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?
You say “operation”. Are you referring to the children’s game made by Milton Bradley?
Really? Perhaps you should be playing a children’s game instead of commenting on a relatively serious issue that would have serious aviation safety implications across the Pacific. Just a thought.
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.
Would be interesting to hear what IATA has to say about this at their upcoming World Safety & Operations Conference:
https://www.iata.org/en/events/all/wsoc/
If you make airlines pay for it directly, you're just turning a safety net into a subscription fee. The second bean-counters start getting billed every time a route relies on Midway, they're going to start pressuring dispatchers to skate right on the edge of ETOPS limits to dodge the cost.
Like I mentioned to @EricSchmidt above, it's the same problem as the fire department. You don't want corporate finance departments doing math on whether a cracked windshield is worth the diversion fee. Some things just have to be funded as a public safety cost so nobody is ever tempted to gamble with 300 lives to save a buck.
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?
National security comes into play during the economic warfare against threats like those coming from a hostile player like… ummm, Canada, it can’t possibly be considered when it affects, well, national security.
As a Canadian, I get your subtle sarcasm 😉. Lord knows,, Canada is certainly an aviation juggernaut in the Pacific 😉
Just have a big ceremony renaming it the Donald J. Trump International Airport of the Pacific. The funds will appear the next day.
That's a shame as Midway is far closer to the Loop via the Orange Line than O'Hare Atoll. What will Southwest do with all their flights, especially when O'Hare Atoll doesn't have enough coral reefs to accommodate AA and UA's growth?
Hey, Ben: you’ve got it right in the second paragraph, but not in the first. Midway Atoll is in the North Pacific, not the Sourh!
Isn't the question, as always, how much would the benefit be for the cost, and who should pay for it? Just like all infrastructure, insurance, and such things?
If the cost would be $100m to fix the runway, but save $500M for airlines over the life of it in saved fuel and revenue, well, clearly that would be good. But will the airlines pay? Their passengers? Or the taxpayer in general? I suppose there's an argument if it's clearly that valuable, then every aircraft using it as a diversion point should pay a fee for its upkeep.
The only flaw in the 'pay per diversion' idea is that it's like the fire department: you're not supposed to be worried about who's paying during an emergency (house fire or plane accident); you're supposed to be focused on safety, rescue, recovery, etc. Last thing you want is for an airline to be like, 'oh, yeah, sorry, corporate says that windshield is just gonna have to hold until HNL... gotta save on fees...' *300 people die needlessly*
This is what tax payers money should be going to, not blasting countries in the middle east as a PP waving contest.
This is what tax payers money should be going to, not blasting countries in the middle east as a PP waving contest.
Alonzo - Good thinking .
Alonzo -- Good thinking .
Let’s no forget the island has military implications. Nice listening post, emergency diversion, political footprint in the central Pacific, etc.
@Ben, thank you for embedding the video about the Delta 747 that diverted to Midway with a cracked windshield. It was interesting hearing about some of the logistics involved in dealing with the diversion.
Midway should stay open, however, the most affected airlines, such as Qantas (i.e. government entities) should contribute to the cost of keeping it open. The US has long been subsidizing others and they never give back.
So I take it you’d be happy with every road in the country charging for access? Perhaps with GPS tracking to providing the billing data.
And of course you do realise that the Airway and Airport Trust Fund already exists to collect excise from airlines and passengers to assist in the maintenance of this kind of infrastructure?
Pay taxes, get stuff - it’s pretty basic.
@Ed, although Fed UP is indeed incorrect for the reasons you outline, the question should probably be whether the fees for transoceanic flights that are using the service and relying on PMDY as a suitable diversion airport are adequate. Of course you aren’t going to make up a $100M shortfall from a handful of flights, but if the ongoing maintenance isn’t being covered by the associated fees, then changes are probably needed.
Ok, and should every country demand payment in turn for maintaining diversion airports? This happens to be an American territory. But most other diversion airports globally are not. Ones that U.S. carriers might wish to use if diverting. You want everyone to start chipping in anywhere they fly over? Please, just spare me the America First thinking that is getting so old and boring.
@Antwerp there are generally fees charged for airspace access, or more specifically for navigation/ATC/etc. I have no idea how these fees are charged and allocated but it’s not totally outside the realm of reality that airlines traversing airspace using MDY as a diversion airport could be charged an extra fee for the privelege. The question is then how to make it economically viable for everyone.
I’m not taking an “America first” stance btw and I think Fed UP is fundamentally wrong, just saying there is probably a middle road in here somewhere.
I think Rich answered it better than I could as to your point. If we honestly want to start nickel and diming every little thing out there, well, be prepared for getting nickel and dime backed ten fold. Bottom line: When I stay in a relatives house for free I don't charge them for staying in mine later on.
1) Qantas is not a government entity. It's listed on the Australian stock exchange.
2) It's not unreasonable to expect the US government to maintain US strategic military assets. Since you mention Qantas, I would point out that the Australian Defence Force hosts over 100 joint facilities on Australian territory with the US military, so it's not like the US receives nothing in return.
3) Mechanisms to collect tax revenue directly from airlines already exist, in terms of both aviation excise taxes, and overflight fees.
There is a contingent at the Fish and wildlife Sevice who would be thrilled to close this airport, as it suits their absolutist eco-agenda. Competing national priorities do not matter to that contingent.
As noted, this is a strategic military asset. The problem is that military aircraft will be able to use the airport longer than commercial if the facility deteriorates, so they have somewhat less urgency. And Pete has probably never heard of Midway or its strategic importance. He probably doesn't know that it was attacked as part of the Pearl Harbor attacks. Strategic then, still strategic now. There's some ballroom money that the taxpayers weren't supposed to pay that could cover this cost.
You also have Majuro (PKMJ) with a similarly sized runway to Midway, but over 1400nm south, which presumably isn’t helpful on a North/South route, and it’s significantly West of HNL. Kwajalein (PKWA) is only 233nm ENE of Majuro - shorter runway but probably better facilities for holding passengers in a diversion.
MAJ is better then KWA IMHO. On a MAJ diversion you not get locked in the "secure hanger" overnight has happened at KWA before. Not that MAJ accommodations are at all good nor high enough in number to accommodate 200 guests etc. But the freedom to open your door is nice.
IIRC Midway used to have a non trivial sized hotel etc before the wildlife crew took over and stopped all visitation etc. I hope they do the right thing and keep the runway maintained.
Since several people have mentioned it, below is the current FAA fee schedule for overflight, which is $26.51 per 100nm per aircraft for US-controlled Oceanic airspace.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_aviation/overflight_fees
Just for fun, this is Eurocontrol’s fee schedule for April of this year - I can’t find a more recent PDF.
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2026-04/ur-2604.pdf
Divide the cost amongst the airlines who would benefit