Talk:Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

At DCA you can't land after a certain hour. What are those hours? 68.110.237.188 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC) -Generally midnight to 6am. Flights do often land after midnight if they're delayed. And planes do have scheduled departures a bit before 6am because they can line up at the runway before 6am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.140.129 (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

At DCA, it is important to not that the airport's nighttime noise rule is not an operation cerfuew, per the Airports Authority website. It is a method to identify aircraft that exceed certain noise limits. In fact one has never existed. See DCA Nighttime Noise Rule History & Enforcement. Sam.gov (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there a citation for this statement: "Because of limited gate availability and local noise limitations, almost all flights are to destinations within 2000 km (1250 miles)."? What does the distance of the flight have to do with noise level or gate availability? My understanding was that the limited number of long-distance flights was due to some strange political considerations and Congressional oversight. Can anyone clarify things? --Polynova 06:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

A number of airports limit the size of aircraft permitted to land (in part because larger planes have larger jet engines and each engine creating more noise) also larger jet airplanes have a larger air displacement which also creates a noise component on it's own. Finally, the longer runway lengths required are not compatible with the larger engines used on long haul jets. The 757 was often a largest size plane to land at DCA but only with optimal landing conditions.wizbang_fl 05:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatibi (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell from the MWAA site, "gate availability" had nothing to do with it except under the more general umbrella of overcrowding. I rejiggered the language. -choster 01:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In answer to Polynova's question: If longer flights were allowed, they would likely be serviced by larger, noisier aircraft. Senator John McCain tried to get this restriction removed, and opposition cited that as the reason for maintaining it. Eventually Alaska Airlines was granted an exemption to this rule. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not quite. The largest planes able to operate to the airport already fly there. ie 757s. The West Coast flights operated by Alaska are on 737s which is about the average size a/c at DCA. The 1750 mile limit is an archaic regulation that was put in place to shift most long distance traffic to the then fledgling IAD. Since then people have cried foul when an attempt to lift it is made, mainy over noise, which should be a null point. Either way the rule has to due with a perimeter restriction, NOT gate availability or really noise(as far as operational considerations go). The big issue here is the lack of availability of out of perimeter slots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.200.211 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

757s have landed at DCA???!! I'm surprised 68.110.237.188 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

767s have landed at DCA-- Delta substituted them on a couple? of flights at inauguration time. AFAIK widebodies have never been scheduled into DCA, although Eastern tried to get the A300 approved. Pretty sure 757s have been scheduled-- the first jet nonstops to California were probably on 757s.Tim Zukas (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no correlation between aircraft size, flight distance and noise. There is only a correlation between the age of an aircraft and it's engines, it's flight characteristics and noise it generates. A new 787 (which seats over 200 passengers) has a smaller noise footprint than a 757, early model 737's, early model A320's and of course the MD-80's which operate there every day. Removing the perimeter rule will encourage the use of newer and larger aircraft (not sayign a 787 woudl be one of them because of the 200-foot wingspan, just what the reality of new gen aircraft brings) with better takeoff performance and range which would have the effect of quieting the airport. There are only so many destinations viable from DCA, as a result the airlines run more frequency to those markets than they normally would. If they removed the perimeter rule, the average size of aircraft would jump from 94 seats to about 130, in line with other similar sized airports. This would generate 38% more capacity and add about 6 new destinations on the same number of flights with a net decline in overall noise levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure on all the details, but I think recent news is that a private plane was allowed to land at RRWN Aiport. Should someone update the page? PirateMonkey 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It says they're not allowed "with rare exceptions" - does that cover it? - DavidWBrooks 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that's no longer true; a certain number of general aviation aircraft are allowed to land each day now, as long as they have an armed air marshall on board at their expense. —Cleared as filed. 11:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports - The accepted style is not to Wikilink cities or airports. FCYTravis 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

My comment is on the DCA at night image, It is Hain's Point, not Gravelly Point. That park is to the North of the Airport while the picture is of the airport looking across the river from the city

Can we add something about the rule that for incoming flights, all passengers must remain seated for the last half our of the flight, and our outgoing flights, all passengers must remain seated for the first half hour? --Phil Kirlin 20:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

That rule was eliminated several months ago.- choster 23:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

No kidding. Well, I guess I'm in for a more pleasant flight home for Thanksgiving this year.  :) --Phil Kirlin 01:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is a statement under "Tightened security and safety concerns" that talks about that rule and it says that rule was lifted in 2005. Sam.gov (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nothing about the controversy over the partisan naming of the airport for a controversial political figure? {59.121.193.141 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)}Reply

If there are no sources for the "not without controversy" regarding the naming of the airport, AND there is not any sourcing to differentiate the legitimacy of this renaming from any other renaming, then this article needs to be corrected in the interest of neutrality. This article should either:

1. use DCA throughout the entire article OR
2. use National in reference to the airport before the name change and Reagan in reference to the airport after the name change. The name change is still official regardless of what people would like to believe.

To refer to it as Reagan throughout would show lack of neutrality in favor of the new name and in the current state show a lack of neutrality against the new name. -- Tony 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The section on the original name of the airport may need updating. When the airport opened in 1941, the name of the airport was District of Columbia Airport (the general aviation hangar still bears this name). Note that the IATA code is the derived from the original name. -- J.E. Fuller 03:41, 17 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.164.125 (talk)

Because Reagan airport does not have customs and immigration facilities, it only has flights to a few "precleared" international cities. So, can it really be considered an international airport? Given it's name as "National" Airport, I doubt it. —Gintar77 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good question. I am making a wild guess here, but this sounds like Orlando Sanford International Airport. There is only one flight there that heads to the Carribean, which is outside the country, but that is the one reason the airport is considered "international." So, yes, I do believe that the airport should be called "international." (I need to verify there are flights to other areas of the world, to see if this makes things different of my conclusion.)--Press208 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes it can be considered "International". The MWAA has simply chosen to not rename the airport. There are a few airports with no int'l flights that bear the International title. Some have only one flight. One such example is Harrisburg International Airport with only one daily precleared int'l flight to Toronto on an a/c that carries only 19 pax.98.204.200.211 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found this at www.airnav.com under KDCA. Did you know that some crews at the airport mistaken Runway 15 for Runway 19, and vice versa? I know that sounds crazy, but I can see why. Those runways look exactly the same in the picture in the info-box. --Press208 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone could make a trivia section out of this article and add this fact in. If there are no objections, I will carry on with this task. --Press208 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No they would not be confused. Aside from separate ILS frequencies the runways point in different directions, are different approaches and use different approaches. 98.204.200.211 (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I could see pilots doing the river visual for the first time getting the runways confused, as you're almost lined up with 15 at certain parts of the approach. However, airline pilots operating at DCA are, AFAIK, specially trained for this approach, so that confusion should not be present. Still, with the occasional story of airliners landing at the wrong airport, much less the wrong runway, I could see this confusion still being feasible from time to time. I still wouldn't consider it worthy of its own "trivia" section in the article, though. Many airports have areas that sometimes cause some confusion by distracted or unfamiliar pilots, and mistakes do occur. You rarely hear of them because either the co-pilot or ATC correct them before it becomes an issue or even if they commit the mistake, it rarely results in a crash or incursion. Randhuck (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

A discussion was started here regarding the listing thte Shuttle flights. Please add your thoughts to that page. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't find anything at the WikiProject Airlines page about this dispute, I believe this may not be relevant anymore. Especially given the blurb now in the article about Delta Shuttle and US Airways Shuttle. I propose to remove the disputed box. Lapunkd (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. Appears to be a non-issue now. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Rapid growth in air traffic led to the construction of runway extensions in 1950 and 1955."

Far as I can see DCA's runways haven't grown by much more than 100 ft since the airport opened. Anybody know what this sentence is about? Tim Zukas (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please add "San Francisco [begins May 14, 2012]^[1]" under "United Airlines" in the section "Airlines and Destinations."

Rb777ftw (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please add "Los Angeles [begins June 14, 2012]^[2]" under "American Airlines" in the section "Airlines and Destinations." Please be advised the US DOT has opened additional slots beyond the 1250 mile range.^[3] Hence why American and United will have new service to the destinations mentioned. A third slot was given to Delta Airlines for a second daily flight to Salt Lake City^[4]

shakbok (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Done I used the DallasNews source for both, the other sources seemed less reliable. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

...also let's please add the American Airlines flight in the wiki lax airport page. shakbok (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I inadvertently joined into an edit war over adding the content mentioned in the edit request above. Now that I am aware of a problem, I am wondering where the consensus is captured which determines which flights will be added and when. Reading through the edit summaries does not provide this; the summaries are more consistent with a WP:OWN problem. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The appropriate WikiProject guideline is WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which states the following:

For future destinations, add: "[begins date service begins]" - after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date including the year and references should be provided.

No further guidance is provided as to at what stage a future service should be added. Then it comes down to standard WP:RS and WP:V. My usual inclination would be to add the services once they have officially been confirmed by the airline, e.g. in the form of press releases, although the Dallas News story [1] which is reporting an announcement by USDOT looks like a reliable enough source to me (and I don't see why being bookable in the airline's online reservation system is such an important consideration).

If there is a "consensus" that has been reached anywhere, I don't know where it is, and don't feel like trawling through project talk page archives to find it. (My recent experience with WP:AIRPORT is that certain users active in that project don't have a good understanding of what "consensus" means.) Nothing in the protected edit Celestra made appears to violate any general Wikipedia policy or guideline, or any guideline specified by the relevant WikiProject. --RFBailey (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

As long as the destination is officially announced by the airline (official press release) the destination stays since it is confirmed. For UA flights to SFO, the airline hasn't announced the route yet in their press releases. Some airlines may announce new services a couple of days before the airline sells tickets for them. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

And my question was - where is that agreed? It seems reasonable to set a standard for inclusion, but that standard cannot be unilaterally set, it needs to be the consensus of the editors. Were there any discussions about using an airline press release as the standard? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that it wasn't formally agreed anywhere---otherwise it would probably be in the project style guide. --RFBailey (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I suspect you are right, but it is good to have the discussion to find out. The conclusion of the discussion, then, is that there is no such consensus and reverts which try to enforce this standard are simply examples of WP:OWN. Regards, Celestra (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The source for the two paragraphs about flight 537 is an anonymous posting on a blog. If no WP:RS is available, it should be removed TEDickey (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Done: I replace the blog with the report on Aviation safety network; the ASN report cites a couple sources. Sam.gov (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Current entry says the airport is in Arlington County, Virginia. The boundary between VA and DC is defined by the high water mark on the VA side of the Potomac river. The airport is built on reclaimed land that is within the high water mark of the river. This is why Reagan National has a DC address and zip code. It is not technically part of Arlington County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottjn (talk • contribs) 14:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

___________

National Airport has a DC address, and so does Dulles, because the Federal Government, through the FAA, owned the airports until 1986 when MWAA was created. The thought was not to change the mailing address for the airports from the FAA in DC. Both airports are physically located in Virginia, and the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged as much. See Metropolitan Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, 501 U.S. 252, 256 (1991). Moreover, MWAA specifically addresses this issue in the FAQ section of their website:

Both Airports are physically located in Virginia, but have Washington, D.C., mailing addresses. Where are the Airports located legally?

Reagan National: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is located in Virginia. Federal law and Virginia Code both state the airport is "situated within the Commonwealth of Virginia" (see 59 Stat. 552 (1945); 1950 Va. Code Sec 7.1-10 (1983)). There are also court decisions holding the airport is located in Virginia (see Pfister v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation, etc., 675 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (D.C. Cir. 1982); and Bryan v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, 342 A.2d 45 (D.C. Ct. App. 1975)).

Dulles: Washington Dulles International Airport was built on Virginia land acquired by the federal government. When the federal government operated the Airports prior to 1987, both had a Washington, D.C. postal address. To help identify the service area more easily for travelers, the Authority did not change the addresses. MWAA FAQ

Scjiwillbe (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why has all of US Airways Express service merged into one heading? Shakbok (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:AIRPORTS#Listing_of_Regional_Carriers_dba_Mainline_Carrier. All the editors involved agreed that we are now listing brand name only. Rzxz1980 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

One or more of the subheaders seems to overlap an image, making this article not display properly, I tried to move the image, but it doesn't seem to go where I want to put it. If someone can fix this, that would be great. Thanks. Sam.gov (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

On the destinations map, in the state of Alabama, one of the codes is incorrect. It reads "HSL", rather than "HSV", Hunstville, AL. I hope that this information is helpful. Thank you. And sorry if I forgot to sign I can't memorize the IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.22.174 (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://threadex.rcc-acis.org/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/619qxdZkp?url=http://www.mwaa.com/reagan/2544.htm to http://www.mwaa.com/reagan/2544.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515184032/http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6297 to http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6297
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522103012/http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2002/press_release_0051.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2002/press_release_0051.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522103025/http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2005/press_release_0627.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2005/press_release_0627.shtm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metwashairports.com/about/reagan-air-traffic-statistics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

FAA source material (shown on this very page) seems to indicate it is “Ronald Reagan Washington National”, but someone just renamed this article claiming otherwise. So... which is it? Famartin (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Without commenting on whether the recent article renaming was sensible, please note that the official name has very little influence on the naming of any article as per WP:OFFICIAL. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article should probably note that a small portion of the airport is actually within the District of Columbia, as DC includes all of the Potomac River between the DC mainland and Virginia, and some of the airport grounds, including part of the runway, is on reclaimed land, and thus on the DC side of that line. Reference 39 in the article actually notes this, as the title of the bill to name it after Reagan was: "A bill to rename the Washington National Airport located in the District of Columbia and Virginia as the "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport"."(emphasis mine)-2003:CA:8725:A8B1:8933:BDD2:5C17:4E7B (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Their website is officially labelled "flyreagan.com - Reagan National Airport" so maybe this name could be thrown into the lead?

BhamBoi (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a sentence under #Special security measures: "On March 23, 2011, the air traffic control supervisor on duty reportedly fell asleep during the night shift. Two aircraft on approach to the airport were unable to contact anyone in the control tower and landed unassisted"

Many revisions ago (i didn't want to track the change down, it was hundreds of revs ago), the heading of the section was "Tightened security and safety concerns" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan_Washington_National_Airport&oldid=752687447#Tightened_security_and_safety_concerns)

The sentence doesn't really seem to fit there, but I don't know quite where else to put it. I'll let you smart people figure it out. Darkage7_[Talk] 20:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply