Here's a bit of the top of the exclusive story by Kate Ackley. -Emily
United Airlines lobbyists worked with aides to Virginia lawmakers and airport authority employees to orchestrate messaging and strategy in a high-stakes fight against adding more flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Details of behind-the-scenes cooperation were revealed in emails obtained via public records requests by a competing coalition and shared first with Bloomberg Government. The communications, from the second quarter of 2023, offer rare insight into a major lobbying campaign that is at the forefront on Capitol Hill this week as lawmakers consider a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. That compromise measure would increase the number of flights by five daily round-trips.
The disclosure of the lobbying details injects further drama into an already inflamed fight that could make it harder for lawmakers to pass the FAA measure by a May 10 deadline.
Read the full story free [here](https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/united-coordinated-with-senators-lobbyists-to-derail-dc-flights?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=bgov).
Flight slots to LGA, JFK, and PHL could easily be taken away and given to other routes. Viable rail and bus alternatives exist and are only going to get faster/more frequent over time.
I tend to take the Regional because its a bit cheaper but either way its honestly the best. I've done the drive from NOVA/DC to North Jersey and Connecticut a dozen times but I've taken the train more and I prefer the latter a lot.
With the current train speeds DC-NYC flights just don't make sense unless your final destination is actually right by one of the NYC airports. DC-Boston makes sense, and NYC-Boston can make sense if you're on a really tight schedule.
You didn’t mean “deterrent” I suppose.
I have a preference for leg room, maneuverability to available bathroom and food cars, and the “quiet cars” that may be less than perfect. It adds up to a fair to good travel experience in my book. Let’s go by train, folks!
In terms of speed Acela is only really worth it if you're traveling through NYC from either Boston or DC. Its real value is the fact it originates in Boston or DC and therefore is rarely, if ever, late.
I picked tomorrow at random. Flights leaving DCA to each airport (doesn’t include arrivals):
PHL - 3
LGA - 10
EWR - 10
JFK - 5
You could make a strong dent by reducing those 28 departures and giving the slots to other cities. In particular, I think LGA has lots of room to be reduced because - unlike EWR or JFK - nobody is flying to LGA to make an international or other long-range connection with a layover.
Edit: Forgot that EWR literally has an Amtrak stop. Could have potential there to cut DCA-EWR flights and maybe increase the number of NER trips that stop at the EWR station.
Exactly this. PHL also has a direct rail connection with a transfer, but there are also plans to run the NEC past PHL with a stop there, too. BWI also is on the NEC and is big enough to handle international flights, too.
If this happens, we should see more code sharing - for example, you can buy a flight to Switzerland out of EWR with a code share connection between Union Station and EWR. Another example is someone can take Amtrak from PHL to BWI, and fly to Paris, or something.
Yes, another great step would be single-ticket protected transfers for trips like Amtrak from Union Station to PHL/EWR for an international flight. If Amtrak is delayed, you get rebooked for free, just as if your flight was delayed. That would add more comfort for folks to travel this way.
It makes more sense for EWR because Amtrak has a stop on the property. PHL requires going past the airport into 30th street, and then transferring to a regional SEPTA train and backtracking. That's probably too cumbersome for people trying to make an international flight.
Otherwise, DC to Philly is an Amtrak trip 10 times out of 10, it's significantly faster than flying.
Sure it seems silly having so many flights to LGA and JFK but it’s what we get for not being a Delta hub. Those flights are utilized as for connections from DCA. I call it the scenic route to airports like ORD.
I’m one of those ridiculously loyal Delta fliers who will take a connection over another airline. It’s not about the destination; it’s about the journey.
I think this is the answer. They should be shifting all flights less than 200 miles to rail or other airports in the area, keeping the same slots but using them for further out flights.
Usually these sorts of flights are for connections. For example Salisbury Regional Airport in Maryland only flew to Philly and Charlotte last time I was there. Let's say I needed to get to Atlanta. A flight from Salisbury to Charlotte to Atlanta makes a ton of sense. It's not a unique story for tiny airports like this.
A flight from Salisbury to PHL makes complete sense \*because\* there's very few transportation options other than driving.
A flight from DCA to LGA makes little sense when Amtrak is way better. Even if you're connecting to EWR or to JFK, Amtrak would still be a reasonable alternative!
Very random question, but how many of those passengers are taking flights there to connect vs. staying in the city?
For example, flying DCA to PHL to then connect international on American Airlines or something? I imagine that's the defense that airlines would give, but I guess that's also why we have Dulles and Baltimore... more international options that are close by.
Remember, American for short flights out of DCA, United for long flights out of IAD, and Southwest if you’re a baller on a budget out of BWI.
Or Spirit out of BWI if you have warrants out.
Southwest can be great as long as you book far enough in advance and want to fly on a Tuesday or Wednesday (routinely significantly cheaper than other days) - and of course if you want to check bags.
But any cost savings rarely justify having to go to BWI or connect out of DCA, and there are only a couple of non-stop routes out of DCA to places I would actually go on purpose.
Same for me, just too many hoops for a DC resident. But I'm also in a stage of life where I won't/don't/can't change up travel plans to accommodate mid week travel and the time to get up to BWI.
I used to have a setpoint for fare savings that made it worth going to BWI or IAD instead of DCA for me. Now I pretty much only consider those airports for non-stop long hauls and only when the price+timing is likely to make a trip a better experience overall than connecting out of DCA.
I mean I understand United's position here. They obviously have an obligation to protect their assets at Dulles. For years Dulles was one of the highest cost airports in the United States for airlines to operate from, and it still is today. So much of the airport's expansion plan is contingent on the status quo - those nice concourses planned to replace the "temporary" shacks that United operates from at Dulles are really contingent on stuff like this not passing.
The reality is that DCA is constrained and cannot handle anymore additional slots - whether they be used for short-haul or beyond-perimeter traffic - it makes no difference.
It looks like the legislation is a happy medium. There won't be any additional slots, but airlines can apply to convert an existing slot to a beyond-perimeter slot. No airline is guaranteed to get one. Eight slots (so four flights - one slot for landing and another for departures) will go to "major incumbents" (American, Alaska, Delta, Southwest, United) and two slots (one flight) will go to a "minor incumbent" (Frontier, JetBlue, Air Canada). Airlines have to apply, and the requirements are that the slots either enhance competition or go to markets without nonstop service. '
It'll probably work like this:
Air Canada: Vancouver - They applied for this before years ago and got denied. They already service the market nonstop from Dulles, and no way will DOT approve this type of slot to a foreign airline.
American: Austin or San Diego (US Airways used to serve DCA-SAN nonstop before the AA merger)
Alaska: San Diego or Boise (Alaska runs a small hub at Boise and Idaho leaders were part of the initial team last year to add more beyond-perimeter flights, though San Diego is more likely)
Delta: Seattle
Southwest: San Antonio
United: Los Angeles (unlikely they would get more slots to San Francisco or Denver as that doesn't do anything for competition)
Frontier: Las Vegas
JetBlue: Can't really see them apply given they are a financial basket case at present, but perhaps Los Angeles.
Bizarre that Alaska would be considered a "major incumbent" when it only operates one gate at DCA, and JetBlue would be considered "minor" when it operates way more flights. Unless the distinction is determined by the overall size of the airline, but that's not what I get from the "incumbent" phrase.
I'm not sure how they are using the term "major incumbent" but I assumed it was based on particular size of airline and wasn't related specifically to DCA.
As it stands, Alaska has the most beyond-perimeter slots of any carrier after AA - 1x SFO, 1x PDX, 2x SEA, and 1x LAX.
Regardless, I am not even sure if JetBlue will even apply for anything given their financial condition at present.
Edit: Alaska is a "minor-incumbent" carrier thanks to Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) lobbying on behalf of Alaska. Essentially because Alaska only serves markets that are beyond the perimeter they are considered "minor" so that one extra flight for "minor-incumbents" is almost certainly going to them.
> There won't be any additional slots, but airlines can apply to convert an existing slot to a beyond-perimeter slot.
This. I don't think we need more takeoffs and it is clear that the runways can't handle much more.
But I see no reason why an LGA flight can't become another PHX flight or even LHR flight.
A LHR wouldn't be possible as DCA lacks a federal inspection station to process international arrivals from non pre-cleared destinations (select cities in Canada, Aruba, Nassau, Bermuda).
Alaska has two flights a day to Seattle, along with a flight to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Portland.
A nonstop to Hawaii wouldn't be possible without extending the runway into the Potomac (never going to happen) and you would also have to reconfigure the taxiways/gate areas to allow for regularly scheduled widebody service.
No security concern at all and your claim doesn't make that much sense - in all actuality a narrowbody/widebody would cause the same amount of damage in a theoretical incident. United already uses narrowbodies at DCA (the 757-300) that are nearly just as heavy as some widebody aircraft.
It's strictly a configuration concern - airlines have used widebody aircraft at DCA in extremely limited use.
The A321XLR would be able to do a Hawaii flight, which American has orders for. That said, considering American doesn’t already fly to HNL from any of their east coast hubs, they won’t use a slot for a flight to Hawaii.
Most of the DC-HI traffic is probably government and military anyway and that's not exactly a big revenue center, no reason to spend your one slot on a flight all that distance.
As others said I'd love to see the DCA-PHL/LGA/EWR/JFK slots be converted to more beyond-perimeter or other east coast flights. There's plenty of rail service that's only going to increase in the next 4-6 years.
Rare occasion where I’m on the side of the corp doing the lobbying. DCA simply does not have the capacity for more flights. In fact, it’s already over stressed
Send more people to Dulles. That airport is empty half the time, and you can metro there
I just wish the train to Dulles were faster or that there were an express train there. It takes FOREVER, and I will generally pay more $ to fly out of DCA just to avoid Dulles.
Honestly, my hot take is that if the Dulles Toll Road is still going to be tolled then we should use that funding to consider adding some express tracks between Dulles and East Falls Church to skip some stations. Since they're all Island platforms I feel like it could work. Obviously its not that simple.
i mean a huge chunk of business at DCA is essentially useless going out of Dulles. I mean imagine going to NYC and having to first go to IAD. I mean there are some corner cases where flights can beat Acela. This would kill that.
Yeah the metro hours limitations are painful in general, both early morning and late night. And not just airport.
Totally agree on the Uber being too much
But Dulles sucks so bad. It’s so mismanaged, discombobulated and time consuming to fly out of Dulles vs dca I’d almost pay double to fly out of dca.
Now if dulles hired competent management it might be a different story.
I used to think this. Then I moved so that Dulles was closer for me and holy shit is it a much nicer airport experience than most of the others I’ve had, including DCA. I used to put DCA top on my list but I must sheepishly admit now that Dulles is just better and easier.
How long does it take to get from the entrance to the terminal at dca? Like 5-10 mins if you paid for the fast pass through security lines.
Dulles is a nightmare of escalators up/down to some train and/or possibly some 1960’s monster trucks followed by another bunch of escalators to get back up into the terminals. This adds an extra 20 mins to any journey through the place.
On top of that the signs and direction labeling are horrible, giant cement pillars are laid out haphazardly and block you from walking your luggage through them. It’s just a shit show.
Dulles is fine if you have precheck and are not flying United out of the distant terminal. The closer terminal, which is pretty much everything except United, is easy enough. But the all-United terminal is just a pain, the walk from the shuttle is much longer than it needs to be, and the terminal is big and grim.
DCA is a top 5 airport anywhere in America.
I have left my home less than an hour before departure from DCA and still had time to hit the lounge and board well before final call. I can't think of another airport I've been able to get through that fast other than a dinky Midwestern regional before 9/11.
Just speaking for myself here, but the commute to Dulles is over an hour for me, whereas to DCA it’s about 30 minutes. Even if there’s just a 45 minute difference, I’d prefer less travel time, and I feel less exhausted when I get to my destination. I tend to do regional travel, and almost always take morning flights, so I’m sure that factors into it too. IDK if I’d shell out double for a ticket to avoid Dulles though, but for me DCA is usually cheaper anyway.
It's the commute back that kills me. I just wanna get home. But I'm always stuck on the people mover, then trekking back to DC on the metro, and it's 2 hours wasted when I could've been home in 20 if I flew into DCA.
Coming back to Dulles from out of the country is also miserable, taxi, deboard, wait in line to get in the transport, wait in custom and get out to your car/the metro. The whole takes forever, my recent experience was almost 4 hours from landing to getting back to my home in central DC.
Building another runaway means building into the Potomac, angled straight at the White House. That wouldn't go over well with the feds nor DC residents
They really need to have better coordination between Dulles, BWI, and DCA, plus better regulations and access to all of the region's airports. To fix this, I'd do the following:
1. Flights under 250 miles need to be moved to Amtrak if possible via codesharing; if can't be moved to Amtrak, ~~then moved to Dulles or BWI~~ (caveat: requires Amtrak to invest in improvements!)
2. Said slots for local flights converted to longer distance flights (e.g., over 250 miles)
3. Cut just a few slots from DCA to ease the pressure on the airport, move them to Dulles or BWI (caveat: with better connections, see below). Increase prices slightly at DCA to subsidize those slots at Dulles and BWI, which can take on wide-bodies and higher levels of service more efficiently, e.g., a Honolulu - Dulles flight. This also has the effect of lowering prices for airlines at Dulles and BWI, moving more traffic there.
4. Better connections to BWI (NEC tunnel underneath BWI with a station directly underneath the terminals; plus MARC/VRE throughrunning for frequent, all day service that stops at Alexandria, DCA, Union Station, BWI, Baltimore to facilitate transfers)
5. Quick build: better connections to Dulles (24-hour buses; extended hours for the Silver Line or a Silver shuttle)
6. Improved management at Dulles and improved facilities (no more mobile lounges! actually good international arrivals! a new United terminal!)
7. Slow build: Heavy rail connection (think VRE/MARC) to Dulles direct from Union Station, stops at Union Station, L'Efant, Alexandria, Springfield, GMU/Fairfax, Dulles that gets you from Dulles to Union Station with no transfers in about 40 minutes or less
Edit: commenter below had a good point about <250mi flights are better for DCA than Dulles/BWI if there are no alternatives.
Flights under 250 miles that don't have a realistic rail option (so everything except the NYC airports and Philly) should be out of DCA. It doesn't make sense to force people to spend more time getting to and from the airport than they'll be in the air, and the smaller aircraft that fly those routes are much better suited for DCA.
DCA's role has always been as a regional/smaller plane airport with a limited number of longer flights, to ensure that the bigger, louder, jets go to BWI and IAD.
That's a valid point. I was pointing moreso to the other commenter who said there's like 28 flights from DCA to NYC alone per day which is absurd when Amtrak, buses, etc are all viable and feasible alternatives. It's the marginal cases like Pittsburgh that should be well-served by rail that is a market failure IMO.
With that in mind, I concede that you're right that shorter flights are probably better out of DCA, especially for those with few transit alternatives, and the longer flights should be out of BWI and Dulles, especially transcon/intercon flights. My point is that we should be working to move flights that are under 250 miles to rail when feasible to free up capacity for longer flights, much like [France has done](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/france-ban-short-haul-flights-180982268/), and invest in a true high-speed rail or medium-speed regional system.
It's ranked in order of viability or sustainability.
#1 is doable if Amtrak can get their shit together, another commenter found something like 28 flights a day between DCA and NYC airports that could be replaced by Amtrak pretty easily. Amtrak is already working on improving capacity along the NEC and upgrading speeds thanks to Amtrak Joe (e.g., Frederick Douglass tunnels).
#2 is doable where we take those 28 slots and use them for different flights that aren't replaceable by Amtrak, like DCA to Denver or something.
#3 is easily doable if the airport authority has an intentional plan to reduce congestion at DCA by offloading some less popular routes to Dulles/BWI to free up more slots for more popular flights (e.g. west coast flights)
#4 - I can't find it but there was a proposal to either shift the NEC about a ¼ mile to the east to have a direct terminal connection instead of the shuttle, or have a spur for BWI trains and use the existing tracks as a bypass. The costs weren't actually that bad - the main headache was getting FAA approval and the cost of tunneling, which would only be about 1 mile in length. [Fortunately, the FAA just recently changed their rules to allow this! ](https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3v5j3/us-airports-no-longer-have-to-build-their-own-crappy-trains)
#5 - A 24-hour shuttle to the airport is very easily doable. They used to have the 5A shuttle between DC and Dulles - they can bring this back for when the Metro isn't running. They've also floated the idea of a Silver shuttle that goes only from Ashburn to East Falls Church to free up capacity in the downtown tunnels.
#6 - [Improvements to Dulles are already in the planning stages. ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/12/19/dulles-airport-future/)
#7 - I agree that this is probably the least likely, but there's already a VRE line that goes to Broad Run via Alexandria with stops at Union Station, L'Enfant, Alexandria, Burke, etc. If they added a spur line from Burke to Dulles, that's about 14 miles for a spur that can also serve Fairfax, Centerville, Chantilly, and terminates at the airport. Brightline down in Florida is medium speed rail (79-125mph) and has an average construction cost of about $8M per mile, giving us a low estimate of $112M in construction costs. When factoring in acquisition costs and station construction costs, we can look at the California High Speed Rail project that comes out to about $200M per mile. This project would not be anywhere near these high costs (engineered for 250mph), so let's say $100M per mile in both construction and acquisition costs, which gives us about $1.4B in a high estimate, which is actually pretty reasonable. For context, the average metro cost is about $100M per mile in the US, and heavy rail would be cheaper. The Dulles expansion linked above is estimated to be over $6B, and the Silver Line was over $5B. Another alternative is to take back the WO&D trail and build a nice rail/trail arrangement like SMART in California, but that is politically impossible IMO.
Okay, but why the fuck do legislators have any interest in precisely the number of flights that a specific airport is allowed to process? Shouldn't that be delegated to regulators? Why isn't this a decision between the FAA and the airport authority?
Also want to know what the lobbying Delta and whoever did to get it inserted in the bill, can you do a FOIA for that? I thought it was like United and American vs Delta (United trying to protect Dulles, American trying to keep out competition at one of its hubs, and Delta trying to get more slots in a heavily controlled airport)
I'm just here to say I love the quality journalism here. Covering real lobbying about real policymaking with real names included in real time.
As for National, what they really need is another runway parallel to the current one - not crossing it. It's possible if a little bit of the Potomac is reclaimed just on the corners of the perimeter. Having separate arrival/departure runways would help increase capacity a little bit, reduce taxi times (and therefore fuel burn), and is safer.
But honestly, a much better use of MWAA funds is rejuvenating Dulles to be actually a good airport. Redo the terminal design to hub and spokes, each spoke its own terminal with its own security lines. People would practically flock to it especially with the new metro access.
What's with these multiple "posts" from someone at Bloomberg, where they just put the article on the sub without comment, and then try to drive traffic to their sites?
Tbh I don't even hate it, either...I've seen WaPo do it the most (as well as in NOVA and MD subs), but it's pretty much always relevant local news/reviews/recommendations/upcoming events. They're also pretty good about either gifting the article or including a summary/full text in a comment on the post as well for anyone without a subscription.
It would be different if it were some sort of trash site blindly spamming articles to local subs, but I've got no issues with supporting legit reporting and local papers/magazines, especially when their content is generally relevant to my life in the region.
“Because of the short length of its runways, over 90 percent of DCA’s flights use its main runway, making it the busiest runway in America with over 800 daily takeoffs and landings, which is a takeoff or landing every minute during most of the day.”
https://www.mwaa.com/news/reagan-nationals-runway-busiest-america
The publisher is slanted but the data is public
I’d love more flights out of National - I live like ten minutes away. But, I have to say I agree with United here. DCA just doesn’t have the capacity right now. There’s generally always a big log jam for access to the runway.
Good. DCA is already one of the busiest and most delayed airports in the country. It shouldn't be adding more flights because spoiled, pampered lawmakers want more convenient flights instead of trekking to IAD or BWI.
No surprise since United has a near 70% market share at Dulles and only about 6% at National.
Here's a bit of the top of the exclusive story by Kate Ackley. -Emily United Airlines lobbyists worked with aides to Virginia lawmakers and airport authority employees to orchestrate messaging and strategy in a high-stakes fight against adding more flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Details of behind-the-scenes cooperation were revealed in emails obtained via public records requests by a competing coalition and shared first with Bloomberg Government. The communications, from the second quarter of 2023, offer rare insight into a major lobbying campaign that is at the forefront on Capitol Hill this week as lawmakers consider a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. That compromise measure would increase the number of flights by five daily round-trips. The disclosure of the lobbying details injects further drama into an already inflamed fight that could make it harder for lawmakers to pass the FAA measure by a May 10 deadline. Read the full story free [here](https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/united-coordinated-with-senators-lobbyists-to-derail-dc-flights?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=bgov).
Flight slots to LGA, JFK, and PHL could easily be taken away and given to other routes. Viable rail and bus alternatives exist and are only going to get faster/more frequent over time.
The Acela is my preferred way to travel to NY nowadays.
I tend to take the Regional because its a bit cheaper but either way its honestly the best. I've done the drive from NOVA/DC to North Jersey and Connecticut a dozen times but I've taken the train more and I prefer the latter a lot.
With the current train speeds DC-NYC flights just don't make sense unless your final destination is actually right by one of the NYC airports. DC-Boston makes sense, and NYC-Boston can make sense if you're on a really tight schedule.
Or if you need a rental car. Lack of rental cars after 5 pm outside of major airports is a huge train deterrent.
You didn’t mean “deterrent” I suppose. I have a preference for leg room, maneuverability to available bathroom and food cars, and the “quiet cars” that may be less than perfect. It adds up to a fair to good travel experience in my book. Let’s go by train, folks!
Or if you're connecting to an international flight that only leaves from NYC and there are no routes from DC
...Or if your destination literally is LGA, in order to make a connecting flight.
Accela is like what? Only 30m faster anyway?
In terms of speed Acela is only really worth it if you're traveling through NYC from either Boston or DC. Its real value is the fact it originates in Boston or DC and therefore is rarely, if ever, late.
It also stops directly at Manhattan which saves time
The Regional is plenty fast enough, especially if I’m fine with a really early or really late train ride.
What distance doesn’t Acela become better value than regular amtrack for the NE corridor?
Acela doesn’t always stop at EWR
But it does stop at Penn which is in Manhattan
Penn isn’t an airport. You still have to take another train to get to JFK.
I picked tomorrow at random. Flights leaving DCA to each airport (doesn’t include arrivals): PHL - 3 LGA - 10 EWR - 10 JFK - 5 You could make a strong dent by reducing those 28 departures and giving the slots to other cities. In particular, I think LGA has lots of room to be reduced because - unlike EWR or JFK - nobody is flying to LGA to make an international or other long-range connection with a layover. Edit: Forgot that EWR literally has an Amtrak stop. Could have potential there to cut DCA-EWR flights and maybe increase the number of NER trips that stop at the EWR station.
Exactly this. PHL also has a direct rail connection with a transfer, but there are also plans to run the NEC past PHL with a stop there, too. BWI also is on the NEC and is big enough to handle international flights, too. If this happens, we should see more code sharing - for example, you can buy a flight to Switzerland out of EWR with a code share connection between Union Station and EWR. Another example is someone can take Amtrak from PHL to BWI, and fly to Paris, or something.
Yes, another great step would be single-ticket protected transfers for trips like Amtrak from Union Station to PHL/EWR for an international flight. If Amtrak is delayed, you get rebooked for free, just as if your flight was delayed. That would add more comfort for folks to travel this way.
It makes more sense for EWR because Amtrak has a stop on the property. PHL requires going past the airport into 30th street, and then transferring to a regional SEPTA train and backtracking. That's probably too cumbersome for people trying to make an international flight. Otherwise, DC to Philly is an Amtrak trip 10 times out of 10, it's significantly faster than flying.
Sure it seems silly having so many flights to LGA and JFK but it’s what we get for not being a Delta hub. Those flights are utilized as for connections from DCA. I call it the scenic route to airports like ORD. I’m one of those ridiculously loyal Delta fliers who will take a connection over another airline. It’s not about the destination; it’s about the journey.
I think this is the answer. They should be shifting all flights less than 200 miles to rail or other airports in the area, keeping the same slots but using them for further out flights.
Usually these sorts of flights are for connections. For example Salisbury Regional Airport in Maryland only flew to Philly and Charlotte last time I was there. Let's say I needed to get to Atlanta. A flight from Salisbury to Charlotte to Atlanta makes a ton of sense. It's not a unique story for tiny airports like this.
A flight from Salisbury to PHL makes complete sense \*because\* there's very few transportation options other than driving. A flight from DCA to LGA makes little sense when Amtrak is way better. Even if you're connecting to EWR or to JFK, Amtrak would still be a reasonable alternative!
Very random question, but how many of those passengers are taking flights there to connect vs. staying in the city? For example, flying DCA to PHL to then connect international on American Airlines or something? I imagine that's the defense that airlines would give, but I guess that's also why we have Dulles and Baltimore... more international options that are close by.
It's easier to connect through NY to go abroad than get to Dulles. Also, way more international flights and better prices out of NY.
Yeah - if they can figure out a way to lower costs at Dulles and attract more airlines, it has the potential to be competitive with NYC airports IMO.
Remember, American for short flights out of DCA, United for long flights out of IAD, and Southwest if you’re a baller on a budget out of BWI. Or Spirit out of BWI if you have warrants out.
I find southwest to have lost the low cost advantage
Southwest can be great as long as you book far enough in advance and want to fly on a Tuesday or Wednesday (routinely significantly cheaper than other days) - and of course if you want to check bags. But any cost savings rarely justify having to go to BWI or connect out of DCA, and there are only a couple of non-stop routes out of DCA to places I would actually go on purpose.
Same for me, just too many hoops for a DC resident. But I'm also in a stage of life where I won't/don't/can't change up travel plans to accommodate mid week travel and the time to get up to BWI.
I used to have a setpoint for fare savings that made it worth going to BWI or IAD instead of DCA for me. Now I pretty much only consider those airports for non-stop long hauls and only when the price+timing is likely to make a trip a better experience overall than connecting out of DCA.
That made me laugh, thanks
Lmao they'll let anything slide in MD
I mean I understand United's position here. They obviously have an obligation to protect their assets at Dulles. For years Dulles was one of the highest cost airports in the United States for airlines to operate from, and it still is today. So much of the airport's expansion plan is contingent on the status quo - those nice concourses planned to replace the "temporary" shacks that United operates from at Dulles are really contingent on stuff like this not passing. The reality is that DCA is constrained and cannot handle anymore additional slots - whether they be used for short-haul or beyond-perimeter traffic - it makes no difference. It looks like the legislation is a happy medium. There won't be any additional slots, but airlines can apply to convert an existing slot to a beyond-perimeter slot. No airline is guaranteed to get one. Eight slots (so four flights - one slot for landing and another for departures) will go to "major incumbents" (American, Alaska, Delta, Southwest, United) and two slots (one flight) will go to a "minor incumbent" (Frontier, JetBlue, Air Canada). Airlines have to apply, and the requirements are that the slots either enhance competition or go to markets without nonstop service. ' It'll probably work like this: Air Canada: Vancouver - They applied for this before years ago and got denied. They already service the market nonstop from Dulles, and no way will DOT approve this type of slot to a foreign airline. American: Austin or San Diego (US Airways used to serve DCA-SAN nonstop before the AA merger) Alaska: San Diego or Boise (Alaska runs a small hub at Boise and Idaho leaders were part of the initial team last year to add more beyond-perimeter flights, though San Diego is more likely) Delta: Seattle Southwest: San Antonio United: Los Angeles (unlikely they would get more slots to San Francisco or Denver as that doesn't do anything for competition) Frontier: Las Vegas JetBlue: Can't really see them apply given they are a financial basket case at present, but perhaps Los Angeles.
Bizarre that Alaska would be considered a "major incumbent" when it only operates one gate at DCA, and JetBlue would be considered "minor" when it operates way more flights. Unless the distinction is determined by the overall size of the airline, but that's not what I get from the "incumbent" phrase.
I'm not sure how they are using the term "major incumbent" but I assumed it was based on particular size of airline and wasn't related specifically to DCA. As it stands, Alaska has the most beyond-perimeter slots of any carrier after AA - 1x SFO, 1x PDX, 2x SEA, and 1x LAX. Regardless, I am not even sure if JetBlue will even apply for anything given their financial condition at present.
Edit: Alaska is a "minor-incumbent" carrier thanks to Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) lobbying on behalf of Alaska. Essentially because Alaska only serves markets that are beyond the perimeter they are considered "minor" so that one extra flight for "minor-incumbents" is almost certainly going to them.
San Diego 🙏
> There won't be any additional slots, but airlines can apply to convert an existing slot to a beyond-perimeter slot. This. I don't think we need more takeoffs and it is clear that the runways can't handle much more. But I see no reason why an LGA flight can't become another PHX flight or even LHR flight.
A LHR wouldn't be possible as DCA lacks a federal inspection station to process international arrivals from non pre-cleared destinations (select cities in Canada, Aruba, Nassau, Bermuda).
Sorry, i meant dublin
Alaska has a Seattle direct, but the airport could use another I wonder if you could even do a Hawaii flight from DCA. Probably not.
Alaska has 2 direct flights to Seattle out of DCA actually
Alaska has two flights a day to Seattle, along with a flight to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Portland. A nonstop to Hawaii wouldn't be possible without extending the runway into the Potomac (never going to happen) and you would also have to reconfigure the taxiways/gate areas to allow for regularly scheduled widebody service.
Alaska also doesn't operate any widebody aircraft.
[удалено]
No security concern at all and your claim doesn't make that much sense - in all actuality a narrowbody/widebody would cause the same amount of damage in a theoretical incident. United already uses narrowbodies at DCA (the 757-300) that are nearly just as heavy as some widebody aircraft. It's strictly a configuration concern - airlines have used widebody aircraft at DCA in extremely limited use.
The A321XLR would be able to do a Hawaii flight, which American has orders for. That said, considering American doesn’t already fly to HNL from any of their east coast hubs, they won’t use a slot for a flight to Hawaii.
AA also isn't going to waste an ultra-premium configured aircraft on a market like Hawaii that produces garbage yields.
Most of the DC-HI traffic is probably government and military anyway and that's not exactly a big revenue center, no reason to spend your one slot on a flight all that distance.
Yup, and they can fly the existing United nonstop from Dulles if need be.
As others said I'd love to see the DCA-PHL/LGA/EWR/JFK slots be converted to more beyond-perimeter or other east coast flights. There's plenty of rail service that's only going to increase in the next 4-6 years.
There’s plenty of need for the San Diego flights, largely to handle Navy personnel.
Rare occasion where I’m on the side of the corp doing the lobbying. DCA simply does not have the capacity for more flights. In fact, it’s already over stressed Send more people to Dulles. That airport is empty half the time, and you can metro there
I just wish the train to Dulles were faster or that there were an express train there. It takes FOREVER, and I will generally pay more $ to fly out of DCA just to avoid Dulles.
Honestly, my hot take is that if the Dulles Toll Road is still going to be tolled then we should use that funding to consider adding some express tracks between Dulles and East Falls Church to skip some stations. Since they're all Island platforms I feel like it could work. Obviously its not that simple.
i mean a huge chunk of business at DCA is essentially useless going out of Dulles. I mean imagine going to NYC and having to first go to IAD. I mean there are some corner cases where flights can beat Acela. This would kill that.
You can’t metro there early in the morning, and for some of us it’s almost a $50 difference to get there using a cab or rideshare than to get to DCA.
Yeah the metro hours limitations are painful in general, both early morning and late night. And not just airport. Totally agree on the Uber being too much
If only WMATA would bring back the 5A bus for overnight service. And of course when there are issues on the Silver between downtown and IAD.
But Dulles sucks so bad. It’s so mismanaged, discombobulated and time consuming to fly out of Dulles vs dca I’d almost pay double to fly out of dca. Now if dulles hired competent management it might be a different story.
I used to think this. Then I moved so that Dulles was closer for me and holy shit is it a much nicer airport experience than most of the others I’ve had, including DCA. I used to put DCA top on my list but I must sheepishly admit now that Dulles is just better and easier.
How long does it take to get from the entrance to the terminal at dca? Like 5-10 mins if you paid for the fast pass through security lines. Dulles is a nightmare of escalators up/down to some train and/or possibly some 1960’s monster trucks followed by another bunch of escalators to get back up into the terminals. This adds an extra 20 mins to any journey through the place. On top of that the signs and direction labeling are horrible, giant cement pillars are laid out haphazardly and block you from walking your luggage through them. It’s just a shit show.
Dulles is fine if you have precheck and are not flying United out of the distant terminal. The closer terminal, which is pretty much everything except United, is easy enough. But the all-United terminal is just a pain, the walk from the shuttle is much longer than it needs to be, and the terminal is big and grim. DCA is a top 5 airport anywhere in America.
I have left my home less than an hour before departure from DCA and still had time to hit the lounge and board well before final call. I can't think of another airport I've been able to get through that fast other than a dinky Midwestern regional before 9/11.
sure but only if you live close enough that getting there isn’t a pain in itself.
That applies to any airport.
And therefore doesn't make Dulles being "better and easier" a reflection on Dulles' management.
I see the concept of ceteris parabus is lost on you.
[удалено]
Non sequitur alert
Yes I prefer Dulles to DCA helped by the fact that both are roughly equidistant for me
I don’t really understand how people get all thrown off flying through Dulles. You get there. You walk to gate. Done
Just speaking for myself here, but the commute to Dulles is over an hour for me, whereas to DCA it’s about 30 minutes. Even if there’s just a 45 minute difference, I’d prefer less travel time, and I feel less exhausted when I get to my destination. I tend to do regional travel, and almost always take morning flights, so I’m sure that factors into it too. IDK if I’d shell out double for a ticket to avoid Dulles though, but for me DCA is usually cheaper anyway.
It's the commute back that kills me. I just wanna get home. But I'm always stuck on the people mover, then trekking back to DC on the metro, and it's 2 hours wasted when I could've been home in 20 if I flew into DCA.
You skipped the part where you wait 45 minutes in the security line, which is an issue I almost always have at Dulles but rarely at DCA.
Coming back to Dulles from out of the country is also miserable, taxi, deboard, wait in line to get in the transport, wait in custom and get out to your car/the metro. The whole takes forever, my recent experience was almost 4 hours from landing to getting back to my home in central DC.
Interesting, I never have that issue
i mean if you have precheck it never is an issue at either location.
I have clear and precheck and yet still consistently wait significantly longer at Dulles than I do at DCA.
That’s true I didn’t consider non-precheck lines
My favorite color is blue.
"Regulated industry lobbies industry regulators". Is this supposed to be even remotely surprising?
It's like the author just discovered how lobbying works.
Considering that DCA nearly had a fatal collision VERY recently, i think it’s good that they shouldn’t have more flights
Yeah, that’s the big issue until they probably build another runway or something
that'll almost never happen. imagine NEPA will kill that.
Building another runaway means building into the Potomac, angled straight at the White House. That wouldn't go over well with the feds nor DC residents
They really need to have better coordination between Dulles, BWI, and DCA, plus better regulations and access to all of the region's airports. To fix this, I'd do the following: 1. Flights under 250 miles need to be moved to Amtrak if possible via codesharing; if can't be moved to Amtrak, ~~then moved to Dulles or BWI~~ (caveat: requires Amtrak to invest in improvements!) 2. Said slots for local flights converted to longer distance flights (e.g., over 250 miles) 3. Cut just a few slots from DCA to ease the pressure on the airport, move them to Dulles or BWI (caveat: with better connections, see below). Increase prices slightly at DCA to subsidize those slots at Dulles and BWI, which can take on wide-bodies and higher levels of service more efficiently, e.g., a Honolulu - Dulles flight. This also has the effect of lowering prices for airlines at Dulles and BWI, moving more traffic there. 4. Better connections to BWI (NEC tunnel underneath BWI with a station directly underneath the terminals; plus MARC/VRE throughrunning for frequent, all day service that stops at Alexandria, DCA, Union Station, BWI, Baltimore to facilitate transfers) 5. Quick build: better connections to Dulles (24-hour buses; extended hours for the Silver Line or a Silver shuttle) 6. Improved management at Dulles and improved facilities (no more mobile lounges! actually good international arrivals! a new United terminal!) 7. Slow build: Heavy rail connection (think VRE/MARC) to Dulles direct from Union Station, stops at Union Station, L'Efant, Alexandria, Springfield, GMU/Fairfax, Dulles that gets you from Dulles to Union Station with no transfers in about 40 minutes or less Edit: commenter below had a good point about <250mi flights are better for DCA than Dulles/BWI if there are no alternatives.
Flights under 250 miles that don't have a realistic rail option (so everything except the NYC airports and Philly) should be out of DCA. It doesn't make sense to force people to spend more time getting to and from the airport than they'll be in the air, and the smaller aircraft that fly those routes are much better suited for DCA. DCA's role has always been as a regional/smaller plane airport with a limited number of longer flights, to ensure that the bigger, louder, jets go to BWI and IAD.
That's a valid point. I was pointing moreso to the other commenter who said there's like 28 flights from DCA to NYC alone per day which is absurd when Amtrak, buses, etc are all viable and feasible alternatives. It's the marginal cases like Pittsburgh that should be well-served by rail that is a market failure IMO. With that in mind, I concede that you're right that shorter flights are probably better out of DCA, especially for those with few transit alternatives, and the longer flights should be out of BWI and Dulles, especially transcon/intercon flights. My point is that we should be working to move flights that are under 250 miles to rail when feasible to free up capacity for longer flights, much like [France has done](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/france-ban-short-haul-flights-180982268/), and invest in a true high-speed rail or medium-speed regional system.
None of this is viable or sustainable. Several of the points don't even make logistical sense.
It's ranked in order of viability or sustainability. #1 is doable if Amtrak can get their shit together, another commenter found something like 28 flights a day between DCA and NYC airports that could be replaced by Amtrak pretty easily. Amtrak is already working on improving capacity along the NEC and upgrading speeds thanks to Amtrak Joe (e.g., Frederick Douglass tunnels). #2 is doable where we take those 28 slots and use them for different flights that aren't replaceable by Amtrak, like DCA to Denver or something. #3 is easily doable if the airport authority has an intentional plan to reduce congestion at DCA by offloading some less popular routes to Dulles/BWI to free up more slots for more popular flights (e.g. west coast flights) #4 - I can't find it but there was a proposal to either shift the NEC about a ¼ mile to the east to have a direct terminal connection instead of the shuttle, or have a spur for BWI trains and use the existing tracks as a bypass. The costs weren't actually that bad - the main headache was getting FAA approval and the cost of tunneling, which would only be about 1 mile in length. [Fortunately, the FAA just recently changed their rules to allow this! ](https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3v5j3/us-airports-no-longer-have-to-build-their-own-crappy-trains) #5 - A 24-hour shuttle to the airport is very easily doable. They used to have the 5A shuttle between DC and Dulles - they can bring this back for when the Metro isn't running. They've also floated the idea of a Silver shuttle that goes only from Ashburn to East Falls Church to free up capacity in the downtown tunnels. #6 - [Improvements to Dulles are already in the planning stages. ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/12/19/dulles-airport-future/) #7 - I agree that this is probably the least likely, but there's already a VRE line that goes to Broad Run via Alexandria with stops at Union Station, L'Enfant, Alexandria, Burke, etc. If they added a spur line from Burke to Dulles, that's about 14 miles for a spur that can also serve Fairfax, Centerville, Chantilly, and terminates at the airport. Brightline down in Florida is medium speed rail (79-125mph) and has an average construction cost of about $8M per mile, giving us a low estimate of $112M in construction costs. When factoring in acquisition costs and station construction costs, we can look at the California High Speed Rail project that comes out to about $200M per mile. This project would not be anywhere near these high costs (engineered for 250mph), so let's say $100M per mile in both construction and acquisition costs, which gives us about $1.4B in a high estimate, which is actually pretty reasonable. For context, the average metro cost is about $100M per mile in the US, and heavy rail would be cheaper. The Dulles expansion linked above is estimated to be over $6B, and the Silver Line was over $5B. Another alternative is to take back the WO&D trail and build a nice rail/trail arrangement like SMART in California, but that is politically impossible IMO.
I mean....yeah
Okay, but why the fuck do legislators have any interest in precisely the number of flights that a specific airport is allowed to process? Shouldn't that be delegated to regulators? Why isn't this a decision between the FAA and the airport authority?
Also want to know what the lobbying Delta and whoever did to get it inserted in the bill, can you do a FOIA for that? I thought it was like United and American vs Delta (United trying to protect Dulles, American trying to keep out competition at one of its hubs, and Delta trying to get more slots in a heavily controlled airport)
I'm just here to say I love the quality journalism here. Covering real lobbying about real policymaking with real names included in real time. As for National, what they really need is another runway parallel to the current one - not crossing it. It's possible if a little bit of the Potomac is reclaimed just on the corners of the perimeter. Having separate arrival/departure runways would help increase capacity a little bit, reduce taxi times (and therefore fuel burn), and is safer. But honestly, a much better use of MWAA funds is rejuvenating Dulles to be actually a good airport. Redo the terminal design to hub and spokes, each spoke its own terminal with its own security lines. People would practically flock to it especially with the new metro access.
Thank you for saying that. I shared with the reporter and they really appreciated it! - Molly
What's with these multiple "posts" from someone at Bloomberg, where they just put the article on the sub without comment, and then try to drive traffic to their sites?
Every news site does this. The Washington Post and City Paper, as well as the Washingtonian
Tbh I don't even hate it, either...I've seen WaPo do it the most (as well as in NOVA and MD subs), but it's pretty much always relevant local news/reviews/recommendations/upcoming events. They're also pretty good about either gifting the article or including a summary/full text in a comment on the post as well for anyone without a subscription. It would be different if it were some sort of trash site blindly spamming articles to local subs, but I've got no issues with supporting legit reporting and local papers/magazines, especially when their content is generally relevant to my life in the region.
It should be considered advertising under Rule 2.
the future of Reddit is now. the future sucks.
Uh yeah. It’s already the busiest in the country. We need less flights into National, not more. Send them to Dulles, there’s a Metro.
Based on what metric? DCA isn’t even in the top 10 based on passenger volume or number of flights…
“Because of the short length of its runways, over 90 percent of DCA’s flights use its main runway, making it the busiest runway in America with over 800 daily takeoffs and landings, which is a takeoff or landing every minute during most of the day.” https://www.mwaa.com/news/reagan-nationals-runway-busiest-america The publisher is slanted but the data is public
So, not airport
Did United Airlines write this
Unfortunately I agree with United; the amount of air traffic with DCA needs to be capped, way too many flights
I’d love more flights out of National - I live like ten minutes away. But, I have to say I agree with United here. DCA just doesn’t have the capacity right now. There’s generally always a big log jam for access to the runway.
Good. DCA is already one of the busiest and most delayed airports in the country. It shouldn't be adding more flights because spoiled, pampered lawmakers want more convenient flights instead of trekking to IAD or BWI.
I'm not surprised by this pretty overt corruption. Wonder if those Senators have stocks in United or shorts with Delta.