Originally Posted by
Section 107
I don't agree there is "no" political constituency for changing or even eliminating the rule, at least for DCA, as there are plenty of self-important folks on the Hill from the western lands that would love to have a more convenient travel options for DCA, In addition, with the state of engine reliability, expansion of ETOPS limits, and the distances the midsize planes can go, DCA could be opened up to an enormous range of international options - so airlines are a big proponent of changing the perimeter rule. However, that would cause a death spiral for IAD and fortunately, there are plenty of rational and powerful enough legislative critters on the hill that such changes will not happen anytime soon.
Yeah, I don't mean that there's literally no one who wants more DCA beyond perimeter flights, but that there's not a sufficient coalition to make that happen. And while I'm sure AA would love to change the perimeter rule, they're unlikely to advocate for it because of the likely downstream impacts that would fall out from that.
International arrivals at DCA will not and should not happen (beyond the existing pre-clearance arrivals). There's absolutely no policy reason to build FIS facilities at DCA.
As for the lease agreement, MWAA has a clause in the lease that basically allows them to void the terms if the perimeter rule is repealed. Airlines could be non-signatories, but they would pay more. I'm sure that MWAA will continue to press for similar language in future agreements.