The War Over Long-Distance Flights at Reagan National

Lawmakers from Western states and others are pushing to allow long-distance flights from Reagan National Airport, the smaller of Washington's two airports. Located just four miles from the Capitol, Reagan is limited by a "perimeter rule" that bans flights longer than 1,250 miles to minimize plane traffic over the Virginia communities that line the Potomac River. That means non-stop flights cannot reach distant cities like San Francisco, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix.

Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, both Democrats, have fought vigorously to keep the limits on traffic at Reagan, but a bipartisan band of senators, including Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), have resurrected the issue in negotiations with the House over a bill financing the Federal Aviation Administration, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

The airline industry and senators who support the change, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), argue that opening up Reagan would drive down fares for longer-distance domestic flights and lift an industry that has struggled to recover from the economic downturn.

But some residents of the predominantly wealthy Virginia suburbs of Alexandria, Arlington and Fairfax are incensed.

"I'm horrified," Leo Schefer, president of the Washington Airports Task Force, a nonprofit group that has fought to limit Reagan National's capacity, told the Post. "It's a bunch of Western senators meddling with our local community. How would they feel if we started meddling with their community?" Other opponents include the McLean Citizens Association, which has also pushed for noise walls along the Beltway and questioned the District's handling of a Metro extension to Dulles Airport.

Lawmakers' efforts to change the rules could be read as an attempt to overrule the community's wishes because they can't be bothered to travel 25 miles out of town to fly from Dulles. It's not clear, however, that the opposition amounts to much more than well-off Virginians reacting to a perceived threat to their comfort. And other residents of the D.C. area, who are neither elected officials nor Beltway elites, could benefit from the change.

The same kind of fight over increasing long-distance flights took place in Dallas, Texas, in the middle of the last decade. A federal law known as the Wright Amendment imposed a perimeter rule on Love Field, Dallas' smaller airport, to help Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport grow into a world-class travel hub. After DFW became the third busiest airport in the world, smaller airlines headquartered at Love Field argued that lifting the perimeter rule would open up competition with major airlines and drive down fares at both airports. Community groups pushed back with prophecies of unbearable noise over their neighborhoods.

But their fears were unfounded. A year after some of the restrictions on Love Field were removed, fares dropped, passengers increased, and the community groups conceded that there had been no change in noise around Love Field. Officials at both airports agreed that the change had been beneficial.

Under the current restrictions, a flight from Reagan to Albuquerque, New Mexico, costs roughly $500 on up and only slightly less from Dulles International. The same flight from New York City costs about $250. Allowing long-distance flights from Reagan would allow smaller Western carriers to operate out of the airport and almost certainly drive down prices at both of Washington's airports. Lower airfares might not matter much to residents of neighborhoods around Reagan, which are located in two of America's highest-income counties, but saving several hundred dollars per flight is nothing to sneeze at for Americans making average salaries and lawmakers on federal expense accounts.

As it currently stands, there seems to be little reason to complain about noise at Reagan. At my residence in Alexandria, Virginia, about six miles from the airport, planes are barely visible and their noise is inaudible. From a friend's home in Arlington, three miles away, planes are often seen but rarely heard. McLean, Virginia, the home of one of the groups protesting the change, is about 12 miles from the airport.

Just like in Dallas, there is no hard evidence that changing the rules would lead to roaring planes. US Airways, the largest carrier at Reagan, says that long-distance flights do not necessarily require larger planes, though it is generally more cost-efficient for airlines to fly larger planes on long-distance routes. Opening up the airport to distant cities does not automatically mean the overall number of flights must increase significantly. Lawmakers could work out a compromise that opened up longer routes but kept the flights to a reasonable number. The FAA has responded to noise complaints from Virginia residents in the past, and pilots can adjust their routes to minimize traffic over homes.

Opponents who accuse lawmakers of "meddling with the community" overlook the fact that Reagan has a long history as part of the Washington community, which includes members of Congress who live and work in the D.C. area. (Many of them even live in the Virginia suburbs from which complaints are emanating. Sen. John McCain, one of the proposal's supporters, lives in Arlington.)

From a citizen's perspective, lawmakers should be encouraged to make frequent trips to visit their families and spend time in their districts. The less time they spend inside the Beltway the better. In this case, helping the big guy also helps the little guy.