After Delta and friends kicked off the latest round of perimeter rule madness, the main players have all been lining up, taking sides. There has been talk of initially adding 28 new daily beyond-perimeter roundtrips, but that was whittled down to 4 in Senate negotiations. And now, Spirit has thrown its hat into the ring with a proposal that it hopes will be palatable (enough) to all sides… while also, of course, getting Spirit what it wants.
As we all know by now, Washington/National (DCA) has a perimeter rule that restricts flying to within 1,250 miles from the airport. Over the years, some exemptions have been carved out to allow limited flying beyond that perimeter. With the FAA reauthorization fight coming up again now — it has to be done by September 30 — Delta decided it was time to push to make changes.
This has sparked discussion in Congress about adding a limited number of new slot exemptions, a proposal that has been widely panned. The airport’s operator says that it is already operating at capacity and any new slots will only cause regular operational delays. United, Alaska, and American have all come out against the plan, as have the local Congressional delegations from both Maryland and Virginia. (Though I did not reach out for comment, I’m pretty sure the US Pakistan International Chamber of Commerce is still onboard, however.)
With all of this fighting, who should show up with a compromise proposal but… Spirit? That’s right, Spirit.
Back in 2012, Spirit walked away from flying to DCA entirely. It had been running 3x daily to Fort Lauderdale since 2008 with an occasional summer flight to Myrtle Beach thrown in for good measure. With DCA being strictly slot-controlled, Spirit knew it had little chance of growing at the airport, so in 2012 it picked up stakes and moved its operation to Baltimore.
At Baltimore, it was able to grow. By 2013 it had added Dallas/Fort Worth and Las Vegas with many more cities to come and eventually more than 30 daily flights, but it hadn’t given up on the idea of DCA entirely.
When Delta swapped some of its DCA slots with those of US Airways at New York/LaGuardia and the airlines had to divest some, Spirit tried for those at DCA, but at the time it wasn’t willing to pony up enough to win them. Southwest and JetBlue were the victors in that round.
Spirit has continued to look for ways to get back into the airport. It has already found success up the road at New York’s LaGuardia, another slot- and perimeter-restricted airport. It thinks there’s opportunity to do the same at DCA.
The airline sent a letter with its proposal to Sens Cantwell (D-WA) and Cruz (R-TX). I was provided a copy as well. In the letter, Spirit suggests that incumbent airlines should be able to convert as many of their slots into beyond-perimeter flying as they’d like. The catch? For each converted slot, the airlines must also surrender another slot within the perimeter to the feds to be redistributed either to new entrants like Spirit or existing airlines with limited service at the airport, like Frontier.
This proposal isn’t really a new one, but with the fight ramping up, maybe it’s a good time to re-examine the idea.
Everyone concerned about additional airfield congestion shouldn’t have a problem with this plan. After all, this doesn’t add any new flights. It does, however, make it more likely that larger airplanes would be used. That’s a good thing, despite putting some additional stress on the terminal’s capacity.
Politicians who actually mean it when they say they want to ensure fair access (if such a person exists) should be happy with this idea since it will create more opportunity to provide slots to new entrants and small incumbents. And those small airlines should like the idea, because it wouldn’t come with a price tag the way previous divestitures have. They can’t be outbid by airlines with deeper pockets.
Who else might like this? American had no comment on this specific proposal, but I imagine it has to like it better than straight up adding new slots for other airlines. There aren’t many airlines that can justify turning two existing slots into one that can be used beyond the perimeter, but American is that airline. It holds well over half the airport’s slots, so it can make that decision if it wants another flight to LA or wants to start San Diego, San Francisco… you get the idea.
On the flip side, though United had no comment either, but I can’t imagine it doing anything but oppose this idea . It likes its Dulles hub and wants to make sure nothing weakens it. Allowing American to open up more nonstops to places beyond the perimeter from DCA is not great for United.
And then there’s Delta. Delta wouldn’t comment on “another carrier’s letter to Members of Congress,” but it doesn’t tend to like a compromise. In this case, it may have the second most slots at the airport, but can it justify giving back a slot just to turn one into a beyond-perimeter option? I’d imagine it could justify that so it could start Seattle and Salt Lake and maybe add to LA. But it probably won’t WANT to justify that.
My guess is that Delta will keep pushing for exactly what it wants. This Spirit idea would be better than nothing, but that doesn’t mean much.
In the end, there is some elegance in a solution like this. It gives airlines the opportunity to extend beyond-perimeter flights without adding to congestion. Then it adds that Robin Hood twist of stealing from the (slot) rich to give to the (slot) poor. Of course, Spirit isn’t doing this to be charitable. It wants to get free slots. But that doesn’t change the end result.
This may never matter for Spirit… if the JetBlue acquisition miraculously goes through after the trial this fall. But it is one of the few compromises I’ve seen that might be worth a second look. That means in a place like Washington… it’s probably dead on arrival.
49 comments on “In the Fight Over the DCA Perimeter Rule, Spirit Has a Modest Proposal”
Spirit forgot to add that “for every in-perimeter slot surrendered, airlines will pay a Slot Forfeiture Fee of no less than $45.”
This proposal by Spirit shows how insane the perimeter rule is & why it needs to be abolished.
If you give an inch, won;’t they take a mile? I have friends who live close to DCA and the loud jet noise is constant. An increase in transcontinental traffic with presumably larger jets would just exacerbate this issue.
…Just like every airport in country located in a higher density urban and suburban sprawl. That’s their problem for deciding to live there, as DCA didn’t just ‘move’ into the neighborhood in the past 50 years. One could even argue that as engine technology has improved, noise levels have gotten BETTER, not worse. So throw DCA, LGA, SNA into a big NIMBY pot and cry a river…
I didn’t know a 737 going to ATL made less noise than a 737 going to SLC. Interesting.
The airport but the noise and traffic really bothers them
The SLC 737 is going to presumably be heavier, use higher power settings for takeoff, climb slower, and make more noise as a result.
Who was there first, your friends or the airport? I’ve never understood people that buy a house next to an airport and then complain about the noise, especially as airplanes continue to get quieter.
Yeah, living on the other side of the river, I must say this sounds awfully SNA / Newport Beachy to me.
I live in Alexandria and most of the folks directly impacted by noise are pretty wealthy.
Yep. And I bet they knew the airport was there when they moved in. I doubt there is anybody in DC, Arlington or Alexandria who precedes DCA.
If noise is the problem, then why not do what London Heathrow does and allocate slots by how noisy aircraft are?
But now the vast majority of DCA mainline flights including the current beyond perimeter ones, are operated with A320/737/757 families which are all fairly similar in noise level and so noise won’t significantly change even if shorter flights are switched for longer ones.
I remember when delayed evening flights would be cancelled because of running into the 11 pm arrival noise curfew at DCA in the mid to late 90s. Hasn’t applied in years due to quieter aircraft.
Good ole Delta screwed me over several times in ATL with delayed 727s into DCA that cancelled. Which always drove me crazy since they had plenty of planes that wouldn’t have been curfewed out (the MD88s and 90s had hush kits). Sheer brilliance!
Maybe the perimeter rule is dumb, but adding additional slots is a mistake. DCA is basically a 1 runway airport, with tons of restricted airspace around it, so there is only so much traffic it can take.
Then again, I’m crazy enough to believe that Dulles and the UA hub will do just fine, with or without the perimeter rule. It was always my preferred airport when I lived there and there are plenty of people in NOVA who agree.
Where outside of the perimeter is service so badly needed? Des Moines? Omaha? 2/3 of the country live within the perimeter. Each airline has it’s exemptions and the airport is at max capacity. Spirit’s proposal is spot on. Give up a slot if you want to add flights more than likely to places you already fly.
There actually are several significant problems w/ Spirit’s proposal
1. While slots inherently favor incumbents, DCA is controlled by the federal government and Congress itself has had to set the rules for how additional slots or exemptions are managed. Spirit’s proposal is a significant departure from the way slot management at DCA and every other airport has been handled and there has to be a legal basis for why the addition of outside perimeter or additional slots would be handled. It is doubtful that NK’s proposal is legally defensible.
2. Spirit voluntarily walked away from DCA and it is not the rest of the airline industry’s responsibility to compensate NK for strategic failures it made in the past. This is no different from UA’s decision to leave JFK and then be unable to obtain enough commercially viable slots. Virtually every other airline is an incumbent at DCA so NK is essentially asking that every other airline should be blocked from participating in the increase of beyond perimeter slots so NK can benefit.
3. The ground congestion issue is the result of American’s banked schedule at DCA and is not indicative that the airport itself is beyond capacity. If anything, it is anticompetitive to argue that the airport can’t be expanded because AA screws up the operation multiple times per day on its end of the airport so nobody else should be allowed to expand.
4. As for noise, new generation aircraft are provably more quiet than new generation aircraft and yet many of the beyond perimeter slots are on older generation aircraft. If noise is a factor for the addition of new beyond perimeter flights, then the law should incorporate provisions that any new flights not result in more noise per departure than existing flights for that airline.
5. Congress did vote, according to other media sources, and approved four additional outside perimeter slots so NK’s proposal is actually a little late. DL didn’t get what it asked for but there is the provision to add more flights. As has been done in the past, there has been a preference for service that connects new cities nonstop to DCA. Given that AA, AS and UA all publicly denounced any proposal to add more beyond perimeter flights, they should be excluded from any of the 4 flights. Assuming they come up w/ valid proposals, it would appear that B6, DL, NK and WN should be allowed to add flights- and B6 and NK’s proposals should be considered in light of their merger proposal.
5. Congress did vote, according to other media sources, and approved four additional outside perimeter slots so NK’s proposal is actually a little late.
—————
One committee of the Senate voted. That’s hardly the end. There’s another bill in the House And both of those bills have to pass their respective chambers. News flash: Bills are usually amended as part of those processes. If the two bills are different, they go to a conference committee to iron out the differences – and a whole new bill could be the result.. As Yogi Berra observed, “It ain’t over ’till it’s over.”
DesertGhost,
Great comment, however it’s worth mentioning that Tim is well aware of the procedures of Congress and the Senate given a certain inclination to invoke the filibuster in many discussions.
Tim, Delta also voluntarily walked away from a number of their slots, giving them to AA in exchange for slots at LGA. Now they want to change the rules at DCA to gain market share there. By your reasoning, Delta doesn’t have a leg to stand on with asking Congress for new slots at an airport that was slot restricted for a reason.
Ghost,
thanks for the correct status of all of the proposals
Ben,
no, Delta did not “walk away” from any slots at DCA. DL exchanged DCA slots for a much larger number of US’ LGA slots – in addition to $60 million and a route authority to Brazil. Because US already controlled more than 50% of the slots at DCA, the DOJ required AA-US to divest a number of DCA slots roughly equivalent to what they acquired in the DL-US slot swap – which was also what pre-merger AA had at DCA.
Unlike AA, US and UA, DL has never controlled more than 50% of the slots at any slot controlled airport, and yet DL now has the largest slot portfolio among US airlines.
Unlike AA and UA, DL has never had the FAA or DOT file a complaint against DL for the underutilization of its slots.
The granting of slot exemptions and additions are based on Congress’ decision to increase access to DCA, not because of any punitive actions because of history which you do not accurately note.
In not one of the proposals is DL getting everything it wants – and that is evidence that we all get to lobby but we don’t get to set the rules.
None of that changes that the federal government has added outside perimeter flights at DCA IN ADDITION TO existing slots. Under no previous action that I am aware of has the government required that slots be removed in order to offer new service.
In addition, new outside perimeter proposals have always been based on service to specific cities and not based on incumbent vs. new carriers, although new carriers have been given preference in other route cases including for gaining slots at LGA. Once again, slot exemptions for DCA are controlled by Congress while LGA slot management as part of mergers falls under the control of the DOJ.
Spirit’s proposal deviates from historical precedent and singularly preferences them over nearly every other airline – a clear legal non-starter. And NK did walk away from DCA, something which no other carrier has done at a slot controlled airport other than WN at EWR and UA at JFK, neither of which have succeeded at returning to those airports – and EWR is no longer slot controlled.
I’d love to know how the NK proposal “singularly preferences them over nearly every other airline.”
No new slots are needed for the nation’s single busiest runway.
Bill,
correct me if I am missing something but all of the big 4 plus AS and B6 plus F9 all fly to DCA. Unless I am missing someone, NK is the only one of the US large jet (non-regional) carriers that has more than 1% of US traffic that does not serve DCA. Sure, Avelo and Breeze also do not but they are small and also do not serve dozens of cities that all of the other large jet airlines listed above serve.
Because NK’s proposal specifically provides a different mechanism for every other large jet carrier with more than 1% of US traffic, that to me seems to be preferential to the benefit of one party and punitive to everyone else. Beyond the lack of consistency with historical norms for handling of outside perimeter flights, NK’s proposal seems to me to be legally suspect at best.
I’d love to hear how you think differently if you do after my clarification.
Dear God man, try less typing and more reading! The ORIGINAL post stated that relinquished slots would be “redistributed either to new entrants like Spirit or existing airlines with limited service at the airport, like Frontier.”
More than one equals plural. Plural is the opposite of singular.
“Spirit’s proposal deviates from historical precedent and singularly preferences them over nearly every other airline – a clear legal non-starter.”
Congress can deviate from historical legislative precedent any time it wants to, as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution in the process. If Congress was to enact a version of the Spirit proposal that limited the slots-for-perimeter-exception to only new entrants, then there’d be an argument over favoritism to a single business. But as long as small incumbents can also request the released slots, this argument goes away, especially if the definition of “small incumbent” is objectively defined.
If the definition of “small incumbent” was set at, say, 10% share at DCA, that’d only eliminate AA, DL, and WN, and if you considered IAD as well that’d knock UA out. That still leaves B6, AS, F9 and AC (if they have any other destinations in-perimeter), as well as other possible new entrants (G4, although not their style, Breeze and Avelo domestically, and Porter and Westjet to compete with AC.
Spirit is hardly “singularly preferred”.
I should have clarified that I’m not necessarily a supporter of the Spirit proposal. Personally, my preference would be for authority over DCA to be moved from Congress to the MWAA, and for the perimeter rule to be abolished entirely.
Craig
The US airline industry and how the US and state governments relate to it is governed by a number of laws besides the constitution, not the least of which is the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 which specifically says that the federal government cannot regulate fares or service levels for economic reasons and cannot show preference for airlines based on the type of service they provide.
In addition, the US recognizes global slot conventions which state that slots are for the indefinite use by airlines as long as usage requirements are met. The very reason why Congress has granted new outside perimeter slots as new flights and not as the conversions of existing slots is because global slot convention does not allow for a change of usage requirements for economic purposes.
And, once again, NK not only did serve DCA once so it is incorrect to state that they have been blocked from serving that airport and it is also true that they are in the process of a merger with an airline that is an incumbent at DCA.
I appreciate the dialogue but I give Spirit’s proposal a ZERO percent chance of implementation.
What you and I are in complete agreement on is that perimeter restrictions at LGA and DCA are anticompetitive and benefit incumbents.
This topic is regularly being discussed on the Wall Street Journal – there is a reader response to an article today as there has been for on multiple recent days. Since noise and an increase in the number of slots is highly objectionable to some people, I raise the legitimate question as to why there are not objections to the practice of American as the largest slot holder at DCA of operating a hub there which not only increases the number of flights the airport operates and also creates congestion due to their heavily banked operation. In addition, the number of slots and the perimeter restrictions force AA to operate more flights than are necessary to meet the local demand, including on a high percentage of regional jets, resulting in the smallest average aircraft size by AA at DCA among virtually all large airline hubs – which DCA is considered by the DOT. The objections to additional outside perimeter flights does not address the key reasons for complaints about the airport.
“ The very reason why Congress has granted new outside perimeter slots as new flights and not as the conversions of existing slots is because global slot convention does not allow for a change of usage requirements for economic purposes.”
That’s not an accurate summary of the law for slots, particularly at DCA.
The slot guidelines are just that – guidelines. The FAA follows them except when they conflict with US Law. Meaning Congress can change the slots how they like. And particularly given DCA’s almost exclusively domestic role, international guidelines have little relevance.
And they have! Congress has converted existing slots to beyond perimeter slots before.
The only real reason for making most of the beyond perimeter slots to be exemptions is purely political: lots of Senators and Representatives from beyond the perimeter wanted flights; but lots of Senators and Representatives from within the perimeter did not want to lose flights, either. Exemptions turn a zero-sum game into a positive sum one. Which was fine when DCA actually had some excess capacity (eg unused GA slots) but that is no longer the case.
Tim, just because they sold the slots doesn’t mean they didn’t walk away from them. No one forced them to sell the slots. They apparently felt they were not useful and so they used them to get what they wanted from US (now AA) at LGA. Fine, good for them. They still walked away. But now, they want a bigger presence at DCA, so instead of acquiring existing slots (expensive), they are lobbying Congress to create more. Congress is clueless on how to run an airport, which is why they do not operate DCA or IAD. MWAA does. Lawmakers only care about DCA when it’s convenient for them or someone writes them a check. They could care less if it makes sense or if it will work operationally. So for you to act like DL is only interested in these because Congress just completely out of the blue decided to add slots is pretty silly, even by your standard.
And your comment about the largest slot portfolio and never being penalized has nothing to do with the conversation. That’s just your usual fanboy BS that everyone on this site rolls their eyes at. This discussion is specifically about DCA and whether or not they should add more slots. You have chosen to split hairs to claim that Spirit’s proposal is out of line, but that Delta’s lobbying efforts are perfectly fine. I think they are both self-serving requests, but at least Spirit’s doesn’t mess with capacity at an airport that has one useful runway.
I’ll also add that the funniest thing about the whole debacle is it’s members of Congress, self-serving airlines, and people like you who don’t live in the DC area, that are pushing for more slots. The people I know in the region (lived there for more than a decade), along with the responses to DC-area news coverage I’ve read, seem to show that while DCA is the preferred airport, a majority of people in the DMV do not support this push to add more flights. But who cares what they think, right?
since DCA was built in 1941, I am not sure how anyone can legitimately complain about airport noise if they are 80 years old or younger.
The same argument applies to every other airport, interstate highway, etc.
Your statements are not compatible
But now, they want a bigger presence at DCA, so instead of acquiring existing slots (expensive), they are lobbying Congress to create more
and
at least Spirit’s doesn’t mess with capacity at an airport that has one useful runway.
of course both DL and NK’s proposals are self-serving. nowhere did I say any differently.
You and others just think it is ok to change the rules in order to benefit the ONLY large jet carrier that does not serve DCA.
The NK proposal is incompatible with global slot protocols to which the US adheres which is why their proposal is DOA.
and yes DL’s slot portfolio is relevant since a statement was made that DL walked away from DCA slots. They not only traded slots (US airline slots cannot be sold) but they gained more slots in the process.
I do hope we have a follow-up on this story when the issue is finally settled.
Tim,
On your argument regarding the Airline Deregulation Act 1978, that is only a statute. As a general rule, except for prohibitions arising from the Constitution any statute passed by Congress (and either signed by the President or with Congress overriding a veto) automatically supersedes prior statute if the statutes are in conflict. Congress could, if it wanted and had the President’s support (or enough votes to override a veto) replace the ADRA with a new regulatory regime tomorrow…and it’d be perfectly legal.
I don’t know where you’re getting that 1% figure, but I haven’t seen it anywhere else. (I could be wrong, though. If you have a source, please post.)
I agree that the Spirit proposal has zero chance of passing.
Craig,
The DOT defines a major airline as one with over $1 billion in annual revenues but also use the 1% of national market share for other definitions. Either way, NK is the largest and only airline that meets both of those definitions and also does not serve DCA. NK’s proposal is singularly beneficial to itself at the expense of every other larger airline. As much as some want to argue otherwise, that is a no-go. We do agree that NK’s proposal has ZERO chance of being adopted.
Even though some struggle to accept it, DL has done arguably the best job of managing its access to slot restricted airports and is still the 2nd largest slot holder at DCA even after its slot swap w/ US which instantly made it the largest carrier at LGA and put it in a position no other airline can match. It grew its presence at JFK, largely organically where it is also the largest airline. DL doesn’t NEED more access to western states from DCA to retain its position in the western US or DCA but it is almost certain to get something – and definitionally, its growth via even one new outside perimeter slot will come at the expense of AA and UA and potentially AS depending on what DL adds.
DL also foresees that the viability of a number of its intra-NE flights from DCA will continue to fall; short-haul air travel continues to decline as has been the case since 9/11. The addition of DCA-BNA, MIA and MCO is evidence that DL wants to extend its presence at perimeter controlled airports to more distant destinations in line with shifting market dynamics – which WN is adapting to in its network. AA’s need to connect passengers over DCA is indication that it has more slots than it really can use for just the local market; DL is doing some of the same things at LGA on a smaller scale.
As for the criticism of DL’s motives, nowhere has DL has put forth a proposal that benefits itself more than other carriers as NK’s proposal does; that is also true w/ its proposal for increased HND access. Some carriers will be negatively impacted in both proposals and it is no surprise that they are the ones objecting. And it will be hypocritical but to be expected that they will be standing in line to benefit under whatever proposal is implemented – but it is certain that there will be increased DCA perimeter access.
(This may come in the wrong place in the thread, sorry, I’m not getting a “reply” link in the right place)
Tim,
Congress is not bound to use the DOT’s definition of a “major airline” when legislating, and in the case of legislating for DCA it could take into account only the current presence at DCA, or the local market including IAD (and possibly BWI, although it’s further out.)
I think you look at this as if a regulator is making the judgment, and not the legislature. The DOT is bound by a variety of laws, Congress is only bound by what the houses agree on, what it can get approved by the President (or override his veto), and what the Supreme Court might rule unconstitutional. That’s it.
I’ve never actually criticized DL for its lobbying – it’s trying to improve its position at DCA. I don’t blame them. I do think if Congress is going to allow out-of-perimeter flights to certain cities, those flights should be open to bid to any incumbents (except perhaps AA, based on existing market share at DCA.) And those exemptions should be for the benefit of the people of DC as a whole, not just Representatives and Senators who want a flight to their home city for their convenience, and adding a slot exemption for LAS would offer connection opportunities that, say, a flight to SF or LA probably wouldn’t.
But the reality is it’ll be a mix of consumer interest and members of Congress getting what they want for their own purposes (which might even include the needs of a major campaign donor or two.)
Craig,
Can you explain why you are trying to argue so strongly in defense of a proposal that you think has no chance of passing?
As much as you would like to think otherwise, the legislative process is not random, ignoring precedent and benefiting one party to the exclusion of others.
I have enjoyed the conversation w/ you, thank CF for hosting and look forward to finding out the result.
“Given that AA, AS and UA all publicly denounced any proposal to add more beyond perimeter flights, they should be excluded from any of the 4 flights.”
You do have some wild thoughts sometimes… lol. “How dare they disagree with legislation and lobby against it. they should be punished for disagreeing with Delta.”
“DCA is controlled by the federal government and Congress itself has had to set the rules for how additional slots or exemptions are managed. Spirit’s proposal is a significant departure from the way slot management at DCA and every other airport has been handled and there has to be a legal basis for why the addition of outside perimeter or additional slots would be handled. It is doubtful that NK’s proposal is legally defensible.”
Without seeing legislative text, this idea is easily defensible.
Congress does not have to pick the speciific slots. That’s not how they’ve done it in the past. Congress can set criteria and direct the FAA to administer the program. That’s what they did with previous slot exemptions (including several different categories – new beyond perimeter exemptions, within perimeter exemptions to foster competition on monopoly routes, and new within perimeter exemptions to serve new markets).
“3. The ground congestion issue is the result of American’s banked schedule at DCA and is not indicative that the airport itself is beyond capacity. ”
It’s not entirely about AA’s schedule, but AA’s schedule doesn’t help.
There are many factors for an airport’s capacity – ground congestion is just one. DCA’s airport roadways are also jammed frequently; all of the parking spaces are often used, etc. And while there are management strategies for all of these problems, the key fact to remember is that some lobbyists are asserting that DCA has lots of unused capacity, and that’s false.
“5. Congress did vote, according to other media sources, and approved four additional outside perimeter slots so NK’s proposal is actually a little late. ”
Congress as a whole did not vote on anything yet. A Senate committee voted on a version of the bill – notably a committee without any MD or VA senators on it. The full Senate must still vote on it. The House must also pass a version, and then they will need to go to a conference committee to resolve any differences before returning to both houses for final votes.
In other words, there are lots more bites at the apple to change the legislation.
Shame on AA for screwing up the operation where it is the largest carrier not making it easier for everybody else. Unheard of at any other airport!!!
Why would it not be legally defensible? Unless it somehow violates the US constitution, Congress having passed it is sufficient.
I think Spirit’s reasonable proposal makes sense provided the larger carriers aren’t allowed to eliminate all the high fares but small city service in perimeter. I’d say the logical caveat would say any forfeited slot pairs must come from routes with high frequency (likely hubs or an in perimeter city like Boston). This would allow upgauging would makeup for a loss of a frequency or two.
For example are 7 frequencies to Charlotte including 2A319s and a CRJ-700 needed with more outside perimeter nonstop service?
Very reasonable. Makes tons of sense. A great compromise. Therefore no chance of happening!
“I’d say the logical caveat would say any forfeited slot pairs must come from routes with high frequency (likely hubs or an in perimeter city like Boston). ”
That’s not how the slots work, however. Regular DCA slots are just for the hour for the movement (e.g. a takeoff or a landing in the 3pm hour), they don’t have any restrictions on destination. Carriers are free to change destinations with their slots so long as they are arriving and departing according to the time allotted.
The larger carriers should be allowed to eliminate whatever service they want. Why do people in small cities think they are entitled to this service? If there is more demand from a larger city, they should get the slots.
Question re “I’d imagine it could justify that so it could start Seattle and Salt Lake”
Hasn’t DL been flying to SLC since the last round of OTP exemptions?
I might be remembering it wrong, but I thought they gave up flying to SLC so they could use the slot for SEA flights instead.
Bill – So Delta used to have 2x daily and back in 2017 they moved one of those to LAX. So today there’s still just the 1x daily.
Ah, gotcha. So I have a DCA slot related question but it’s not related to this topic so feel free to ignore it!
Much to my disappointment, United no longer flies DCA-CLE which I believe was 4x daily. Any idea where those slots went? Guessing more ORD and IAH flights but am curious. Thanks!
If anything, flights that go to places that go to places that can be easily driven or on a train should be reduced. Do you really need seven daily flights to Pittsburgh which is a 4.5 hour drive. Or even worse, Philadelphia which is on the Acela line. It would be much more useful to fly to cities in the western third of the country.
Also, if capacity is an issue, CLT and PHL should be used for connections instead of DCA as much as possible.
I can see flying to PIT just to avoid Breezewood. But it would take a profound leap of avgeekery combined with a fair amount of stupidity to fly DCA-PHL for any reason other than international connectivity.
Pro tip: take I-68 to avoid Breezewood and gain some awesome mountain scenery.
One way for Spirit to pick up more slots at DCA would be to merge with JetBlue. But that’s a whole different kettle of fish.