With less than a month to go before Berlin’s new airport opening, it was revealed that it wasn’t ready to go. The delay is now rumored to stretch into 2013. This is hugely problematic since the new airport was replacing two separate airports with much greater capacity. Air Berlin and Lufthansa had ramped up their operation significantly and now they’re going to have to backtrack on that. How bad is it? Discuss.

There’s nothing I like more than ripping apart the Department of Transportation (DOT) for its poor rule-making abilities, but every so often, the department does something right. We might as well celebrate on the rare occasion when that happens. Yesterday was one of those days as the DOT doled out slots at Washington’s National Airport.

The DOT had four slot pairs to give away at National as part of the recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization. As a quick refresher, National has a rule that prevents any flights longer than 1,250 miles from operating at the close-in airport. About a decade ago, Congress started allowing exemptions, primarily so Congressmen could fly nonstop to get to their home district (my interpretation, at least).

As part of the reauthorization bill this year, eight more slot pairs (one takeoff and one landing) were added to the pool. Four of them were meant for the big incumbent airlines at the airport. These airlines could convert one normal slot to one long haul. Here’s what they did.

• American will start a daily flight to its Los Angeles “cornerstone”
• Delta will add a second daily flight to its Salt Lake hub
• United will start a daily flight to its San Francisco hub
• US Airways will start a daily flight to San Diego

With the stage set, there were four more to give away either to new entrants or limited incumbents. There was a lot of competition for these, so the results weren’t easy to predict. Let’s start with the losers.

• Air Canada wanted to fly to Vancouver, but it’s a small, highly seasonal market.
• Alaska wanted to fly to San Diego, but that was its second choice. Once US Airways announced it would fly the route, this became a tough sell.
• Frontier wanted to fly to Colorado Springs, but that’s a very small market and would have been hard to justify.
• JetBlue wanted to fly to Austin, but that was also a second choice and Southwest put that up as its first choice.
• Sun Country wanted to fly to Vegas, but there are already a lot of flights in that market and Sun Country couldn’t connect people anywhere from there either.

Each of those had a big flaw, especially when compared to the four that seemed to deserve the flights far more. Incredibly, those four are actually the ones that won. Here they are.

• Alaska gets one daily flight to Portland. Portland is the airline’s second hub and has a decent-sized local market. Alaska will not only bring good service to the locals, which are largely loyal to Alaska, but it also adds good connecting options for a lot of small cities. This one seemed like the most obvious winner to me.
• JetBlue gets one daily flight down to San Juan. This one is a great move since JetBlue has been building up its presence in San Juan. This gives nonstop service to a place that will benefit from it, and it also opens up new connecting opportunities into the rest of the Caribbean. I like this route and how it fits into JetBlue’s strategy quite nicely.
• Southwest gets one daily flight to Austin. Nobody flies to Austin from National today and if anyone can serve it well, it’s Southwest. That’s why Southwest was obvious for this route while JetBlue was a longshot. It’s no surprise that Southwest won this.
• Virgin America gets one daily flight to San Francisco. Even though San Francisco will already get its first nonstop to National from United, that certainly won’t be a low fare service. Besides, Virgin America was the only applicant with no service to National, so you had to figure that the airline would get a foot in the door. The airline actually wanted two pairs, but the DOT rightfully shot that down and spread the wealth. This market should do well.

So, for once, I’ll say “good work, DOT.” Something tells me this praise won’t last very long.

If you’d like, you can read the full decision at regulations.gov.

It’s earnings season, and that means it’s time for a slew of long analyst calls to talk about the events of the last quarter. I don’t listen to them myself, because I’d never get any work done if I did. Instead, I just read PlaneBusiness to get the details on what happened. This quarter, a couple of things on JetBlue’s call jumped out at me, and it got me thinking. It looks like JetBlue might have the tools to bring not only its own flights, but also those of partners under its own roof. That would be huge. Take a look at this quote from the earnings call:

And then if you go over to JFK, just a little update. Of course, terminal five, we’re close to celebrating four years of really just optimum performance through that facility. We’re very close with the Port Authority of extending terminal five. We call it T5 International internally. It’s on the footprint of the former terminal six. Terminal six is — was not landmarked. It was obviously, as you know, originally there to support National Airlines decades ago. It is now a tarmac, and we are very hopeful that we will be breaking ground on an international arrival facility similar to what you see happening over at terminal four. There’s a lot of growth happening at Kennedy. We believe that having all of our operation under one roof — and again we will have Hawaiian Airlines in here very shortly — is really exciting.

This might not be breaking news, but it’s the first time I’ve really thought about this. An international facility at Terminal 5 would do wonders, wouldn’t it? Of course, it would allow JetBlue’s own international arrivals to land at Terminal 5 instead of running a split operation today, but it can do much more than that.

JetBlue has already announced that its partner Hawaiian will begin flying out of T5 when it comes to JFK. Hawaiian, however, is the only partner that can do that right now. American is certainly too large and it has its own new facility there anyway. Cape Air, the only other domestic partner, doesn’t fly to JFK. All the other partners are international, though I do wonder if Aer Lingus could move today because of its pre-clearance. I’m not sure. But, if JetBlue builds a new international wing on the footprint of the old Terminal 6, that opens a whole new opportunity, and it comes at a good time. Here’s JetBlue’s corner of JFK:

Remember that Delta is actively working to take over a huge chunk of Terminal 4 as a replacement for Terminal 3. With that, all existing airlines in Terminal 4 will be pushed to the eastern concourse, I believe. And you know which airlines are included there?

Aer Lingus, El Al, Emirates, LOT, Singapore, South African, TAM, and Virgin Atlantic are all both partners with JetBlue and tenants in Terminal 4. Given the opportunity to make connections simple and move to a brand new facility, you would think that many of these would jump at the chance. Sure that might not include airlines like Virgin Atlantic, which have invested a significant amount of money in facilities, but others don’t quite have those deep ties.

That would create a monster of an opportunity. Keeping all those flights in the same terminal reduces minimum connecting times and allows airlines to schedule tighter connections. For an airline like El Al, it could help make connections more competitive by reducing total transit time. The shorter the travel time, the higher those flights show up in reservation system displays. That could be a big deal for some of these airlines, which might be at a disadvantage versus other airlines that can connect within the US on their own flights.

I haven’t seen a ton of information on this Terminal 5 expansion yet, but it seems like a great plan for both JetBlue and its partners.

During the Phoenix Aviation Symposium last month, I sent out a tweet quoting US Airways CEO Doug Parker as saying that he didn’t see any domestic air service growth potential beyond growth tied to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country. In other words, we have all the service we need domestically now and the only growth will come from further economic growth. That set off a good back and forth between me and Greg Principato, the President of Airports Council International – North American (ACI-NA). I thought it would be worth revisiting the discussion here.

ACI-NA is the big trade group representing airports, so you can imagine that our discussion quickly turned toward airports in relation to growth. Did Doug’s statement mean that there wasn’t a reason for airports to build and grow? Greg sees Doug’s underlying point as being that there’s “no need for new investment.” But when it comes to airports, Greg certainly thinks there is a need. So, is there?

Readers of this blog may think that I’m against any airport investment, but if you think that, you’re misreading me. I’m against stupid investment, and there is a lot of that around the country. I’m all for smart investment when it makes sense. My favorite example is, of course, JetBlue’s Terminal 5 at JFK. JetBlue needed a new operating space and they built one that’s excellent and not overly-expensive. I’m also a fan of San Francisco’s redo of Terminal 2 for Virgin America and American. I’m even a fan of the recent refurb of LAX’s Terminal 6.

But there are far more examples around of wasted expense. Think about Sacramento’s new monster, the new terminal building in Indianapolis, or the new Bradley Terminal expansion at LAX. Don’t even get me started on Miami.

Those are projects that cost a lot and inevitably hurt the air service in the community. Now, Greg was quick to remind me that “‘cost-effective’ and ‘cheap’ are not synonyms.” That is very true. But these projects were simply overbuilt. Does LAX need a soaring roof to look like the waves and the mountains? Does Sacramento need a train to get people to the new concourse? No. In both those situations, there was a need for something new. LAX has a Bradley Terminal with small holdrooms and almost no concessions behind security. It’s a mess. And Sacramento had an old terminal that was falling apart. But these facilities could have been built for function instead of form, and the benefits to the public would have been greater.

The way airports are funded in the US means that airports need to be smart about this. They can’t just go and build a massive, gleaming new operation like in Beijing because travelers will have to pay for it. In the US, they either pay directly via the Passenger Facility Charge (which tops out at $4.50 after Congress refused to allow an increase to $7.50) or they pay indirectly via higher fares because it costs the airlines more to operate.

So if an airport builds too much at too high of a cost, then it stands to lose service. Greg points out that it should be the community’s decision, and he’s right. As he says, “There is that risk that communities must, and are willing to, accept. Should not be up to feds or airlines.” But the problem is that the community doesn’t have much of a say.

If someone says to you, “hey, you want a fancy new airport?,” you’re going to say yes. But what if they say you can only have it if it means fewer flights? Then it’s a different story. But it really doesn’t matter what you say because the airports aren’t often run by elected officials. You can’t vote out an airport executive if she does something against your interests. You don’t get to vote on how airports spend their money. So the community doesn’t really get to decide.

Instead, airports that build smart and keep costs low benefit from greater levels of service. Those airports that build too much and get too expensive risk losing out. Think about LAX. Will it lose a lot of Asia flights if costs go up by $10 a person? Maybe not. But the airport is set on spreading those costs around to all airlines. So will Southwest be hurt on its flights to Phoenix if costs go up by $10 a head? You bet. Those flights may not be as glamorous, but they’re very important to a lot of people, and they will see cutbacks.

So, airports should be able to spend money as they see fit, but when they mess up, they risk losing service and doing a great deal of damage to the community. Responsible spending by an airport is great, there just needs to be more of that.

Last week, Alaska Airlines celebrated the grand remodeling of Terminal 6 at LAX. Terminal 6 was one of the more neglected terminals, and now it’s the beneficiary of massive investment that significantly improves the place. Take my 3m46s video tour which starts at the third installment of Alaska’s “Airport of the Future” ticket counter concept. (One of these days, I’ll make a less shaky movie.)

I wrote about the advantages of this move for the customer over at Conde Nast last week as part of a photo slideshow. But there are advantages beyond the customer as well.

Alaska now has the benefit of a more stable operation. With preferential use gates, it is not at the whim of other airlines any longer, and it has a lot more gates that it can utilize. Even better for Alaska, it has been able to consolidate its employee groups in one big place beneath the departure level in the concourse. In other words, it will be a lot easier for Alaska to operate at LAX now. And yes, it will mean easier customs and immigration processing, better waiting areas, and easier connections to major partner Delta for customers.

It may have cost $238 million to get this done, but the benefit to travelers and to the airline is readily apparent. This is the kind of project I like to see: smart, cost effective use of resources to make a dramatic improvement in how things work.