DCA, LGA, BOS, & PA Airport Updates

[USA320Pilot]

Reports indicate US Airways management and the MWAA are making progress on building an additional DCA terminal that would be used by US Express carriers including MAA and construction could begin as early as September 2003.

The carrier is also in discussions with the NYPA about building an additional terminal in LGA that would be located on the land where the old TWA hangar exists and would be connected to the current US terminal.

Meanwhile, management is continuing its discussions with the federal government for authorization for DCA to LAX & SFO service and with the NYPA for LGA to LAX & SFO flights. These four routes would likely be high yield opportunities and would provide significant Pacific Rim code sharing opportunities.

Separately, US Airways may announce new BOS terminal growth plans, although its unclear what could occur, but it’s presumed this would be to support MAA and more mainline long-haul flying.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, US Airways and the Pennsylvania coalition meet on June 18 to discuss Philadelphia and Pittsburgh International government concessions and since the initial meeting, the parties had two negotiating sessions scheduled, but both were canceled by the airline. State and local negotiators are planning to meet next week with US Airways officials, however, no day the meeting has been set.

Governor Ed Rendell told the newspaper We''ve met with US Airways. We''re waiting for them to put something on the table, he said. We''ll be meeting with them next week.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 7/2/2003 12:57:04 PM Chip Munn wrote:




Meanwhile, management is continuing its discussions with the federal government for authorization for DCA to LAX & SFO service and with the NYPA for LGA to LAX & SFO flights. These four routes would likely be high yield opportunities and would provide significant Pacific Rim code sharing opportunities.

----------------

​

I''ve heard nothing of LGA beyond perimeter exemptions - but landing them would be a major, major victory. The combination of the LGA airport location and a non-stop flight would be a big $$$ dollar generator.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

LGA beyond perimeter is problematic. And I've heard nothing about that. How would PANYNJ selectively lift the perimeter rule? Once, again, PANYNJ might be able to have a 1500 mile standard rule to manage congestion in a multi-airport system.... but to be selective about exactly what routes to fly seems regulatory. It can't regulate where the planes fly (with certain exceptions)

 

[DLFlyer31]

LGA-LAX and LGA-SFO is likely to be a pipe dream. The gov''t isn''t going to want to open up that can of worms. Any new beyond perimeter slot allocations would have to be open all carriers and there''s certainly no guarantee that US would get them.

The only chance US would have would be to get a waiver that allows them to convert a few existing slots to beyond perimeter. Even that seems unlikely as the slot conversion would likely mean US would pull slots from smaller markets to serve larger ones...not a popular choice.

As for DCA, I expect to see US get an RJ terminal. As for getting beyond perimeter slots, it''ll be tough. DCA needs more low-fare competition and giving US more slots will not serve that goal. The DOT has not looked kindly on US in previous slot allocations and US''s reputation with the DOT is less than stellar.

 

[USHenry]

Yes but you must wonder where these airfraft are coming from. Surely to deplete already diminished markets, such as ORF, where Delta swooped in with 757s to scoop up US''s abandoned passengers to become ORF''s #1 carrier for the first time ever. Some capacity reductions have been just ridiculous. They''re running Dash-8s back and forth between PHL & BWI and they are full and/or overbooked every time I''ve been on them. Southwest sure did expand fast...USAirways, the most loved company by its competitors in the US

 

[RowUnderDCA]

The perimeter rules at DCA and LGA aren't the same, I don't think. Beyond perimeter slots at DCA were created by congress. That's not the case with LGA. MWAA doesn't alot beyond perimeter slots, DOT does.

I still think that the LGA convention is allowed as a means of managing congestion in a multiple airport system. But granting exceptions... unlikely.

Sorry, I see now, that Mr. Munn did mention that U was talking to the Feds about the LGA thing, but I still think it creates a logical problem with the perimeter... why LAX and SFO, but not PHX and SEA? And, of course, DLFlyer is right, the routes couldn't be limited to certain carriers.

The DCA terminal has been on the planning boards for years.

 

[funguy2]

----------------
On 7/2/2003 220 PM RowUnderDCA wrote:

The perimeter rules at DCA and LGA aren't the same, I don't think. Beyond perimeter slots at DCA were created by congress. That's not the case with LGA. MWAA doesn't alot beyond perimeter slots, DOT does.

I still think that the LGA convention is allowed as a means of managing congestion in a multiple airport system. But granting exceptions... unlikely.

Sorry, I see now, that Mr. Munn did mention that U was talking to the Feds about the LGA thing, but I still think it creates a logical problem with the perimeter... why LAX and SFO, but not PHX and SEA? And, of course, DLFlyer is right, the routes couldn't be limited to certain carriers.

The DCA terminal has been on the planning boards for years.

----------------​

RowUnderDCA: You are right. Congress, through AIR-21, and the DOT have a lot more leverage at DCA, since the airport is federally owned and operated by MWAA under a lease (its on the MWAA's website). Therefore, the "local" airport authority in this case is the Federal government. Therefore, Congress and the President can dictate what goes on there.

LGA, however, is owned and operated by PANYNJ. I have read that the Fed's don't really want to get involved with the LGA beyond perimeter rule issue, because they don't want to be seen as taking authority away from the local operator. So it becomes a federal vs. state/local government debate... who should dictate the use of the airport the feds, based on the airport being part of a national system, or the locals who have to live with it?

Furthermore, if the Fed's get involved in overturning or changing a PANYNJ restriction, it probably opens up a myriad of legal problems for the Wright Amendment at DAL/DFW, and the local slot systems in place at LGB, SNA, and HPN.

So the Fed's get involved at DCA because its their airport to do as they wish, while they don't get involved in the others because it might cause legal challenges. At least that is my general understanding.

Oh, by the way, the LGA perimeter is 1500 miles, DCA's is 1250 miles. In both cases, far enough to get to DFW and IAH... Can't imagine who might have lobbied for that. LGA-DEN was apparently grandfathered in the original LGA rules, but DCA-DEN was not... Not sure why.

 

[USA320Pilot]

In regard to DCA, the federal government controls beyond perimeter restrictions. The U.S. House of Representatives approved a new slot allocation in Flight 100, the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (CARA), and Senate has not completed their proposal for the new flights from Washington National. Once the Senate action is complete, the two bills will then to the Conference Committee for resolution.

US Airways has held discussions with the federal government to obtain 1,250 nautical mile slot exemptions to begin non-stop service between Washington National and both Los Angeles and San Francisco with current or some of the proposed twenty new slot authorizations pending in Congress. "There have been 12 pairs [of slots] handed out in the last four years, and we haven't gotten any," Siegel told the Greater Washington Initiative annual meeting on May 29. Instead, the flights went to Delta Air Lines, Alaska Airlines, Corporate Air, Frontier Airlines and America West.

In regard to LGA, beyond perimeter rights are controlled by local authorities and US Airways is in discussion with the principal’s about commencing service to LAX & SFO, as well as SJU. In addition, the company anticipates adding EMB-170 service from LGA to markets like MCI.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[Cosmo]

funguy2:

DCA-DEN was not grandfathered because it was not being served on a nonstop basis when the perimeter was imposed (in the late 1960s, IIRC). The original perimeter was only 650 miles, with seven grandfathered exceptions (MIA, PBI, MCO, TPA, MEM, STL and MSP) due to nonstop service being provided in those seven markets at that time. The DCA perimeter was expanded in several steps over the years to its current 1,250-mile distance, which incidentally now encompasses all seven of the original grandfathered routes.

Chip:

I have a couple of comments. First, as I understand it, the Senate bill at this time contains no provision for expanding the number of beyond-perimeter slots at DCA, although this could change as the Senate takes further action or during conference committee sessions with the House. Second, the current DCA beyond-perimeter slots require service to a hub airport (however one wants to define it) beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter, which is one of the primary reasons that US Airways has not yet received any of those slot awards (with the other main reasons being US Airways'' current extensive slot holding at DCA combined with DOT''s desire to get more "new entrants" into the airport). This beyond-the-perimeter hub requirement would need to be changed if US Airways is to be successful in receiving any new beyond-perimeter slots. And third, at both DCA and LGA, if the rules for current inside-the-perimeter slots are changed so that US Airways could use some of them to operate nonstop from both airports to LAX and SFO (and with regard to DCA, that would require Congressional action), I think it''s almost certain that other carriers would take advantage of this change as well -- meaning that US Airways would likely be facing nonstop competition from American and United, and maybe other carriers, on those routes. Even with the competition, it may still make sense for US Airways to serve the routes, but IMHO it won''t be the money-making monopoly that some folks seem to envision.

 

[G4G5]

LGA-LAX

Never happen.

DAL tried for years to get the PA to lift the restriction. LGA-SLC and they would not budge. Why all of a sudden would they do it today?

Why would the PA get involved with a long term construction project with USAir's BK history? Let's see you want a bond for how much?

If anyone would love to build on that site it would be NWA. DAL has been trying to move them out for years.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Folks-

PANYNJ meddling with the LGA perimeter is too close to regulating the routes of air carriers...

The grandfathering that you are talking about are routes that preceeded that, I think. Or otherwise is considered within a proprietary exception to segregate traffic to deal with a complicated and congested multiple airport system. ''''

The proprietary justification for a local government to drop a rational, if arbitrary perimeter rule, in favor of a pick and choose scheme is just not sufficient, in my opinion, to be legal. If it is, it shouldn''t be. It may be their airport but the airways, the tariff and the service are not theirs to regulate.

Uncle Sam wouldn''t mind promoting competition at NY area airports, but letting the Port select routes is not the way to do it. Gee, the Feds won''t even let the local airport auction of slots at a congested airport to the highest bidder and keep the money. Surely, playing politics with where you can fly from LGA would not be successful.

If it doesn''t mess up JFK and EWR and the Ports operational plans for their airports to fly to the west coast, then why have a perimeter rule at all? Well, the answer would be to benefit small communities in the east. THAT is certainly NOT a business concern of the Port.

Just my opinion.

 

[USA320Pilot]

In an interview with the Clarion Derrick & Herald, Senator Arlen Specter, (R-PA), described the fate of US Airways as "a major concern," both for Pennsylvania as a whole and individual communities where shuttle services are provided at regional airports.

"It is a very vital factor in Pennsylvania's economy and Venango County's economy. We are trying to keep the airline in operation, and I think we will ultimately be successful," he said.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[DHG750R]

LGA''s perimiter is 1500nm . There are certain cities outside this which are grandfathered. DEN,IAH . You all are correct , it is governed by the Port Authority.Although it would be a major coup to get these . AA and DL , just to name 2 would try to block this and if needed would counter swiftly . How long would it be before we turned tail and ran here too. It''s a great idea , but to make it work we would need to stick with it. Same with SJU . How about SDQ too as NY has one of , if not the largest populations of dominicans in the country?

 

[funguy2]

RowUnderDCA:

On LGA, I agree completely. The only equitable way to eliminate the perimeter rule would be to institute a system like SNA. SNA''s system is based on noise output. The noisiest flights are limited, but allow for transcon operations without specifying destination. The quiet slots only work for flights within an hour or so.

Unfortunately, SNA''s system is so complex, I am not sure how it would work on LGA''s scale. Not to mention U would not get a monopoly out of it. You would likely see AA/DL/UA start LGA-LAX/SFO, maybe even SAN. AS would come in and do SEA, AA to SJU, HP to PHX/LAX, DL to SLC. The effect on U would be that many smaller communities (like CHA, ILM, MYR, SAV come to mind) would probably lose service to LGA as the slots would be used for longer haul service, assuming no new slots are created. I am sure PANYNJ wouldn''t care if nonstop service to SAV was lost, but my guess is that senators, congressmen and govonors would be up in arms.

In the long run, U is probably better off with the perimeter rule, much like LUV is better off with the Wright Amendment at DAL. You don''t see LUV fighting that battle anymore, do you? They realize if the airport is opened up, OAL come in and compete with them where today they have a nice monopoly. U is in a similar situation at LGA and DCA.

At least, thats my opinion.

 

[Art at ISP]

I see no reason for the Port Authority to change the perimeter rule. There are plenty of transcons from JFK or EWR. Granted that JFK is harder to reach from Manhattan, but EWR is roughly as easy as LGA. I think if it were to happen, you'd see more overcapacity on the NYC-West Coast routes, and more congestion at LGA, which we really don't need.

Another issue is performance. On a hot day, I doubt a mid sized airliner (757, A320 series) could carry a full load and enough fuel to make the coast using a 7000 foot departure runway. I realize that SNA's runway is shorter, but most of the time, eastbound flights require less fuel due to prevailing winds aloft.

Bottom line as nice as it would be I just don't see it.

Now ISP-West coast, hmmmm... (and NOT on WN thank you). I can dream can't I?

Does anyone have a clue what the future holds for U at ISP? I see we're back up to 6 r/t to PHL again, but back to 5 in Sept.

To my good friends at U, thanks for what U do!!