected and closer to the city.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 6): But SFO is more key.

Well, key for Neil. Not more key than LAX, which clearly needs more service.

Quoting RP TPA (Reply 27): Would the 7000' runways at LGA be a major deterent to any trans-con flights? How much runway would a plane safely need, if it also needed to carry enough fuel for that long of a trip?

Its certainly fine for a 757.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 29): Sadly, Mariner, as much as we both love F9 I would be FURIOUS if the DOT issued them another right here.

DEN is overserved to DCA.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 78): In fact, I don't necessarily agree with all of those on this thread saying that PDX is a given. I think there's a good chance the route will be awarded but that would only be if Alaska were the recipient and since we have no idea how this is going to be handled, that might not be the case.

I think AS out of PDX stands an excellent chance...and for those concerned about there not being enough traffic it could easily have a tag on the PDX end. Say SJC-PDX-DCA or FAI-PDX-DCA...a promise by AS to do something like that would probably go a long way in their application's consideration.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 77): It is very disappointing that the legislation reserves exemptions for the existing incumbents.

I don't agree. Those of us that care about network services want those large carriers to build out their network. Not add a random carrier on an already served route, or a random carrier to a city with no further feed or ability to improve overall connectivity.

Providing outstanding one stop opportunities to smaller cities is, in fact, a big part of it - something VX and B6 just can't actually do.

US is on more tentative ground in my mind - connecting opportunities OVER DCA aren't the priority, connecting opportunities TO DCA are. So if US offers SAN, which I think we can all agree is useful, that's fine. US offering SFO has no value compared to United offering SFO, for example.

NS

Quoting point2point (Reply 79): If you look at some of the other tables there, one of them has a breakdown by specific airports.....

I have looked at the other tables and I did not find anything that helped with this issue. (The only additional data that would be of use here would be the breakdown of the Bay Area to separate SFO and SJC; and I didn't stumble on that.)

But as I said, if anyone can find more exact numbers, by all means, feel free to share those with us. In the meantime, I will stand by the statement I made earlier:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 44): when I looked at the numbers for 2010 (back when individual airports were shown) SJC was way down toward the bottom of the list (below ABQ and SMF)

bb

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 9):

TWA had the route first then AS took it over for AA merger

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 82): I think AS out of PDX stands an excellent chance...and for those concerned about there not being enough traffic it could easily have a tag on the PDX end. Say SJC-PDX-DCA or FAI-PDX-DCA...a promise by AS to do something like that would probably go a long way in their application's consideration.

Doubtful, IMO.

FAI is already served via SEA, and a PDX-FAI flight is likely to be a money-loser. DCA-SJC is a much more efficient connection over ORD (0.7% deviation vs. Great Circle Route) than SEA (24.8% deviation) and already has good 1-stop frequencies.

Any feed for a PDX-DCA flight would most likely come from the QX Oregon markets: EUG, RDM, and MFR. SEA, if it doesn't get another slot exemption, would probably also provide some feed.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 81): Well, key for Neil. Not more key than LAX, which clearly needs more service.

Yes its SUPER key for Neil. However, we were talking about SAN and PDX.

NS

Quoting gigneil (Reply 83): I don't agree. Those of us that care about network services want those large carriers to build out their network. Not add a random carrier on an already served route, or a random carrier to a city with no further feed or ability to improve overall connectivity. Providing outstanding one stop opportunities to smaller cities is, in fact, a big part of it - something VX and B6 just can't actually do. US is on more tentative ground in my mind - connecting opportunities OVER DCA aren't the priority, connecting opportunities TO DCA are. So if US offers SAN, which I think we can all agree is useful, that's fine. US offering SFO has no value compared to United offering SFO, for example.

Well put! AS's slots I think give us a perfect example - on the one hand, AS is an oddball carrier with their 3 transcon-only routes. However, OTOH, their own network, combined with the AA and DL codeshares, gives them rather large connection opportunities to offer from DCA.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 81): Not more key than LAX, which clearly needs more service.

SFO needs 1x before LAX needs >1x.

That said, they are the two most obvious destinations for expansion and I am absolutely certain that both will be served as a result of this bill.

When the previous round of beyond-perimeter slots were granted (years ago) I don't think there's any doubt that the western hubs were the target; LAX might have been the only real exception at the time and the feeling was that probably both SAN and SFO would benefit from the LAX-service, along with the huge amount of O&D traffic out of LA itself.

And I think there were two problems. First, SFO was then and still is today, a huge UA hub, and yet they were snubbed. Second, we see now that the LAS hub (for US) doesn't exist anymore, although I think there's plenty of O&D to support the current service.

That all being said, this time around, I hope the final choices will not only consider hubs (including PDX and SFO, as well as those hubs with existing service to DCA), but stand-alone destinations with large pax volume to DC and other factors that would suggest benefits beyond just high numbers. (OK, yeah, I'm including SAN in the latter but I think the Texans are in the same category.)

I'll ask again. Can anyone provide a link to that Av Wkly article mentioned earlier today? Thanx.

bb

[Edited 2012-02-01 13:07:32]

Quoting SANFan (Reply 90): First, SFO was then and still is today, a huge UA hub, and yet they were snubbed

I'm uncertain if they were snubbed. United had to make a choice, and Denver was a much better one at the time. That being said... F9 had Denver, and San Francisco would have been unique.

Either way... I am hopeful rationality prevails and US Airways picks SAN, United picks SFO, DL picks LAX, and so on.

NS

Quoting gigneil (Reply 91): Either way... I am hopeful rationality prevails and US Airways picks SAN, United picks SFO, DL picks LAX, and so on.

Wouldn't rationality be for AA to pick LAX and DL to add a second SLC?

Quoting gigneil (Reply 91): Either way... I am hopeful rationality prevails and US Airways picks SAN, United picks SFO, DL picks LAX, and so on

Rationality????! We're talking about the U.S. government here, including CONGRESS! Rationality??

Has anyone seen any late reports about whether the committee signed the bill today (as the original article speculated) or does the waiting game officially start in a couple of hours? (If it does get out of the committe and on to the House or the Senate, at least we might see some more details about how this whole thing is supposed to work...)

bb

Quoting SANFan (Reply 93): Rationality????! We're talking about the U.S. government here, including CONGRESS! Rationality??

The carriers apply. The Congress doesn't pick them!

NS

Quoting gigneil (Reply 94): The carriers apply. The Congress doesn't pick them.

Well, for starters, Congress has to PASS the damn bill in the first place, and with all the special interests of certain states' representatives ("My Congressperson can beat up YOUR Congressperson!"), and the long history of this endeavor, I'll believe that when I see it!

bb

Its definitely going to pass.

NS

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 66): I don't understand why the largest carrier at DCA, with by far the most feed, should not be awarded route authorities that could benefit the network even more.

But who cares about connections? AFAIK, there isn't a single market connected to DCA that can't get to the West Coast via multiple other hubs. These slots are focused on best serving the O&D of DCA and those connections to markets out West that can't easily get to DCA. Hence, US doesn't have a compelling case except for PHX where they already have exemptions.

US is by far the best carrier to serve SAN from DCA. AS would be ok... but US would be far more successful.

NS

Quoting gigneil (Reply 75): As a Colorado Springs native and having lived in DC for the past 15 years, I sincerely doubt that will happen. The 1x IAD-COS is usually a decent performer.... but its on an RJ. I don't think US could support an A319 to COS from DCA and we need to be carrying lots of people on these rare routes.

I think that was in response to the G4 possibility. I don't think anyone else would try it.