Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chair of Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation – the committee that oversees DOT and that drafted the FAA Reauthorization Act language which created these slots – didn’t just write the law that created new slots at Washington’s National airport.
She didn’t just draft language that virtually assigns those slots to specific airlines. In case her point wasn’t clear enough, she’s written to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, in the regulatory docket, explaining who she believes should get the new slots that permit flights greater than 1,250 miles from National airport.
To be sure, section 502 was intended to provide direct access to DCA from unserved beyond perimeter locations in the western and southwestern United States, such as San Antonio and San
Diego.Congress also intended to add more competition and choice for consumers on existing routes
with limited service, such as Las Vegas and Seattle
The two most obvious recipients of beyond-perimeter slot pairs at Washington’s National Airport are American Airlines for San Antonio and Alaska Airlines for San Diego. But Senator Cantwell has made it clear these aren’t just good picks, they are exactly the picks she had in mind.
- San Antonio is the flight that the committee’s ranking member, Ted Cruz (R-TX), wanted in championing these slots.
- San Diego isn’t just a market without current service from the airport, it’s the proposal of her home state airline Alaska.
- Seattle is service in her home state, proposed by Delta which operates a hub there.
- Las Vegas is fairly non-controversial, proposed by Southwest and currently only operated by American.
These are the (4) out of (5) total I’ve been writing will receive beyond-perimeter slot pairs. And Senator Cantwell has made abundantly clear that she expects this to be the outcome of the regulatory proceeding – politely, of course, and DOT could probably get away with only doing three of these four although they’ll likely do all four.
That leaves jockeying over which airline proposals fit into which boxes.
- Congress said 1 of the 5 slot pairs go to a small carrier currently at the airport, and 4 of the 5 to larger carriers (based on operations at the airport).
- DOT said they believe that Alaska counts as a small carrier, but there’s a question of whether they actually have to be considered for one of the four large carrier exemption slot pairs when looking at their operation in conjunction with American Airlines codeshares. If they are a large carrier (“non-limited incumbent”) at the airport, then these are the four flights in that bucket and United’s (San Francisco) and JetBlue’s (San Juan) proposals both fail. If they are a small carrier, then United or JetBlue gets approval.
- If Alaska is a small carrier, they get that slot pair for San Diego. If they are a large carrier, then the question is who else qualifies as a small carrier? DOT thought only Air Canada which isn’t eligible for a domestic slot pair created by the FAA Reauthorization bill.
Spirit says they qualify based on past service at the airport, and a plain read of language suggests that is correct. Their proposal for San Jose makes sense. Frontier says they qualify because – even though their only current flights are exemption slot flights which aren’t counted – a plain read of language suggests they do serve the airport and with zero qualifying slots do not have too many to be a limited-incumbent carrier. Frontier asked for a San Juan flight.
No one will misunderstand, though, that whatever DOT does with that fifth slot – their overseer in the Senate expects four of the slots to go to American, Alaska, Delta, and Southwest.
While other airlines like Southwest, United and Delta argue that congress didn’t intend the largest holder of exemption slots (American) to get another that’s simply no credible when the Chair of the committee that wrote the law is in the docket saying the proposal for a San Antonio flight should be granted, and so is the ranking member of that committee (Senator Cruz).
I’d be remiss though if I didn’t note United’s arguments as being the silliest, suggesting they should be given a slot for another San Francisco flight (departing prior to the earliest allowable time for such a slot) because they are investing the most in biofuels, and because Delta should be disqualified for lobbying to enact these slots in the first place. They note that Delta’s operational performance is not a selection criteria in the law but of course neither is investing in biofuels or one’s lobbying position on the slots themselves. They do get points for calling Southwest’s Las Vegas proposal a gamble, however. (Delta, for their part, argues United should be excluded for arguing against the slots.)
To their credit, Delta recognizes that in seeking to add a flight to an already-served market, it would be tough to argue Southwest’s attempt to do so is flawed – and actually offers supportive comment on the Southwest application for Las Vegas. Meanwhile, “Delta has no comment on the applications filed by Alaska, Frontier, and Spirit in this proceeding” because they aren’t competing for a limited incumbent slot (though Alaska could be bumped up into competition with Delta in the non-limited incumbent category, and their San Diego application will be more highly rated).
My favorite entry into the docket has to be Frontier’s which makes the argument not that its proposal for San Juan is good, or that other airline proposals are lacking, but that they’re the only ones technically eligible in their category for the one non-limited incumbent slot. That is not obvious to me – I believe they would be considered a “new entrant” rather than a “non-limited incumbent” at the airport and the two are mutually exclusive categories – but it’s their shot.
Basically the way the Soviet Union did things.
@Mak the Soviet Union had elected representatives that fought for their constituents?
It always was going to be an uphill battle to argue against new service to a city that doesn’t have it – but it should be clear that everything is fair in love and war. All of the attacks on your competitors are justified if it is increases your own chances.
The fact that Sen. Cantwell also disses United’s proposal could be sweet revenge; it was clear from the beginning that AS had to gain something or it can’t increase its presence from DCA; it has no hubs inside the DCA or LGA perimeters.
And the fact that DL supports WN’s proposal validates that the competitive gains for both airlines is on similar terms.
And DL’s point is valid that AA CAN self-fund a new SAT flight IF it moved one of its existing flights. AA has more than enough DCA slots but will likely still get more.
They should be open to competitive bidding for a multi year contract. Yet again the public is duped! They think government is designed to serve them. What a lie. The regulation is there to support incumbents against newcomers.
Thumbs up to Mak and Joseph. Two people who “get it”.
US senators are nothing but ventriloquists’ dummies operated by their corporate sponsors. Like the old Soviet parliament, their speeches must follow the party line – in this case dictated by their donors.
The slots will go to whichever corrupt corporation has donated the biggest bribe
As a DCA flyer, I welcomed Alaska Air’s being granted theirs slots for beyond the perimeter service from DCA. I welcome Alaska Airlines being able to provide more service from DCA. Not interested in going out to IAD more than I already have to do, and UA has the power there and already too much power at the two primary DC area airports.
Much more JetBlue and Alaska Airlines service is what I really want to see at DCA. American Airlines needs more of a helping hand than Delta, but the big 3 airlines are already too powerful and have already had too many helping hands from the government.
The Soviet Politburo’s dynamics in Moscow was nothing like the US Senate dynamics in Washington during the 20th century or since, but knew-jerk anti-regulation extremists now want to push the falsehood of similarities that really never have been.
The false equivalence shows a deep level of disrespect for democracy in America. But what can we expect from the Project 2025 fan club riding high on MAGA waves.
I can’t believe Delta doesn’t get all 5! My son’s arguments are absolute. They even squat on MSN, OMA, & LEX so stupid AA can’t gain even more market share at DCA! Clowns!
GUWonder demonstrates a level of naivety that implies someone incapable of seeing what’s right in front of their eyes.
For a premium travel experience, please consider Delta.
James N seems lost in space (and time).
Elected politicians in the US represent their voting constituents and the financial backers of their campaigns while engaging in “scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back” games. No less so nowadays when the Republican-stacked Supreme Court thinks companies should have all the same rights and more than actual human beings. This is still very different than what it was like with the Politburo in the Soviet Union. But don’t let reality and the weight of history stop all the false equivalency from the B*den-haters looking forward to the Putin-loving Insurrectionist-in-Chief’s return to the White House to deliver on Project 2025.
Nothing says freedom and free markets like government deciding which companies get to offer a service and who gets to profit, aside from the politicians themselves of course. Sounds a bit like…fascism?
This is BOOOORING.
The very Mantis who supports politicians who are a fan of reproductive rights for rapists but not reproductive choice for raped women and girls is now lecturing Americans about freedom? Oh, that’s right, freedom for corporations and freedom (from taxes and from equality under the law) for billionaires are more important than freedom for ordinary Americans when it comes to people such as the fake hillbilly from the suburbs of Dayton/Cincinatti, his crooked MAGA Lord and their enablers.
A free market is great but that is not what you get absent having a liberal democracy with consistently used rules of the game that have a chance to help consumers have more choices and control than that wished for by the “regulate nothing” corporate apologists and cheerleaders for self-serving billionaires.
It’s extremely difficult to follow GUWonder’s rambling, as his views are both inconsistent and nonsensical.
Can James N demonstrate his claim? Or should it be suggested that maybe a summer school remedial reading class may be helpful and that struggling with complexity is a sign of not being a “thought-leader”? ROTFLOL
Politicians picking which companies win and which lose is Fascism, not Sovietism, because they are not nationalizing the companies. But US air traffic control is Soviet and outdated, unlike the modern free-market Canadian air traffic control. US ATC should be privatized, as should the TSA blue shirts, as was done at SFO. Privatization and competition are better than Crony Capitalism, which is a step towards Fascism and Sovietism.
Politicians trying to tip the scale in favor of their constituents or companies in their home areas is not fascism. It’s what happens in a republic that accepts pluralism.
Change business practises
James N, the difficulty in following GUWonder says more about you than them. Level up and offer a well constructed rebuttal, or alternatively, consider expand your critical thinking skills by watching something other than fox news.