On Meet The Press this morning Lott, Daschle, Hastert and Gephardt all agreed DCA should re-open. They felt it was symbolically important.

[This message has been edited by RDouglas (edited 09-23-2001).]

They probably also got around to thinking about how long it takes to get from Capitol Hill to BWI or IAD.

Fine.

In order to be able to reopen DCA, all sorts of extra security not found near other airports (possibly even anti-aircraft batteries) will be needed to prevent what has now become a credible threat of an attack on D.C.

These Congressmen should be made to pay the bills for all these measures if they want to have their little airport back.

Not out of public funds.

Yonatan

It's weird how there seems to be this impression that suddenly the risks are higher. The risks are the same as they always have been; they're just more visible now. With the right security measures, even DCA is safe. With the wrong security measures, nowhere is safe.

I truly think that if people are worrying about the proximity of DCA to the Pentagon and other locations in the city, they should be thinking about accidents, not terrorists. Because other than the potential for accidental crashes, I still don't understand how DCA is considered any less safe than IAD and BWI.

First off, I don't think a plane can be hijacked out of DCA in time to crash into the city. You'd have about 10 seconds (while ascending) to seize control of the cockpit. So then the worry is that the hijackers seize control while it's landing. Well, guess what, IAD and BWI are still about 3-5 minutes flying time from the city center. I really am dubious about the ability to scramble fighters in time to intercept a plane hijacked that was heading toward one of those two airports originally. (And this isn't to mention the fact that I think the terrorists will try something different for their next plan anyway.)

Shutting down DCA is more than just a symbolic victory. It is also an economic victory. DCA employs 10,000 workers directly, and brings air traffic into a region that employs countless more rental car employees, cab drivers, restaurant owners, hotel owners, etc. These associated businesses account for estimated 70,000 other employees. Shutting down the airport for two weeks has cost the economy an estimated $192 million. A 1998 study found that the airport pumps $5.3 billion dollars into the local economy each year.

And it's not just a symbolic and economic victory, but a transportation-related one as well. Where are all these travellers going to go? Some of the air traffic can be handled by BWI or IAD, but obviously not all of it. When air traffic returns to normal levels the airports will be saturated with travellers.

If I thought the airport truly contributed a significant threat my opinion on the matter would be different. The thing is, for reasons outlined above, I just don't see it. I can understand instigating certain safety measures, such as requiring only southward bound (i.e., away from DC proper) takeoffs. That in and of itself would limit the number and size of flights that could utilize DCA. But I see that more as a precaution against accidents than terrorist activities.

I'm with ebell. Nicely stated. There's no good reason to keep it closed. Just as there's no good reason for some of the other restrictions, like reducing parking spaces by 25 to 50%.

My question regarding DCA--why is there even a question regarding whether it should reopen, if all these other airlines have reopened? Are we saying that lives lost in a crash into a high-rise office building (WTC in NYC, or one in Chicago, or LA, or Philadelphia) would be less of a catastrophe, and therefore we can risk those? Any of those would be a catastrophe. I don't think that a good reason exists for any less risk in DC than in other cities.

As a former resident of Old Town Alexandria and frequent DCA flyer, the earlier posters are clearly correct that it would be virtually impossible to hijack a DCA plane while still over central DC. BWI and IAD would be flights. If BWI and IAD remain open, there seems little reason to keep DCA closed. I would agree that closing it to private traffic, though, probably makes a lot of sense.

I would imagine that the concern is reaction time once a plane is out of the flight path. At DCA it's maybe 10 seconds from the flight path to the White House, whereas with IAD and BWI it's a few minutes. Nonetheless, I think that closing DCA is a bad idea.

Djlawman

Or how effective is stopping all drivers approaching the airport and asking why they are at the airport. Do they really expect someone to say:

"Oh I am just going to drop off my van which is loaded with explosives."

The most effective anti-hijacking change that will ever happen, happened immediately when the planes hit the WTC. The men AND women on UAL #93 who refused to die in vain are great heros, but so are you and I and we will never ever let it happen again.

Punki, glad to see you feeling so good.

And, I too think DCA should open. ebell's comments about DCA are spot on. On departure, there is just not enough time to take control of a plane. On arrival approach, any highjacked plane would have to line up with ATC to sneak near DC. IAD and BWI pose much more significant threats to downtown DC than DCA does. It's too close.

Here's a good article in the (Washington) Post today. It basically says a lot of the things I posted above, while addressing the other side more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Sep23.html

Though, honestly, after a quick read through the article (gotta go to work soon) I still don't see why DCA is considered more dangerous than IAD or BWI in terms of potential terrorist attack. The things I get from this article are:

1. The planes from DCA are a constant reminder and might make people paranoid (which would indicate to me that yes, the terrorists have achieved one of thei goals of fear and paranoia).

2. You have 3-5 more minutes if a plane is diverted from IAD or BWI, and every minute counts. I'm still not sure what those 3-5 minutes would buy, in all honesty. Though I suppose it's time to hustle Bush or Cheney into a secure area -- didn't I read that Cheney was taken down somewhere in the White House when they caught that flight heading into DC? Didn't do anything to help those at the Pentagon, though. 3-5 minutes doesn't seem like enough time to scramble fighters, or evacuate buildings -- especially when you don't know which building the target might be.

Even if a figher plane is right there waiting, what is it going to do? Is it better to shoot down a plane over Alexandria than to let it reach DC? The residents of Alexandria might feel differently about that. Are national leaders worth more than ordinary people living in the suburbs around Washington?

Bruce

In the case of the Sept 11 plane, they actually had 12 minutes' warning that it was hijacked and heading that way, and they already knew about both WTC, but nobody did anything about it until the plane was overhead. They didn't even move Cheney until the plane was overhead, from what I understand. In 12 minutes they could have gone a good ways to getting the Pentagon and other buildings evacuated.

<< Are national leaders worth more than ordinary people living in the suburbs around Washington? >>

YES!

Interesting article though ebell continues to put it best I think.

The extra 5 minutes "available" compared to IAD or BWI assumes that a) we know the plane has been taken over immediately, b) that the information can be relayed to the proper authorities, and c) that it can be acted upon instantly.

Not sure I look forward to the day when the US government is ready and willing to shoot down a commercial aircraft on a couple of minutes' notice and with a decision time that could be in the dozens of seconds.

For now I will hold on to my tickets with 4 DCA segments in November... but BWI I hear you calling my name...

1) My office is about 4 miles south of DCA directly under the flightpath.

2) I only fly out of/into DCA 2 or 3 times/year.

3) I MISS DCA. I miss the convenience of doing ticketing there. I even miss the thunder of jets on climb-out and approach.

4) Keeping DCA closed is letting the terrorists win. To hell with that.

DCA has long had its detractors, mostly locally from folks who live under the flight paths.