CEOs from Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines have issued a joint statement opposing new legislation that would loosen the perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).
Airline CEOs Oppose Changes To Washington National Perimeter Rule
Since 1966, a perimeter rule has been in effect at Washington National Airport. This places a bubble around DCA in which flights only flights that are 1,250 miles or less are permitted. The goal at the time was to protect newly-constructed Washington Dulles Airport (IAD) and consolidate longhaul and coast-to-coast traffic to that airport. Over time, 20 exception routes from DCA have been introduced which are shared among carriers, allowing flights which extend beyond the perimeter.
Efforts have made made to loosen to these rules over time. While this has resulted in the aforementioned exception routes, the rules still leave the airport underutilized and inefficient.
A bipartisan bill called The Direct Capital Access Act seeks to loosen the perimeter rule further by adding 56 additional slot pairs for travel beyond the perimeters (28 round trips). As Rep. Burgess Owens (R – UT) explained:
“When a federal regulation becomes so outdated that it unnecessarily hurts American consumers and arbitrarily burdens our nation’s economic growth, it’s time for Congress to act.
“DCA is the only airport in the country stuck with a 60-year-old federal law that restricts the number of nonstop flights beyond a 1,250-mile perimeter, making our nation’s capital one of the most expensive destinations for travelers. Modernizing the perimeter rule will improve access to Washington, D.C., reduce airline ticket prices, and increase tax revenue for the area.”
You can read the full text of the bill here.
Delta Air Lines, which seeks to benefit most from the loosening of the rules, supports the changes.
But CEOS from American, Alaska, and United Airlines have just issued a statement in opposition to the move, warning that relaxing the rule would lead to more flight delays:
“We strongly oppose changes to the slot and perimeter rules at Reagan National Airport (DCA). The Federal Aviation Administration and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority have expressed serious concerns that adding flights at DCA will dramatically increase passenger delays and erode the operational integrity of the airport. Furthermore, inclusions of these provisions endanger timely passage of critical FAA Reauthorization legislation to improve safety and efficiency of air travel for the entire system.”
The note is signed by Ben Minicucci (Alaska), Robert Isom (American), and Scott Kirby (United).
DC-area representatives, including Eleanor Holmes Norton, the long-time delegate to Congress from Washington, DC, also oppose the change.
Time To Loosen The Rule
My view is that the rule should be loosened. First, Dulles has matured greatly over the last 60 years (and even has Metro access today). It is not in danger of failing if National grows. Second, I fail to see the evidence that adding flights at DCA will drastically increase passengers delays. Third, I fail to see why leaders cannot “walk and chew gum” at the same time. The DCA rules should not undermine any “critical” FAA Reauthorization legislation.
Finally, take a look at United’s afternoon schedule today from National Airport to Newark (EWR):
Why so many flights on 50-seat aircraft instead of consolidating those flights to larger aircraft? The answer is slot squatting. Since these slots are on a use-it-or-lose it basis, they encourage inefficiency in the shorthaul market.
It’s time to loosen the rule, which if structured correctly can benefit all airlines that serve DCA and consumers too.
CONCLUSION
The close guarding of Washington National Airport has always struck me as odd. Since Dulles Airport is now quite mature (Baltimore too), I simply do not see any valid reason to oppose this expansion beyond NIMBY syndrome. The statement from the CEOs of Alaska, American, and United is self-interested and presents a false tradeoff.
It’s time to further loosen or abolish the artificial perimeter rule at DCA.
56 slot pairs would mean 56 round trips. I think it’s 56 slots and only 28 slot pairs?
I think it’s time to loosen this as well so long as the airport can handle what will probably be thousands of additional pax per day. Swap 28 regional flights with 28 mainline planes at some already-crowded gates and I think you could see some angry people in congress.
Perimeter aside, the main issue I have with the Direct Capital Access Act is that it seeks to add slot exemptions to DCA instead of converting existing slots. In other words, this bill is attempting to increase the number of slots at a slot restricted airport. DCA has slots for a reason and I don’t like the idea of this bill undermining that.
Agreed – that could be a reasonable compromise.
Congress approved only 4 new flights in return for “ future consideration” from United, Delta and American. They managed to get both sides to pay them!
Wonder how Delta and their ilk would feel about a loosening of LaGuardia’s perimeter rule… surely they would welcome the additional competition
There is no LGA perimeter rule. Just slot constraints.
I stand corrected. I have never heard of anyone ever caring about LGA’s perimeter rule like they care about DCA.
Yes WHS, Delta wants the LGA perimeter rule eliminated so that they could fly to: LAX, SEA, PDX, PHX, LAS, SLC, DEN etc.
Delta is the only airline that wants the PANYNJ to eliminate the LGA perimeter.
With DCA they want to fly to SEA and add more flights to LAX. Currently they cannot do that.
Southwest desperately wants to fly DEN-DCA. Adding LAS, OAK, SAN & PHX is icing on the cake.
Um, you know NYC-DC shuttle flights is a thing right? Both AA and DL also have flights between LGA-DCA on a nearly hourly thing. Are those slot squatting as well?
Yes, when they run half full.
Wait so when they’re full it’s not slot squatting?
Airlines run near hourly service on different markets, doesn’t make it a slot squatting venture necessarily.
Inefficient? Sure depending who you ask.
Still inefficient.
Loosening or even eliminating the perimeter rule without also reducing or eliminating slot restrictions at DCA would be serious folly. Every new flight that might take advantage of a new opportinity for long haul is one less flight for short haul.
Why have two airports offering long haul and one hobbled for short haul and the other geographically disadvantaged for it?
When did it become a crime for an airline CEO to advocate for something that’s in the airline’s self interest? Having asked that rhetorical question, I do think a slight relaxation of the perimeter rule is warranted.
To wit: An expansion to 1625 miles would bring Denver, Austin, San Juan, and Santa Fe, all state capitals, into the perimeter. Those airlines that currently have beyond perimeter exemptions to serve those locations would be allowed to keep them. For instance, Frontier could keep its three flights to Denver, or switch them to Phoenix, Los Angeles, etc. Southwest, which serves Austin, could move its beyond perimeter exemption to Las Vegas, a major airport in its system. JetBlue could move its San Juan exemption to Los Angeles. These examples are strictly hypothetical.
By expanding the perimeter to include Denver, United could offer more than its one flight. The expanded perimeter could open Austin and San Juan to more competition. Capital cities such as Bismark, North Dakota could get non-stop service to DCA, as could Santa Fe.
IMHO, there’s no need for more slots at DCA. The airport is one of the most congested in the country.
United opposes it because IAD is a fortress hub and they don’t want competition. Alaska opposes it because they have all the exceptions they need, and don’t want additional competition. Why does AA oppose it. Is there a logical reason, or are they doing a favor to a politician; tit for tat. That’s how democracy and the free market work, right?
They’ve already got PHX, DFW, LAX…I think they are thinking like Alaska is.
That’s a good point. They run a daily AUS-IAD, which sure is an odd route. I sure wish it could move over to DCA.
Interesting to note that UA offers 3 daily AUS-IAD flts.
AA is opposed because they would lose their monopoly route to PHX & LAS.
They have a good thing at DCA so why mess up a profitable operation?
Any new service can fly out of BWI or IAD.
Legacy airlines want a captive market, no LCC to invade the last artificially limited airport. Remember years back when Usair had a lock on LGA and filled many slots with Dash-8 flights to small cities that carried very few passengers and also slowed arriving and departing traffic. Let DCA add more distant flights to meet demand.