Anyone who flies regularly between the West coast of the U.S. and Washington, D.C., is almost certainly more familiar than they want to be with Dulles Airport.
First the airport is a sprawling place where trains are required to get from check-in to the planes themselves. (And actually the trains are an improvement on the original “mobile lounge” system, where passengers had to wait up to ten minutes for the lounge-buses to be driven across the tarmac.)
Add tight security to the distance issue, and over the years I have had more passengers miss planes while actually arriving an hour or more before check-in at Dulles than any other airport.
On the positive side, the airport does have a wide variety of shops and restaurants. But it is almost 30 miles from downtown on roads that can be choked with traffic.
The combination of all these factors means that most travelers would far prefer to fly into National Airport, which while cramped and not as modern, is a few minutes from downtown D.C.
Not a month or sometimes even a week goes by in our office without some traveler asking for a nonstop from San Francisco to National. (Or from San Jose or Oakland or even Los Angeles.)
But due to the “Perimeter Rule,” which was implemented 45 years ago, those flights basically don’t exist.
“The Perimeter Rule” was designed to help steer traffic to at that point a new Dulles Airport. And it stated that no flight could travel more than 1,250 miles nonstop from National, which guaranteed Dulles all the cross country traffic.
Over the years, a few exceptions have been made. There are two two flights a day from Seattle to National, one from Los Angeles and four a day from Denver, which is a few hundred miles over the “limit.”
But in general, travelers from west of the Rockies have to fly into Dulles. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports in an editorial, a Congressional bipartisan group is trying again, to repeal the “Perimeter Rule.”
As with most changes in aviation, if the Perimeter Rule is overturned, there will be advantages and disadvantages.
First, if the airlines get more long distance slots into National, no doubt this will mean cancellation of some shorter flights, as the airport has limited capacity. And those who are used to regular short-haul service may lose out, especially as long-haul flights are likely to be more profitable.
Second, no doubt flights into National will not be inexpensive. Already many carriers charge a premium from flights into the airport compared to Dulles or BWI (Baltimore-Washington).
This rejiggering of flights may have other anti-consumer effects beyond the expense of new service. The former routes that may be trimmed will also end up with less competition and hence higher prices.
On the other hand, west coast travelers have the potential to greatly reduce traffic time to and from D.C., and with the Metro linked to National Airport as well as a shorter cab ride, there have to be environmental savings as well.
Stay tuned on this one. Change as we know comes very slowly to Washington But this time with both Democrats and Republicans on board, and both parties looking for relatively safe bipartisan legislation, it could happen this time.
Janice Hough is a California-based travel agent a travel blogger and a part-time comedy writer. A frequent flier herself, she’s been doing battle with airlines, hotels, and other travel companies for over three decades. Besides writing for Travelers United, Janice has a humor blog at Leftcoastsportsbabe.com (Warning, the political and sports humor therein does not represent the views of anyone but herself.)
