https://thehill.com/homenews/4655051...a-slots-fight/

Now its onto the House to see what happens there - despite the efforts of the four Virginia / Maryland senators.

Quote:
The bicameral package also features a new requirement for the FAA to hire and train up to 3,000 new air traffic controllers, a provision to increase the cockpit voice recorder length from two to 25 hours and improve airway safety, and boosts the time frame individuals can use travel credits to at least five years.

It also does not boost the pilot�s retirement age from 65 to 67, which had been discussed, or include a provision that would have allowed members of Congress, judges and Cabinet members to receive security escorts if they are facing credible threats. Cruz was a leading proponent of that item.

Id.

DCA is my home airport and, because I live in the District, far more convenient for me than BWI or IAD, but the VA and MD Senators made a compelling case to me as to why this shouldn't proceed. The airport is already 10 million or so passengers per year beyond what it was built for, and the FAA estimates that adding an additional five round trip flights would increase delays by 725 minutes per day, for a total of 12,734 minutes of overall daily delay at DCA. This year, we're already at about 22% of all flights being delayed. Ad in a near crash on the intersecting runways last month, and I'm unconvinced this is a good idea.

Part of the problem is that DCA is both owned by the federal government (so Congress gets to determine the slots), and it is uniquely convenient to Capitol Hill. A lot of the existing exceptions to the 1,250 mile perimiter rule are owed to Members of Congress who want easy nonstops back to their states/districts. For example, Alaska Airlines has a daily morning and evening nonstop between DCA and SEA largely because the Washington State Congressional delegation saw to it. If you get on AA's evening flight from DCA to LAX on a fly-out day, you'll encounter numerous Congress members from Southern California, etc. etc. So it's possible this is a foregone conclusion and the slots are coming.

Does DCA have a hard curfew for flights or a suggested curfew? DAL has a suggested curfew which hasn�t been approved by the FAA.

Not really. It has a unique "DCA Nighttime Noise Rule" between the hours of 10p and 7a, but it's not even a suggested curfew. I'm not entirely clear on how they measure it, but they do (at least in theory) issue fines to aircraft operators that exceed the noise limit in those hours.

Here's the actual language that passed the Senate (DCA section included below)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...A73AA02C70C2F2

The way I read this is:
-incumbent carriers only (i.e no Spirit, Allegiant, etc.)
-one slot pair to ONE limited (<20 current slots): AC, AS or F9
-one slot pair to FOUR unlimited: AA, B6, DL, UA, or WN.

It appears like this will work as it did in the past. Interested airlines will submit proposals to the FAA Secretary (within 60 days), who will award the slots.
---------------
SEC. 502. Additional within and beyond perimeter slot exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

(a) Increase in number of slot exemptions.�Section 41718 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

�(i) Additional slot exemptions.�

�(1) INCREASE IN SLOT EXEMPTIONS.�Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, the Secretary shall grant, by order, 10 exemptions from�

�(A) the application of sections 49104(a)(5), 49109, and 41714 to air carriers to operate limited frequencies and aircraft on routes between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and domestic airports located within or beyond the perimeter described in section 49109; and

�(B) the requirements of subparts K, S, and T of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

�(2) NON-LIMITED INCUMBENTS.�Of the slot exemptions made available under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make 8 available to incumbent air carriers qualifying for status as a non-limited incumbent carrier at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as of the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.

�(3) LIMITED INCUMBENTS.�Of the slot exemptions made available under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make 2 available to incumbent air carriers qualifying for status as a limited incumbent carrier at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as of the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.

�(4) ALLOCATION PROCEDURES.�The Secretary shall allocate the 10 slot exemptions provided under paragraph (1) pursuant to the application process established by the Secretary under subsection (d), subject to the following:

�(A) LIMITATIONS.�Each air carrier that is eligible under paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) shall be eligible to operate no more and no less than 2 of the newly authorized slot exemptions.

�(B) CRITERIA.�The Secretary shall consider the extent to which the exemptions will�

�(i) enhance options for nonstop travel to beyond-perimeter airports that do not have nonstop service from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as of the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024; or

�(ii) have a positive impact on the overall level of competition in the markets that will be served as a result of those exemptions.

�(5) PROHIBITION.�

�(A) IN GENERAL.�The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority may not assess any penalty or similar levy against an individual air carrier solely for obtaining and operating a slot exemption authorized under this subsection.

�(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.�Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as prohibiting the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority from assessing and collecting any penalty, fine, or other levy, such as a handling fee or landing fee, that is�

�(i) authorized by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Regulations;

�(ii) agreed to in writing by the air carrier; or

�(iii) charged in the ordinary course of business to an air carrier operating at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport regardless of whether or not the air carrier obtained a slot exemption authorized under this subsection.�.

(b) Conforming amendments.�Section 41718(c)(2)(A) of title 49, United States Code, is amended�

(1) in clause (i) by striking �and (b)� and inserting �, (b), and (i)�; and

(2) in clause (ii) by striking �and (g)� and inserting �(g), and (i)�.

(c) Preservation of existing within perimeter service.�Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed as authorizing the conversion of a within-perimeter exemption or slot at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to serve an airport located beyond the perimeter described in section 49109 of title 49, United States Code.

No curfew, the airfield is open 24 hours, the tower is manned 24 hours, and ground operations are 24 hours. There are currently 15 noise monitoring stations (NMS) distributed primarily along the river approach/departure paths.

Curiously, (or maybe because of, you know, Congress) the data from the NMS cannot be used to determine if a particular aircraft violated the noise rule.

In 2000 the FAA established "Stage 3" noise limits. Aircraft are assigned a noise rating during the FAA Noise Certification process for the aircraft type. But the DCA Noise Rule limits are more restrictive than the stage 3 limits and the DCA noise rule was authorized to remain in effect after FAA transferred the airport to the Airports Authority (MWAA - not to be confused with Metro/WMATA). So, a violation will occur if any aircraft of a certain type arrives/departs during the restricted time period regardless of the actual noise created by the specific aircraft itself.

Put another way, the NMS are used to monitor noise from the airport but not used for enforcement. Enforcement is conducted by simply determining if a specific type of aircraft arrived/departed during the restricted hours.

the law requires priority for a) new destinations, or b) new competitors.

So, unless they want to lose, seems highly unlikely that any airline will ask for another frequency to a city they already serve.

Forget DL to SLC, SEA seems to be the obvious choice. I�d bet UA would love another DEN flight, but bet they will pick LAX instead. AS picking SAN seems obvious, too.

SNA won�t happen. SAT probably will, with either AA or WN.

Which seems contradictory, right? I mean you can't have both unless two or more apply for the same new destination.

I had SEA as a backup for DL, so no argument there. They might apply for both.
I don't see UA wanting to enter the already crowded DCA-LAX market, further cannibalizing their IAD operations. I think it will be DEN or nothing. But we'll see...

Remember that the 5 incumbent unlimited carriers (AA, B6, DL, UA, and WN) have a lot of leverage here. Four are going to get one each. So, if -say- DL applies for SLC (only) and UA applies for DEN (only), at least one (and possibly both) has to get it.

I think you're right. DCA is at (or over) capacity. DCA tower, Potomac TRACON and Washington Center ATC does an amazing job of "moving metal" very safely and efficiently (the runway incursion last month was WAY overblown by the media), but as all of us who use the airport know - congestion happens often and causes delays.

The problem - quite simply - is the Perimeter Rule. All of the congressionally- mandated DCA slot increases over the last 20+ years have added beyond-perimeter slots. Eliminate the 1960's-era Perimeter Rule and you'll eliminate Congress' interest in adding more flights.

there�s no contradiction at all. There are two priorities, either apply for a new city, or apply to add competition to an existing city.

DL might apply for both in the sense that they list multiple cities they�d be ok with, but they�re going to have to prioritize. And there�s no way SLC will be their top choice.

For UA, anything would hurt their IAD hub, but far better for them to be flying it rather than a competitor. Which is why I�ll bet they will put LAX first as their best chance, but would gladly take DEN and SFO.

LAX is huge market, it�s by far the biggest O&D market from DCA that�s beyond the perimeter.

Congress doesn�t want to eliminate the perimeter rule, though. If you eliminate the perimeter, lots of small cities (represented by lots of Senators and Congressmen) will definitely see reduced flights to DCA, and many will lose flights entirely.

The reasons they keep adding exemptions is because they do not have the votes to scrap the perimeter.

Frankly, none of this should be Congress�s decision. Let MWAA manage the airport.

I disagree on this reasoning. Because DCA has distance limits they have more plans operating ( usually smaller ones). If United added a denver flight then they could drop a chicago flight.

with schedule American could use 2 737 instead of 3 smaller jets.

no. The last flight out is usually by 11 pm. Arrivals still happen thtu midnight.

yes and no�..I think they want to keep those directs to their home state. That's why I would not be surprised if San Juan, ABQ, and BOI get DCA directs.

look at Southwest. They have directs to many secondary cities within the perimeter. AA has others. They are directly due to Congress and due to the perimeter. WN has PHX ( OKC) , DEN( OMA/ others), and LAS (DAL)

DCA doesn�t just have the perimeter rule, it has slots. Every slot is basically used.

eliminating the perimeter rule will not change the number of flights per day. This proposed exemption is just that: an exemption to the slot rules, a net addition of airplane movements for an airport that does not have any spare capacity.

Puerto Rico has minimal congressional clout; New Mexico and Idaho not much more.

More importantly, the flight demand is likely lower than several of the nonstop alternatives. Airlines prefer to maximize revenue.