GUWonder

Unless Mexico wants it built, it won’t be built. I doubt that it would be a popular move with Mexicans to have US CBP running around MEX on public duty in uniform.

flyer703

Okay since we're playing the Perimeter Game, here's my ticket (come on Mayor Pete - have a look at this!!!):
DL: SLC, SEA
UA: DEN
AA: SAN
AS: SNA (still holding out for this one to visit my friends in Anaheim, lol)
WN: SAT, BUR...or maybe OAK - can't decide

flyer703

It's a very interesting thought. Having Mint to LAX would be wonderful (blowing the doors off of AA and AS F and - I suspect - Delta One B757) but I think the DOT will view LAX-DCA as well served already with 3 competitors and not further expand that route.

LETTERBOY

I share your doubts about Mexican desire for preclearance. Although, I was thinking more of the possibility of domestic political opposition in the US among certain members of right side of the aisle. I don't think anyone in Washington would want to have a potential argument about that.

GUWonder

Pushing out the US border enforcement/“security” efforts abroad while getting the airlines, the host country and/or host country’s US-bound travelers to foot the bill for the facility’s operations is an easier sell in DC than it is in Mexico. The baggage of history just works out differently for US-Mexico than it would for US-Iceland.

KEF-DCA/DCA-KEF? KEF is more likely to get CBP Preclearance than CUN or MEX. But KEF-DCA is a few hundred miles more than LAX/SFO/SAN/SEA-DCA, and even if physically possible I’m not sure Icelandair wants to risk being stuck with lots of delays or misconnecting passengers because of what the CBP messes at KEF would be like with the flight banking. And the US airlines would probably throw a hissy fit if Iceland were to build out and deliver on a CBP preclearance facility at KEF — even as that wouldn’t be about DCA.

Here is the kind of stuff I would like to see if it comes to more perimeter exemptions:

AA DCA-SFO/DEN/SLC.
DL DCA-SFO
UA DCA-SEA

bradleyl12

Well, the house just rejected the proposal to add 7 more flights. The flights could still be added later before the final version, but it appears like the new beyond-perimeter flights are likely not to happen after all.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...ights-00107200

flyer703

Maybe not dead quite yet: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...house-00107294"
"But the issue is far from settled. The Senate will consider the matter as part of its bill, and it could also resurface during eventual conference negotiations. Senate Commerce Committee leaders Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have considered adding a small number of additional long-haul flights out of the airport."

MCO Flyer

Looks like the new Cantwell-Cruz proposed committee compromise is now 4 beyond the perimeter slot pairs (8 slots total) instead of 7 (14 total slots) from the now rejected house bill. Last time their were changes made in 2012 with 4 new slots, the DOT gave one to each of the big 4 (at the time AA, DL, UA, and US) and I assume this time it would be AA, DL, UA, and WN favored to grab the slot pairs. Still a long shot this goes through the full Senate but if I had to guess we could see the following airline proposals.

AA: SAN
DL: SEA or 2nd SLC
UA: 2nd DEN
WN: SAT

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...eauthorization

Section 107

Nice article about maintaining the runways

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...3387650/?amp=1

Zorak

also saw this: https://www.flyreagan.com/travel-inf...tation-project

which I dug up a week or two ago when I noticed late night arrivals landing on 15.