Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will Wayports Ever Happen In The U.S.?  
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8396 times:

I remember hearing about the wayport concept many years ago but nothing seems to have come of it. I did a little looking around on the net and it seems the FAA may be interested in this concept as a means of relieving pressure from city airports by moving connecting passengers away from the city to basically rural airports. This isn't like building a baseball field out in the middle of a corn field. I just don't think anyone would use it. You can pull this off with cargo hubs but passenger hubs not so much. There is actually a website dedicated to this. http://wayports.com/index.html

What are your thoughts on this?


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGraphic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8381 times:

It would pretty much double the amount of commercial flights in the U.S. today, why would the FAA crying "Overscheduling! Overcrowding!" even think of wanting something like this?

User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8360 times:

I don't think its about the number of flights but rather where the flights are going to/from. For example under the current system you'd see.... (remember these numbers are hypothetical)

10x daily ORD-LAX - mainline
8x daily ORD-JFK - mainline
3x daily ORD-some small airport - rj
3x daily ORD-some small airport - rj
3x daily ORD-some small airport - rj
3x daily ORD-some small airport - rj

Under the wayport system it would be...
10x daily ORD-LAX - mainline
8x daily ORD-JFK - mainline
6x daily ORD-BFE wayport - mainline

Let some middle of nowhere facility handle all that rj traffic and then route them to the big city/hub via mainline. To me where would be absolutely no point routing LAX and JFK passengers through a wayport. I wonder how much ORD would benefit from cleaning out all that rj traffic?



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlinePHLwok From United States of America, joined May 2007, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8328 times:

One of the reasons why some passengers hubs work better than others is that the more successful ones have a mix of both O&D and connecting traffic. Rural airports would depend almost exclusively on the latter, and most airlines wouldn't prefer that as there's more risk their loads would be lower. Even places like PIT, which was heavily dependent upon connecting traffic but has a moderate-sized metro area and, at least in theory, a good location to relieve some of the congestion in the NE US, isn't working as a hub these days. MCI and STL (and, lest we forget, BLV, MidAmerica "St Louis" Airport) are also geographically good locations for connecting hubs, but are overshadowed by the likes of DEN, DFW and ORD.

User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8312 times:

Would the problem correct itself if the airlines and airports were required to pay for all the expansion work on their own instead of hitting up taxpayers? How would this play out if airlines were told that you either pay for the full cost of expansion at ORD or you use a taxpayer funded wayport? Also with the wayports I believe they would be exclusively connecting traffic.


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 743 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8310 times:

I don't really understand the idea of wayports, could someone please explain then to me.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8284 times:



Quoting Indy (Reply 4):
Would the problem correct itself if the airlines and airports were required to pay for all the expansion work on their own instead of hitting up taxpayers?

We wouldn't have much expansion at airports if carriers were required to pay for it. If that's your definition of the problem correcting itself then yes, the problem would be corrected.

Quoting Indy (Reply 4):
How would this play out if airlines were told that you either pay for the full cost of expansion at ORD or you use a taxpayer funded wayport?

Then, carriers would take a third option: keep the status quo.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineCloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8213 times:



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 5):
I don't really understand the idea of wayports, could someone please explain then to me.

From what I gather, a Wayport is simply a hub airport, but one that is not actually associated with a city. It's one of those quick-thought not really thought out ideas. The theory is that you move the connecting flights from an airport in a city to an airport out in the boonies. Some how they seem to think this would somehow reduce traffic at airports.

It doesn't make much sense, though. The only place it reduces traffic is at hubs, and it's not like every airport is a hub. For that matter, those airports that are hubs and are overcrowded are overcrowded simply because they are hubs. You are just going to move the connection problem somewhere else, and on top of it you will now have to add flights back to the city that was the original hub. Quite frankly, there are plenty of cities that have more than adequate space to support hub flying, but currently are well underutilized.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 743 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8206 times:

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 7):


Quoting BAKJet (Reply 5):
I don't really understand the idea of wayports, could someone please explain then to me.

From what I gather, a Wayport is simply a hub airport, but one that is not actually associated with a city. It's one of those quick-thought not really thought out ideas. The theory is that you move the connecting flights from an airport in a city to an airport out in the boonies. Some how they seem to think this would somehow reduce traffic at airports.

It doesn't make much sense, though. The only place it reduces traffic is at hubs, and it's not like every airport is a hub. For that matter, those airports that are hubs and are overcrowded are overcrowded simply because they are hubs. You are just going to move the connection problem somewhere else, and on top of it you will now have to add flights back to the city that was the original hub. Quite frankly, there are plenty of cities that have more than adequate space to support hub flying, but currently are well underutilized.

I get it now. The idea is cool, at first. But, then you realize airports won't be anyless crowded. It is still a hub.

BTW-Waht would they be called if they are not associated with a city (Wayport 12A???)   . Could a wayport be your destination if was the closes place to your destination.

[Edited 2007-11-17 14:46:53]

[Edited 2007-11-17 14:48:03]

User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8156 times:

I wondered myself how the wayport system would work if it happened to be where you wanted to go. If you opened it up to o/d then you'd be starting the problem all over again. The problem really isn't airport crowding but rather aircraft congestion. Using ORD as an example a wayport could be used as a RJ hub basically. Bring the regional jets to the wayport and combine the passengers on a mainline flight to ORD. So you'd have 1 flight then instead of 2 or 3. If the person arriving on the RJ was heading to another RJ destination they'd just skip ORD completely. Those going to Chicago or a mid size or large airport would go to ORD and either terminate their trip or connect on a mainline flight to another destination. Basically its using your limited space at ORD a bit more wisely. Why bring in 40 people in a jet when you can bring in over 120? Building a wayport would likely cost far less than expansion at a large airport where even adding a runway costs a billion dollars.


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineCloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8020 times:

But people wouldn't connect through ORD anymore in your scenario. You would be adding extra stops, which is already a big issue. All you are doing is shifting the traffic away from one airport, in this case ORD, and shifting it somewhere else. You still will be accommodating the same number of passengers traveling through, but now you have to add Chicago traffic on top of that. While in theory you can say you can expand infinitely out in the suburbs, the reality is that there aren't going to be many places people are going to let you build these huge airports. And there comes a point when you can't just keep adding runways - traffic starts interfering with itself. It also doesn't address the main issue - congestion, both with the number of people in the airport as well as the number of planes waiting to land and take off.

Fact is, if you are willing to make concessions, the easy thing to do is use larger planes, but there are a whole raft of arguments against that as well. The idea is noble, but the reality is uncooperative.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlineRam025 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7940 times:

Wouldnt this be like regulation all over again?


Follow the PAPI in
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7901 times:

You are handling the same number of passengers but you are doing it with fewer flights in and out of ORD. If the USA Today report is correct that ORD is nearly half regional jet service now using a wayport would relieve a great deal of pressure. You could take for example 200 of those daily regional jet flights and move them to the wayport. That is a reduction of 400 actions daily. Now run 70 daily mainline flights between the wayport and ORD. Thats an increase of 140 actions. The result is a net decrease of 260 daily actions at ORD. So you would need a wayport with a pair of runways to handle the traffic of 270 daily departures.

So what would cutting 130 daily departures from ORD do to delays?



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2051 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7888 times:

You're still running all of those RJ flights to the wayport and now adding a mainline flight from that wayport to ORD.
The problems I see: (yes some have been covered already)
Passengers will not want an additional connection where luggage and time is lost
Airlines will not want to add additional legs that passengers don't want to fly
Airlines will not want to add all of the additional staff at the new wayport
Airlines will not want to buy all of the new ground equipment required at the new wayport
Nobody will want to pay the billions of dollars for the new wayport


User currently offlineVctony From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7873 times:

This has already been tried. MEM serves, in a sense, as a waypoint for NW. CVG serves, in a sense, as a waypoint for DL. PIT used to serve this function for US. MEM and CVG were cut dramatically when the industry went sour and the PIT hub was eliminated altogether. It seems that the money isn't made with the connections, it's made with the O/D passengers. I can't see how airlines would make money in the waypoint system. If anything, the major airlines would just stop serving the smaller destinations and it is conceivable that you could see only service from ORD to other large O/D destinations. If such a system was implemented, kiss most air service to metro areas with populations less than 750,000 goodbye, IMHO.

User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7853 times:



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 13):
Nobody will want to pay the billions of dollars for the new wayport

Then let them pay countless billions to expand places like ORD. And by them I mean the airlines and the passengers that use those airlines.



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineVctony From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7799 times:

What theoretically should happen is that we develop some sort of high speed train system to link these wayports to the main airport/cities. I've always thought high speed rail and airline system would work well. For example, what if a wayport was built in Rochelle, IL that had high speed train links to downtown Chicago, as well as ORD, MDW, and RFD. In that sense, the traffic between the waypoint and main airport (as well as city) would all be via the train.

User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7784 times:

Something like maglev maybe where the service is hundreds of miles per hour?


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9159 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7743 times:

Without O&D traffic there is no hub. Simple as that. It has to be a good mix of business and leisure traffic to which the transfer passengers add.

There are "Wayports existing today, they are calles secondary or tertiary hubs, Without local traffic, they cannot exist.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7737 times:

You have to look at this wayport concept as basically a package hub much like what FX runs in MEM and IND. Basically they are nothing more than connection only hubs. It sounds like that is what they are shooting for with this wayport concept.


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9159 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7684 times:

There is a big difference between cargo and self loading cargo. What works for freight, doesn ot work for passengers. Freight does not care where it is distributed, the criteria are cut-off and delivery times. What happens between these two key times does not affect shipper and consignee.

Passengers need a wide variety of offers, some are time sensitive only, most are cost sensitive as well and for the carrier, the yield mix is most important. A hub without local traffic is not sustainable.

There are some well equipped, under used airports in the centre of America, MCI, STL If an airline sees an opportunity there, they will take it.

No need to build new facilities in Rochelle IL, or other places, when there is existing, underused infrastructure.

.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7612 times:

How would you resolve this issue without costing the taxpayers endless billions of dollars? It just seems we'll be seeing so little return on tax dollar by attempting to rework ORD. Look what happened in ATL. They spent $1.2 billion for a 5th runway and it accomplished what? ATL was ranked dead last in departure delays in September of 2007.

http://www.avoiddelays.com/worst-off...ost-delayed-departure-airports.asp

They were dead last/worst in departure delays. What is the hope for them now?



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineBrucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6921 times:

This is an interesting topic.

Despite the call for better technology and airspace management for the FAA (which is still needed for other reasons), the cause of delays will still be limited (in my opinion) by airport runway infrastrcture capacity. These hubs that we now have at places like ORD do have a significant amount of local traffic to support them, however perhaps limited options in expanding runways. I live near DEN and occasionally do a practice ILS into there at night time when traffic levels are less, and it's obvious that not only is there runway layout really efficient (all 6 runways can be almost operated in isolation to each other- no crossing runways, and very good for converging approaches and diverging departures); but even further runway expansion is really achievable. DEN is built a long way from the city, which to some extent led to the forced closure of Stapleton and no airline access to the feeder airports at BJC and APA, so travellers are forced to drive the 20-30 miles to DEN from the city. This seems to be a compromise between Wayports and the older more traditional (as in ORD) hib airports, and is high;y successful here at DEN- with no curfews to boot as it's so far from any population centers.

Bruce.


User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6792 times:

Is it even possible to do in Atlanta and/or Chicago what was done in Denver? Or on a larger scale what is being done in Dubai? Build a brand new ATL & ORD far outside of the city. Just a thought.


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineVctony From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6746 times:

Rural Illinois and Rural Georgia likely have enough room for large airports. However, and I know this sounds like I should be posting this on railroads.net (don't know if that exists or not) a better, more sustainable, solution would be to develop a high speed rail network up and down the east coast/Midwest. Use the airports for long distance travel (as well as some regional travel inaccessible by the rail network) and use the train for the high capacity routes.

25 ScottB : Departure delays aren't as relevant as arrival delays, and ATL did do somewhat better for arrival delays. The fact that EV has about 1/3 of the opera
26 PPVRA : Better management of airports can significantly reduce this. Look at any "Second airport for ATL" thread and you'll see the same theme come up over an
27 Post contains images MKE22 : YX operates a secondary hub at MCI.
28 Post contains images Lightsaber : The "oldschool" definitions based on OUTBOUND traffic source (O&D or connecting from an inbound flight): 0 to 30% connecting traffic: Spoke. Examples
29 Post contains links BAe146 : Close, there's http://www.railpictures.net/
30 Indy : Their arrival delays were bad too. Better than 1 in 5 arrivals in ATL were delayed. And that is as good as it is going to get. They've built their ne
31 Post contains images Windstepper : Just my . Build RJ aiports to relieve congestion at the ORD's and ATL's and connect the airports with a rail system like the one going from HKG to dow
32 Iaddca : the wayport concept was an academic, knee-jerk, 1980s response to all the hubbing that took place right after de-reg plenty of other ridiculous ideas
33 Avek00 : I greatly beg to differ on this. CVG is still a sizeable hub in its own right, with a number of daily departures that rivals CO at EWR.
34 Rampart : When regional planners were scoping a new site for what was to become DIA, in the early 80s, the "wayport" idea was a consideration. Several distant
35 Tornado82 : Basically there's a Wayport waiting to happen. The PIT Airport is built for a connecting hub but isn't in the big cities like NYC, PHL, ORD. It's been
36 Post contains images Lightsaber : Not to mention STL, ICT... and as I noted before, IAD, DEN, and IAH will be ready to take on more traffic as well as PHX, LAS2 and a few others. No n
37 Vctony : I beg to differ with PHX. PHX is located in the heart of the urban core (only about 3 miles from downtown Phoenix and about the same distance from do
38 Post contains images ZTagged : They came, they saw, they demanded, they under-delivered, they ripped us off blind, they left.
39 Avek00 : Nope. PIT wasted its money.
40 ScottB : Actually, I don't think it is as simple as "[t]hey've built their new runway and it didn't fix anything." We don't know what the delays would have be
41 Indy : It doesn't really matter in this case what it would have been. The point is they have their 5th runway and it wasn't any better than this and it will
42 Tornado82 : Agreed... then they whine when our politicians call them out for these very truths.
43 N1120A : With this point I agree. Cargo doesn't care where it gets off, as long as there are roads and rail lines connecting to the place. This is why ONT is
44 Post contains images Lightsaber : Please do. I'd love to see Ted Williams International gateway take off. But I'm also reading about terminal and runway expansion at PHX. Yes, the 4th
45 Contrails : I've been interested in this concept since Congress held hearings on it back in the 90's. It sounds good, in theory, but I see two big problems with i
46 Cubsrule : The problem with props at ORD is that, for a time, all-jet was a HUGE selling point for MQ versus UA Express (in fact, there's still some MQ advertis
47 N1120A : I realize that was the flawed reasoning behind it, but it may well be a negotiating point with the FAA against a reduction in runway capacity.
48 Cubsrule : Tough to say... I sense that the threat not to increase runway capacity when the new runway comes online was an empty one.
49 EXAAUADL : yields would be very low due to the lack of local traffic......given places like PIT, CVG and MEM all with populations over 1 million barely survive a
50 Post contains links Wayports1 : Wayports is defined and described at www.wayports.com. It covers Vision. Executive Summary, Problem, Solution, Endorsements, Clarifications and Defini
51 Post contains images Lightsaber : With all due respect, that's a rehash. You cannot plan "a system" to fix the constraints. No one flies to airports (except to do business at the airp
52 Cloudboy : Wayports1 - I think you are missing our argument. Our point is we don't NEED new airports. The problem isn't a general lack of ground space for aircra
53 Wayports1 : Worldwide air passengers, cargo and mail are forecasted to triple in the next twenty years. Airport capacity must be increased or our economy and empl
54 Cloudboy : Beyond the question of whether or not those predictions of the doubling and tripling of air traffic in the upcoming years have ever proved valid or no
55 DocLightning : I have a much better idea than wayports: Maglev. Yes, Maglev. A maglev train is capable of 200-300 MPH on the ground. And to make things even better,
56 PanHAM : Just a few things here, first, it is not true that no new airports have been built except DFW and DEN. Less than an hour driving tme west of DFW you f
57 PPVRA : And they are grid-locked today. All "wayports" would do is push back another inevitable grid-lock, if they actually worked (I doubt). It's not "ratio
58 Toxtethogrady : No surprise at that. An airport with no O&D can't support a hub - never has and never will. This concept at one time went to extremes with the predic
59 DiscoverCSG : Are you talking about Charleston, WV? ?? ??? ???? Europe's cities are profoundly different in their layout from American cities: America has sprawlin
60 Cubsrule : This is a vast oversimplification, and it's one that, if examined a bit more deeply, actually provides some insight about wayports. The interstate sy
61 PPVRA : They are grid-locked in the big city centers. . . just like airports. Road widening projects happen everywhere, but its only a matter of time before
62 Cloudboy : One man's light traffic is another man's SPRAWL! I don't necessarily that road construction has actually provided a benefit in some areas, it has sim
63 Cloudboy : Look, it's not that waypoints wouldn't be efficient, or wouldn't work ever. It's that they don't work with our current model of air travel. Right now
64 PanHAM : @ Cloudboy - you are re-inventing air travel as it used to be in the early days and long before de-regulation. These days we had interlining, clearing
65 AADC10 : Wayports are a long way from making any sense. The reason for the current crowding is the heavy use of planes with fewer than 100 seats. Slot restrict
66 Cloudboy : Almost, but not quite. Mind you, I am not trying to defend waypoints here or saying this is where the future has to go or anything, just a possibilit
67 Allstarflyer : STL and PIT come to mind. What are some others?
68 Cubsrule : There are a good handful of hubs that are underutilized... like CVG, MEM, and MKE. Heck, even IAD has a fair amount of excess capacity (though ATC co
69 Xtoler : Am I wrong into thinking some airlines are trying to fly more point to point, or just avoiding landing fees. As much as I'd like to fly into Petersbug
70 Cubsrule : BLV wasn't developed by or for G4. It was built as a reliever for STL. Now, STL doesn't really need the relief. Nonetheless, G4 apparently does fairl
71 DocLightning : There's another obvious issue here. A lot of the traffic is due to redundant flights. Consider this: there are at least 25 flights (when you subtract
72 PanHAM : Never works as a business with the necessity and basic requirement to make a profit at the end of the year. Such a business model can survive only of
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
2 A380s In Formation - Will It Ever Happen (For A Photo)? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 10:53:50 by Gary2880
Air Canada And The A380 Will It Ever Happen posted Sat May 22 2004 01:23:41 by Fiedman
War With Iraq..... What Will Happen In The Air? posted Mon Mar 17 2003 13:14:36 by Deltadude8
What Ever Happen To The 747 EA Was Going To Buy? posted Fri Jan 5 2007 00:08:30 by 747400sp
Low Cost Carriers At BRU - Will It Ever Happen? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 20:27:59 by GayrugbyMAN
Will Lufthansa Ever Put In Personal IFE posted Sat Jan 29 2005 06:16:02 by AirWillie6475
Will Swiss Ever React In GVA posted Mon Jan 3 2005 23:19:49 by Beijing21
Will Turboprops Displace RJ's In The Future? posted Sat Jul 17 2004 20:38:58 by Cumulonimbus
Will Boeing Adapt FBW In The Future? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 03:00:01 by Jutes85
Will Anyone Challenge USAir In The Caribbean posted Thu Oct 9 2003 14:30:38 by FunFlyer