MWAA is fully against increasing exceptions to perimeter rule and is lobbying hard against. Operations-wise, the airfield can certainly handle an increase in flights - there is plenty of slack time outside the rush hours to accommodate more flights. However, although the Project Journey renovations which revamped security screening and added the new pier for AA greatly increased "in-terminal" throughput, it did not actually do much for increasing the designed capacity of the buildings. The building is already 50% over its designed capacity which is taking a toll on the infrastructure.

But there is a bigger issue. The perimeter rule really exists to push much more traffic to Dulles. Increasing flights works directly against those aims.

Although the rule is officially based on "safety" - its aim is to increase safety by managing, reducing and preventing air traffic congestion - the real, and more important reason is the economics of IAD. MWAA has done a pretty good job in recent years to reduce its enplanement fees and be more economical. The land boondoggles underway will help also. But to get IAD where it needs to be it needs major increases in enplanements. IAD is still millions of enplanements below pre-pandemic levels and really, the goal is to be above 30 million as soon as it can.

And, in general, revenue from DCA cannot be used for IAD. Congress has allowed some relatively small amounts of transfer, but it has been in the very low 7 figures. and IAD needs revenue increases in mid 8 figures for decades to make a real dent. Chipping away, and chipping away, and chipping away at the limitations on DCA does not help.

Really? I've never seen safety listed as a justification of the perimeter rule. Protecting Podunk cities within the perimeter - yes. Propping up Dulles by forcing trans-con flights there - yes. Reducing noise (an old falsehood that still sadly persists) - unfortunately yes... But not safety.

No, that's what slots are for. What does the perimeter rule have to do with congestion? What difference does it make if the arrival is coming in from LAX or LGA? Every arrival and departure adds to congestion no matter the origin or destination of the flight.

You are spot-on here. My only disagreement is that rather than have the government artificially push traffic to IAD to help them survive, MWAA and United should get off their a** and rebuild the third-world experience that currently is the C/D concourse, align the air train to the terminal so it's not a 20 minute walk to the gates, and improve the food, beverage, and other amenities, so that people CHOOSE to use IAD and don't have to be coerced by the government into doing so. THAT is the right way to get enplanements to where they need to be.

You are correct. There are two laws/regulations impacting DCA - the perimeter regulation from 1966 and the 1969 high density law (which also affects LGA, ORD, EWR, and JFK). These two laws/regs are frequently conflated - which I did above. So, to be accurate: the high density law is intended to increase safety by limiting operations by setting a fixed number of slots per hour - primary focus is on safety and to a lesser extent noise. The perimeter rule was not about safety but rather noise abatement from the new jet aircraft and then also for the economics of the new IAD: to drive traffic to Dulles and keep DCA the "short-haul" airport.

Re: the suggestion of going the "build it and they will come" approach for improving IAD: unfortunately it doesn't work that way. C/D replacement is in the billions of dollars (new Term A is going to be just shy of $1b). Pittsburgh tried it - and it didnt work out. If they try it here, and let DCA take on a couple million more pax, those pax will never go, or go back, to IAD; DCA is simply too convenient.

Thanks for the correction :)

I agree, but with or without DCA, it has to happen; the current C/D "experience" is abysmal. I have to think that an upgraded experience (e.g. Concourse B-like terminals that allign with the aero train) would drive more folks to IAD. I might even use it more ;)

And I don't think DCA should take on any more pax, just that the Perimeter Rule should be eliminated.

other factors at play…

1 DCA airspace restrictions
2. small airport size nd limited expansion.

international big body planes can not land at DCA. They don’t have the space and run way

dulles will always be the transcon flight terminal.

in airport reconstruction age where does Dulles lie compared to other airports.

sure they could fix the terminal design. I’m not up to date on their plans there but my thought would br you build a new E concourse align with the train line. You build it and transfer stuff there. Keep part of C central to the train. Cut off D and expand and improve it extending the B to that end of the terminal revamping D. Then revamps C portion and modernize it.

then you have E and F which are island terminals sort of like Seattle that trains go A-C-E and B-D-F

Looks like four new beyond-perimeter flights will be added: https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...rport-flights/

The deal is currently still pending. Assuming four flights are added, here is my prediction on airlines/routes:
AA: AUS
AS: SAN
DL: SEA
WN: SAT

I am figuring that SAN and SAT will be Air21 slots to ensure they receive service (and try to limit incentives for further slot additions/beyond perimeter exemptions). Any additional thoughts?

Still a ways to go before this becomes a reality, but it does seem to have momentum as a compromise. Your predictions make sense, except that I believe DL really wants to restore their second SLC. Since they have been the biggest advocate of these new slots, perhaps they will get two pairs...?

My "wish list" - will never happen, lol...

UA - DEN (AM departure, PM return - would open up a lot of new connection options in both directions for DCA flyers)
DL - SLC (AM departure, PM return - would open up a lot of new connection options in both directions for DCA flyers)
AA - SAN (restores service provided by US moved to LAX under AA acquisition)
AS - SNA (great SoCal addition to 4x LAX)

I would love to see SNA. It is hard for me to imagine SAT not being included as one of the four slots though.

Totally agree. This is my wish list, not what I think will happen :)

based purely on markets……

SAN—AA,AS,WN
ABQ—AA, WN
BOI—AS
OAK/SJC—WN, AA, AS
SNA—WN,AA,AS
SAT— WN, AA

they could allow a Canadian route ( Calgary, Vancouver ) or Mexico route too ( Mexico City)

an issue I have is that AA from PHX is the only western overnight/ red eye route to DCA

I don't think a route to Mexico is a realistic possibility, as DCA has no customs/immigration facilities, and I don't see 1) any being built for one route; or 2) preclearance in Mexico happening.

Looks like it's up to 7 now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...ional-flights/

Yep, it looks like that will be the case for each current domestic carrier (sorry AC, would have loved to see YVR). Here is my updated prediction:
AA: AUS
AS: SAN
B6: LAX (Had the most trouble with this one)
DL: SEA
F9: LAS
UA: DEN
WN: SAT

WN would be going for one of its hubs of DEN, PHX, or LAS

I don’t see how this is really a problem. Sure changes made. Putting a pre-clearance in Mexico City would make sense.

you build it they will come…