JetBlue will apply for a second DCA-SJU roundtrip. https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news...t/default.aspx. (I was so hoping for Mint to LAX...sigh)

Here's a good current summary from Cranky Flier: https://crankyflier.com/2024/06/27/n...gets-underway/

United is the last one standing and a great discussion going on over in that forum: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...ter-slots.html

Given (1) that 3 airlines already serve DCA-LAX, and (2) Jetblue just cut 2 transcon destinations to LAX that have competition and moved Mint cabins to East coast-LATAM routes, unlikely that DCA-LAX on B6 was gonna happen!

I know but a guy can dream right? Imagine Mint to LAX... ah But I was also hoping for DCA-SNA, so...lol!

United applying for a second DCA-SFO, with new DCA-LAX service as backup. Both early am departures from DCA and late morning/early afternoon departures from the West Coast using MAX 8's: https://www.regulations.gov/document...2024-0065-5775 (United Airlines - Application for DCA Slot Exemptions)

I'm really surprised they jumped into DCA-LAX, as they seemed to have a lot of leverage here to call whatever they wanted.

would they select DCA-LAX given the marketplace saturation?

id rather see markets that don’t have it.

The applications are in: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0065
Here's a summary. I'm sure we all have our favorites :) (If a column is blank, that means the applicant did not specify that information).

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...c5aa434fcd.jpg

They did add LAX (A21N Mint service!) as a backup. I didn't notice it at first as it's burred under a footnote deep into the proposal. Almost like they're hoping the DOT doesn't see it.
Assuming AA, DL, WN and AS are almost a lock, I hope it comes down to this and UA's second SFO. Both would be good!

I dont see UA getting a second SFO - runs quite contrary to the statutory intent.

Compared to what, though? Is a second frequency for B6 on DCA-SJU with no competition a better fit? Absolutely not.

United would clearly have SFO over LAX (that preference is clear) but frankly either of those would be a better fit than B6's proposal. And the statute isn't the only thing guiding the award of slots, the normal DOT procedures also apply (about public benefits, etc) and for that, United has made a very strong case.

Neither the UA proposal for SFO nor the B6 proposal to SJU are very compelling. Both are proposing service to their own already, pre-existing service. The goal of the exemptions are 1) to increase options to cities that do not have service to DCA, and 2) increase competition.

The main UA option does neither of these two. Same with the B6 option.

DL's reply comments made quite the stir of noting that United opposed any new slots. And now UA wants a half-hearted attempt at getting an additional pair.

Well, either UA or B6 is going to get one round trip. Agree with you on B6 to SJU, which would further their monopoly on that route. But how does UA to SFO not increase competition with AS? The fact that UA opposed this seems irrelevant - so did AS who seems destined to get SAN. And I don't think UA's response was halfhearted. https://www.regulations.gov/document...024-0065-22188

Again: compared to what? Whether you find them compelling or not is irrelevant. The language in the law says that these slot exemptions shall be granted, and the simple math of the matter dictates that one of them will win an exemption. They are being compared against each other, not some magical other application. There are no other possible outcomes.

Likewise, the fact that United opposed adding new slots is also irrelevant - they are included in the law as an eligible applicant.

Finally, if Congress really wanted to emphasize the two criteria, they could've written stronger language - they could've required that applicants either add service to a new market or explicitly add a new competitor to an existing market. They could've dedicated exemptions for new entrants (as they have in the past) but they explicitly excluded them. Previous slot exemption laws have been written slightly differently.

DOT can do this one of two ways - both hinge on the status of Alaska. Spirit does make a colorable argument that AS is not a limited incumbent.

Assuming that AS is a limited incumbent, I see the following:
AA - SAT; WN - LAS; DL - SEA; AS - SAN; ## - ###. The most likely choice would be UA to LAX. I don't see UA to SFO getting it as they already service it.

Assuming that AS is not a limited incumbent, see the following:
AA - SAT; WN - LAS; DL - SEA; AS - SAN; NK - SJC

I think that if AS is a non-limited incumbent, UA gets the hose.

If DCA keeps adding more flights, they need parking garages.

Last two times I flew out of DCA, there was no parking available in the daily lots and we had to park in the economy lot and wait to take the bus which added 45 minutes of time to get to the gate.

They have parking garages but they do frequently fill up. Safest bet is Metro or ride sharing.
Five more daily round-trips wont have any significant impact on parking.