I am so spoiled by European airports and transportation infrastructure in general. I just assumed... silly me... that the Metro would take you right into the terminals. Even our own BART comes pretty close to doing that. BART/SFO and METRO/DCA are pretty similar (maybe a bit less walking for BART). Even CDG got its act together with their inter-terminal rail system. If CDG can do something right, anybody can.

Someone else made the argument about luggage being a disincentive for the biz traveler taking mass transit. I dunno... if it fits as a carry-on, how tough can it really be?

Maybe FTers enjoy long taxi rides for some reason? I wouldn't mind so much if I could be guaranteed a smoke-free experience, seatbelts I could find, and a feeling that I wasn't being taken for a ride sometimes. An ironic metaphor.

Transit systems built almost-right are usually a result of cross-agency turf battles. Was that the case in WAS? One of the great crimes in the SF Bay Area came about when BART punished the SF Peninsula for voting it down back in, what, '62? So they intentionally didn't connect with the then-highly-used SP rail commute line (3rd & Townsend at the time?). That commute line actually functioned very well. Not as sexy as BART would have been, but it worked. Cannot imagine how much opportunity cost involved in that decision.

For IAD & DCA, an efficient means to getting from one to another would open up all manner of possibilities. I would think.

+1 to this...and hey, we're neighbours!

I am spoiled by Narita Express. Fast, reliable, storage space, reserved seats, food and beverage sold at your seat, NRT to downtown Tokyo in one hour. Why we can't do that in the most developed country in the world is beyond me.

You may be right, but it seemed pretty clear to me during the US-DL slot swap that the DoJ considered 50% of the slots to be the upper limit that it would allow. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that, but US has about 50% of the DCA slots right now, and I don't see the combined airline being allowed to keep AA's share as well. Perhaps they'll have to divest 1/2 or 2/3 of AA's DCA slots - either way, the combined airline is not likely (IMO) to be any more dominant at DCA than US is now.

And I don't see DL or UA getting any of them - unless B6, WN and NK are not interested.

If taxi fares were $150-200 from Dulles to DC, there might be a better chance of it.

My typical fare to IAD is about $50 and I live in Arlington - not that far away. For someone downtown it might be close to $100 depending on traffic. I'd think that would be incentive enough (both the cost and the traffic).

We should have an Arlington FTers get-together. Drinks and IAD bashing!

Actually giving it to NK would be interesting to see - triggering bloodbath to ensure US/AA cannot leverage their dominance in any pricing premium, while continue to allow UA next door to charge through the nose pricing on transcons and TATL out of IAD.

Yes, it was a massive inter-agency cluster eff between the airport authority and the metro authority. Plus the federal government, the state government and the county governments PLUS the business interests in Tysons Corner and Reston.

What would have made sense would have been a direct light rail IAD-Union station ala Heathrow Express. What we got is an abomination that is costing like $330 million per mile.

I wonder how many people in the NYC region for whom LGA is convenient actually take connecting flights from LGA to another international gateway as opposed to traveling hours and hours by land to get to JFK so that they can take a nonstop flight to Europe or Asia or S America?

Same thing with people who live or work close to DCA? Would you really take a connecting flight from DCA to EWR, PHL or JFK to get to your long-haul international flight instead of the half-day journey to IAD where you could board a nonstop?

I understand the convenience of LGA and DCA, and the monumental task required over hill and dale to get to JFK or IAD from the cities, respectively, but is it all that common?

It is common for FFs. IAD is a never-ending hassle, plus I am pmCO. It doesn't bother me to connect (especially in IAH, less so in EWR and I avoid ORD like the plague). Maybe I am alone in this but since most of my travel is international (and a lot to Asia), adding a 2-3 hours to my itinerary isn't that big a deal. I actually see travel time as private time - I can't be reached, and I make the most of it. The day they turn on wifi on UA long-haul flights I will cry like a baby.

Yes.

And, I wouldn't use the term 'monumental' to get to IAD, but yes. I live within walking distance (and is the only way I get to the airport, even in rain) to DCA, and I would rather fly from there, even on award tickets (no miles to be gained) than trekking out to IAD.

In addition to having it more predictable at DCA than IAD, there are some flights where you'd have to connect anyway, such as going to most places in Asia and smaller cities in Europe or specific routes.

There have been many instances of this for me, but I remember on a cold, snowy (in ORD) day after Christmas, my wife and I left DCA for ORD en route to Switzerland, where weather could have been a factor...but it was still better than traveling to IAD.

-jeremy

I would go to IAD in such a situation, but IAD doesn't serve every Asian destination non-stop. So once I'm changing planes, DCA is almost always in play.

I think the issue is that neither EWR nor ORD serves many Asian destinations either (compared to true TPAC gateways like SFO or SEA, but access to those from DCA is always severely limited.)

Especially if you're flying F or J, from IAD at least you can have international F/J flat bed all the way to Asia/Europe instead of some domestic F trek out to the west coast first.

DCA-EWR works for Asia - not only you get flat bed, you get the BF planes, 2-2-2 instead of the mind-boggling 4-row in Biz on United planes.