“By limiting the number of flights in and out of National Airport, we’re putting pressure on consumers. They’re paying the price,” Johnson said in a statement. , facing the highest domestic ticket prices compared to other major markets due to limited competition.”
The move drew opposition from local legislators and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which administers the National and Washington Dulles International Airports. The agency has long opposed changes to air service at National, arguing that the airport was too small to accommodate the additional air service.
The MWAA says relaxing boundary rules could increase noise and congestion, as well as reduce service at smaller airports. Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va., said the bill would hurt regional airports.
“This is a dangerously misguided bill that will cripple both DCA and Dulles Airport, causing severe congestion and delays and canceling service options that make it difficult for Americans to come to the metropolitan area. ‘, she said in a statement. She said, “Boundary rule changes are counterproductive, unnecessary, and waste taxpayers’ billions of dollars of investment, including Metro’s Silver Line expansion.”
The law is in response to a campaign announced by the US government last month. Capital Access Alliancea coalition of business groups, persuades Congress to amend rules they say are outdated and hurting local economies. One.
To back up its claims, the CAA released a study by the Boston Consulting Group that found that expanding the number of long-haul flights on National would reduce airline ticket prices by an average of $60, with economic benefits of up to $400 million. was estimated to be produced. Additional federal and state tax revenue for the region of $70 million.
“When federal regulations become outdated, unnecessarily harming American consumers and arbitrarily burdening our nation’s economic growth, it’s time for Congress to take action,” Owens said. said in a statement.
National and Dulles are the only U.S. airports owned by the federal government, which allows the federal government to make decisions about how airports operate. Over the years, legislators representing states outside the region have amended the rules twice at the National over opposition from regional delegations.
In 1981, Congress increased the flight range from the original 650 miles to 1,000 miles. In 1986 it was extended to its current 1,250 miles. Legislators are also opening up exemptions to allow a small number of flights to cities such as Austin, Seattle, Denver and Phoenix.
In March, senators representing Virginia and Maryland — Mark R. Warner, Tim Kaine, Ben Cardin, and Chris Van Hollen, all Democrats — told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation about their attempt to change the boundary rules. I sent a strong letter of opposition.
But local members of Congress may cut their jobs, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C., said last month. An increase in long-haul flights at the National is less a partisan issue than a geographic issue that might gain support among legislators in states outside the 1,250-mile limit.
A 2021 report by the Government Accountability Office explored the impact of boundary rules at Nationals and cited mixed results. I did not take a position on this issue. The GAO said allowing more long-haul flights would allow National to operate larger aircraft, which would not only spur an increase in passenger numbers, but also increase traffic volume and reduce capacity to accommodate additional travelers. We have found that concerns have also been raised about whether there is enough space at airports.
However, he points out that lifting the rule could increase competition and reduce airfares on some long-haul routes. The GAO cautioned that “such effects are difficult to predict or quantify.”
“The proposed bill goes far beyond past attempts to expand DCA slots and would dangerously overload the airport’s ability to operate to benefit a single airline,” said Don. Rep. Beyer (D-Va.) said in a statement. “The very title of the ‘Direct Access to Capital Act’ suggests that this bill will maximize the personal convenience of a relatively small number of strong and well-connected individuals at the expense of flight safety and efficiency. It makes clear that it is written to do, and that should be our number one priority.”
