LIES AND DISTORTIONS ABOUT WAYPORTS Media, professors, government, institutional, industry, consultants and airport officials who failed to do research incorrectly defined Wayports with distortions, untrue articles, reports and speeches. In some cases they spread untruths to protect their turf or defend their failure. They misled media and each other by failing to do research or contact the author of Wayports. To this day this has caused confusion and misunderstanding. They have made no apologies or effort to clear it up and still refuse to discuss this with the author of wayports. .  The uninformed said a Wayport was not economically feasible because they needed at least 20% origin/destination passengers to survive financially. Charlotte and Cincinnati are successful hubs with only 20% O&D and 80% connections. Atlanta has 70% connections. Wayports will provide revenues needed for phased development and operation. Wayports will have substantial activity when opened in 10 years because existing airports will be gridlocked and heavily rationed. Connecting operations have been reduced, eliminated or relocated from hub airports like St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Dallas-Ft Worth and Cincinnati that proves it can be done without significant harm.  Wayports is still confused with Transportation Research Board's (TRB) effort to rename it to "Remote Transfer Airport" described as "in the middle of nowhere" and "for exclusive use of connecting and transfer passengers".  Wayports were never advocated to be located in the middle of nowhere or be exclusively for connecting passengers. Who would not welcome O&D passengers. Wayports were never advocated to exclude revenue producing activities because Federal law prohibits exclusion of aeronautical activities from publicly owned airports.  Wayports are located on the fringe of metropolitan/urban areas on undeveloped and inexpensive land. This is confirmed in GAO-02-185 (2001) and FAA official definition of Wayports used in Federal Court cases.  Wayports are located where they work best and open to all revenue producing activities including O&D and connecting passengers, cargo, express mail, general aviation, postal, maintenance bases, aircraft manufacturing and commercial and industrial sites. TRB made favorable comments about Wayports but confused many by associating them with the term "Remote Transfer Airport". Misinformation spread by enemies and those who feared Wayports appeared in some cases to be intentional. They feared Wayports would be too competitive by offering attractive economic terms and conditions that would siphon off users and business from existing hubs. Some feared business would be lost by being bypassed as Interstate Highway opponents feared being by-passed.  Those fears are unfounded because wayports is not a near-term but a long-term solution. The quickest they could come on line would be 10 years. Opposition to noise, air pollution and other environmental issues is not the reason only two new large hub airports have been constructed in the last 60 years. Its because none have been proposed. Existing airports are expanded because new supplemental airports are opposed. In spite of distortion and fallacies, Wayports was supported by aviation, non-aviation, institutions, consultants, media, manufacturers, federal, state and local governments as well as airport opposition groups. FAA prepared a long-term study saying Wayports would be needed in the long-term, however, FAA never used it even though the study was directed by Congress. FAA opposes Wayports and believes all that's needed to meet long-term demand until 2025 is expand the 35 busiest existing airports. Wayports would be the least expensive, quickest and most environmentally acceptable way to provide massive long-term 30-40 year system wide capacity. Long-term studies have not been done by appropriate authorities. Wayports have not been evaluated as an alternative to expanding the 35 busiest U.S. airports indefinitely.   .