Anonymous wrote:How many times are you all flying? Most average family with professional income would fly maybe 2-4 times a year max.. You all sounds like you are a jet setting crowd having to travel for work while business travel is not back to its former level with all the work from home zoom culture created during the pandemic.

We already have way too many airplanes over residential neighborhoods with no way to route them to not become a major headache for people living under these multiple flight paths. Planes are now flying over densely populated areas all over the place, not just along the river path or less populated or industrial parts. Where would the 4th airport go? Will there be any area of DC metro where you won't have planes fly overhead every minute for hours on end?

If you are for building a 4th airport in some rural far away area that would take some load off of DCA (which is located smack in the middle of densely populated area), I am all for it. DCA air traffic noise had become a huge PITA not only for some DC areas or those along the river, but also for many NOVA densely populated suburbs. We need fewer planes flying there, not more.

Anonymous wrote:How many times are you all flying? Most average family with professional income would fly maybe 2-4 times a year max.. You all sounds like you are a jet setting crowd having to travel for work while business travel is not back to its former level with all the work from home zoom culture created during the pandemic.

We already have way too many airplanes over residential neighborhoods with no way to route them to not become a major headache for people living under these multiple flight paths. Planes are now flying over densely populated areas all over the place, not just along the river path or less populated or industrial parts. Where would the 4th airport go? Will there be any area of DC metro where you won't have planes fly overhead every minute for hours on end?

If you are for building a 4th airport in some rural far away area that would take some load off of DCA (which is located smack in the middle of densely populated area), I am all for it. DCA air traffic noise had become a huge PITA not only for some DC areas or those along the river, but also for many NOVA densely populated suburbs. We need fewer planes flying there, not more.

Anonymous wrote:I take Reagan National more than the other two

Anonymous wrote:Dulles is a joke

Anonymous wrote:
Dulles isn’t perfect, but I think you’re exaggerating how “bad” it is. I agree that the United terminal is a dump and needs refreshing- which I think is on the works. The rest of the airport is fine.

As for BWI, wish it had more international service. Maybe another flight or two to Europe? Something to Asia would be great too. Howard County has a huge Korean population, but I guess not enough to support a flight?

Anonymous wrote:We need a 4th airport in this area. With BWI crowded and limited on location, Dulles only catering to international destinations and National having distnace limits, its time we have a 4th airport open up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To reply to the OP, we have built out the infrastructure for airports.
The truth is, we now need quality high speed rail in the DC region.
DC to NYC needs to be vastly improved.
And we really need to go south to Charlotte and Atlanta with high speed rail.
Also, DC to Pittsburgh to Cleveland would also be a good starting route
There's a great old book on this subject called Supertrains by Joseph Vranich that has maps on where high speed rail should go in the USA.
https://www.amazon.com/Supertrains-Solutions-Americas-Transportation-Gridlock/dp/0312064764/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=supertrains&qid=1664968101&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjAwIiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sr=1-1

High speed rail would really help local flights of 400 miles or less.

Not really an option given what we are seeing now at the stations with crime and homelessness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124.

I know how airports and airlines operate. They don't pay for the airports. They don't pay for the security. And they don't be for the air traffic controllers.
And if they did, none of them would generate a profit and be in the same boat as Amtrak.

Anonymous wrote:A 4th airport would severely impact our environment. It’s better to improve the ones we have now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I avoid IAD if I can. Worst airport.

+1

We don't need a 4th airport. It's just that IAD is really terrible. Nothing worse than getting crammed into those weird shuttle buses between terminals after a long international flight. Tear it down and rebuild from scratch.

+1
I've never ever been to a major airport as bad as Dulles - it's just embarrassing on so many fronts but particularly that it's an int'l airport as it makes us look ridiculous. The stupid trams where people rightfully crowd around the door rather than go in since you have to leave the same way you enter. The low ceilings. The crappy food options. The lack of enough electronic walkways. Awful awful awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish we could take the train to more places. For instance, my family would like to go to NYC, Boston, Philly, or south to places like Charleston, New Orleans. Driving is a problem because parking is problematic in big cities. For my family though, trains are usually 2-3x the price of plane tickets and take a lot longer.

We like IAD a lot. Direct flights to nearly everywhere we want to go! But IAD also doesn't have any low cost flights like DCA and BWI have. Every time I price out flights, DCA and BWI are cheaper.

+1

I was hoping to take the train recently and it was MORE expensive than flying.

Trains are both more expansive and heavily subsidized. Perhaps it’s more expensive because it’s subsidized. No thanks.

AIRPORTS ARE HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

If airlines had to pay for the airport, the air traffic controllers and the security, NONE OF THEM WOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT.

Let’s see, which entity can go bankrupt? (A) airline or (B) Amtrak?

Which entity can go bankrupt? If airlines had to build the airports, pay for the air traffic controllers and the security they would all be bankrupt cause NONE of them would make a profit.
Trust me, if the airlines could make a profit with paying for any of them, congress would not foot the bill on any of items I mentioned.

And yes Amtrak is subsidized.

What really should happen is Airlines should embraced trains and the government should give them contracts to operate the trains. Let the government pay for the infrastructure. Let the airlines pay for the actual train and train maintenance and let them operate the day to day ticketing, etc. of trains.
Airlines should think of themselves as passenger transportation companies rather than just airlines. BTW I'm surprised none of them ever considered buying a "greyhound" type company.

You seem to be having a meltdown over Amtrak which is really bizarre and fun at the same time.

It’s hilarious though how you have no clue about how airports operate. Here’s a tip: WMAA is not subsidized. WMAA OPEX is supported through landing fees and other operating revenues like commercial rents. WMAA CAPEX is funded by bonds that are repaid through passenger surcharges on tickets.

Amtrak on the other hand received $2 billion per year in Federal operating subsidies. That doesn’t even include capital projects which can be funded through direct appropriations. The average Amtrak fare receives a Federal subsidy of $124.

We need a national rail service. It is the most sustainable way of traveling. Imagine how much worse the highways would be if there were no Amtrak on the east coast. Amtrak, like the Postal Service and the US Military, are government services. They don't need to turn a profit because we as taxpayers understand their societal cvalue, even if they lose money.