Midway Atoll's crumbling airport needs over $100 million to stay certified, and its potential closure could complicate ETOPS diversions and Qantas's ultra-long-haul Project Sunrise flights.
I'm curious whether any of the affected airlines are willing to kick in to support the operation?
Well, here is an interesting thought: let the airlines relying on this airport cough up the money needed. Why should the government be on the hook for that? I see the point that the government should finance airports that are actually serviced, because they provide benefits for their respective communities. MDY however seems to exist mainly as plan B.
In case of a diversion the airlines pay fees It’s the US government’s responsibility here.
"Why should the government be on the hook for that?"
Well, mostly because it's in the USA's best economic interests to facilitate ease of movement between points on the globe, which includes facilitating a viable Plan B for safety reasons, especially for commerce commencing or terminating in the USA. Agree that it wouldn't be unfair to ask other *nations* whose carriers rely on trans-Pac routes to chip in, but then the USA would likely need to give up sovereignty of the (still very strategic) island, and that's likely not going to happen.
I wonder why the FAA ETOPS 180 route planning rule is not more challenged.
All modern wide-bodies are certified close to 300 min since the 777. Why does the FAA keeps applying an extra-conservative FAA 180 min blanket rule? If routings were calculated based on aircraft actual capabilities, the effects of Midway closure would be limited to older aircraft, namely A330ceos and 767s, the number of which, for TPAC passenger non-stops, is close to negligible.
Am I missing something here ?
I can see a strong argument for airlines that "use" this airport should pay for the upgrades. By "use," I'm suggesting airlines that would have to fly a less-efficient route if the airport loss certification. I do not expect this to occur.
Umm, Midway is really important for so many reasons; this is an essential investment for national security, as well as safe, reliable TPAC commercial aviation. How is this even a debate?