Midway Atoll’s Airport Has No Flights, But Its Closure Could Disrupt Airlines Worldwide

A tiny, remote island in the South Pacific may lose its airport. On the surface, that’s understandable, given that maintaining it requires a nine-figure investment, and only a few dozen people live on the island. However, the fight over the airport’s future goes way beyond that, as it could impact airlines around the globe. Heck, it could even impact the economics of the world’s longest flight.

Midway Atoll Airport is run down, faces uncertain future

Midway Atoll Airport (airport code MDY) is known as Henderson Field, and is a public airport located on Sand Island, in Midway Atoll, which is an unincorporated territory of the United States. This is a 2.4 square mile atoll in the North Pacific Ocean, and it’s the only island in the Hawaiian Archipelago that’s not part of the state of Hawaii. It’s around 1,300 miles northwest of Honolulu, right near the International Dateline, so it’s around the halfway point between North America and Asia.

Map showing Midway Atoll's location in the North Pacific, about 1,300 miles northwest of Honolulu near the International Dateline
Midway Atoll location

The Midway Atoll population is tiny — around 40 people live on the atoll, primarily consisting of staff of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as well as contract workers.

As a result, the airport serves primarily as an emergency diversion airport for transpacific flights — there’s a 7,800-foot runway there, so it’s plenty long for a large plane to land (and to take off with limited fuel). In theory, it also provides access to the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. However, that’s only by charter, because the airport last saw commercial service nearly 25 years ago, in 2002.

Aerial view of Henderson Field, the airport on Sand Island at Midway Atoll
Midway Atoll Henderson Field Airport

Midway Atoll Airport is a Part 139 certified airport, and it’s unique in that it’s operated by FWS, and isn’t a joint use airport. It serves a specific need in global aviation, in terms of being a diversion point for both military and commercial flights.

That brings us to the current situation, which is that the airport’s condition is deteriorating rapidly, and it’s expected that it may lose its current certification within five years, if it doesn’t get at least a $100 million investment. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently trying to decide on the airport’s future:

FWS is currently utilizing the FAA’s congressionally mandated $2.5 million per year in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds designated under the 2003 FAA Reauthorization Act to maintain MDY’s airfield infrastructure, and the FWS contributes an additional $2.6 million in annual funding to maintain minimum operational capability.

However, the funding designated is only a small portion of the airfield’s needs according to the 2021 Midway Atoll Comprehensive Master Plan. MDY’s runway is expected to reach a severe level of deterioration within the next five years. The estimated cost for major airfield rehabilitation at MDY exceeds $100 million for milling, repaving, and seawall repairs—an amount significantly higher than the annual AIP funding allocations. Additional non-airfield improvements, such as harbor upgrades to support shipment of construction materials, may also be needed.

Midway Atoll Airport closure would be issue for airlines

There’s always the risk of planes having engine failures (or other issues). As long haul aircraft increasingly have two engines (instead of three or four), they have to comply with ETOPS regulations. ETOPS stands for “Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards.” Or jokingly, it stands for “Engines Turn Or People Swim.” 😉

There are different factors that determine a plane’s ETOPS rating, but the rating could be ETOPS 120, ETOPS 180, ETOPS 240, etc. That number represents how many minutes a plane is allowed to fly on a single engine to get to the nearest suitable diversion point. So if a plane is operating with ETOPS 120, it needs to be within 120 minutes of its nearest diversion point at all times.

That brings us to the issue here, which is perhaps best explained by the Aircraft Dispatchers Federation (ADF). They are strongly against the closure of Midway Atoll Airport, arguing it’ll impact airline operations across the Pacific, and in some cases, will require more circuitous routings. As the ADF explains:

With Russian airspace closed to U.S. carriers for the foreseeable future, every flight between the mainland or Hawaii and Japan, China, South Korea and Southeast Asia depends on a small set of mid-ocean and Aleutian airports to stay inside that limit. PMDY is the one in the middle.

Without PMDY, Pacific ETOPS coverage would rest on four airports, and the loss of any one of them, PASY above all, would open holes in the ocean that cannot be closed under ETOPS-180. Covering them would require ETOPS-207 or ETOPS-240 operations, contrary to FAA guidance, along with added equipment costs for carriers. Hawaii-to-Japan flights would fall back on Wake Island (PWAK), and beyond that on Kwajalein (PKMJ), which plays little role in Pacific ETOPS today.

The airport is not theoretical. The docket itself records 11 diversions into PMDY between 2003 and 2021; at least four in the last fifteen years were Part 121 airline flights carrying more than 800 passengers and crew combined, diverting for smoke in the cabin, a cracked windshield and low engine oil pressure.

Here’s perhaps the most interesting example of how the closure of Midway Atoll Airport could impact airlines. In 2027, Qantas will launch its “Project Sunrise” flights between Sydney (SYD) and London (LHR), which will be the world’s longest flight.

The expectation is that the westbound portion of this journey (from Sydney to London) will actually fly north from Australia toward Alaska, and then continue south from there. That optimal route relies on Midway Atoll Airport remaining a diversion point.

If Midway Atoll Airport weren’t an acceptable diversion point, Qantas claims it would need to load an extra 2,200 kilograms of fuel, and that would come with a payload penalty of over 20 passengers. The economics of ultra long haul flying are challenging in the first place, and that most definitely wouldn’t help.

As the airline explains, “compounded by ongoing geopolitical constraints on airspace availability, and the longer routings those constraints require, these impacts increase the risk to the long-term viability of Project Sunrise.”

Qantas Airbus A350-1000ULR aircraft, the type planned for Project Sunrise ultra-long-haul flights
Qantas’ Project Sunrise flights could be impacted by Midway Atoll

Bottom line

The future of Midway Atoll Airport is uncertain. The airport requires $100+ million worth of upgrades in order to remain an acceptable diversion point for airlines flying across the Pacific. That’s a lot of money for an airport that doesn’t get service, but then again, the airport also serves an important function.

Yes, airlines absolutely could go without this, and a vast majority of the time, it wouldn’t even require a detour. However, for some flights, and definitely when things go wrong (including volcanic activity near Russia), this becomes a much more important airport.

I suspect that ultimately the airport will get the investment it needs to remain Part 139 compliant, but who knows how this plays out.

How do you see this Midway Atoll Airport situation playing out?

Conversations (54)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

john Guest

United filed a comment but Delta did not comment independently even though its growing Pacific operations also rely on Henderson Field to meet FAA ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Standards) and actually used Midway for at least one diversion. Henderson Field is an essential ETOPS alternate for United 737 "Island Hopper" flights. Island Hopper flights are an Air Micronesia/Continental/United legacy dating from the aftermath of WWII and the resulting Compact of Free Association between the U,S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. The Island Hopper satisfies one of our Compact obligations, and United needs Midway to comply with the 180-minute-ETOPS maximum for 737s. I flew the Continental Island Hopper in a 727-100 from HNL - Johnston Island (at the time a nuclear and chemical weapons testing, storage and disposal site -- only military allowed off) - Majuro - Kwajalein - Ponape - Truk - Guam. Johnston Island would be an ideal ETOPs alternate, but it closed in 2005. Keeping Midway operational and ETOPS eligible costs substantially less than reopening the airport on Johnston Island. The importance of trans-Pacific civilian and military air traffic is growing. The cost of $100 million seems small in relation to the ongoing savings in fuel, environmental impacts, and consumer costs and inconveniences that are outlined in responses to the FAA request, plus our Compact obligations (admittedly not a congressional priority) and even Midway's sentimental, historical and military value. As Gary's photo shows, the military uses Henderson Field for diversions. The military does not plan flights to meet FAA range requirements. It operates under land asap policies for events like uncontained engine fires and loss of hydraulics, etc.. Having as many diversion airports as possible is important for military air operations in the Pacific. The cost of keeping a runway and certain other infrastructure operational on Midway might be shared with the military. If so, those costs should be deducted from the $100 million tab, Midway's airport is named in honor of Maj. "Joe" Henderson, the commander of Midway-based VMSB-241. On June 4, 1942, during the opening stages of the Battle of Midway, Henderson led his inexperienced squadron in an attack on the carrier Hiryu. As he started the bombing run, Japanese Zeroes flamed his SBD Dauntless, but he continued leading the attack in his burning bomber. Henderson and his radioman/rear gunner were the first Marine air-combat losses during the battle. Henderson must have been very highly regarded because two months later the vital and hotly contested airstrip on Guadalcanal, now Honiara International (HIR), was also named in his honor. The Battle of Midway was one of the most important naval battles in U.S. history. It turned the tide of WWII in the Pacific. Given Midway's important economic, safety, historical and sentimental value, it would be a shame to let the airport rot and be forgotten along with hundreds of missing Midway heroes who rest on the bottom of the sea.

0
‼ 0
Eric Guest

$100 million isn't a lot in comparison to other projects. I'm thinking local to my part of the world: $100 million for a gym on a military base; $220 million for a single bridge in Denali National Park in Alaska; $70-100 million for a single road interchange--not even a highway. It seems this is too strategically important to simply close down.

0
‼ 0
ssss Guest

They could make a fortune if they let the extreme travelers visit. :)

0
‼ 0
Spuwho Guest

Seems easy to me. Any flight that requires Midway as a ETOPS stop gets an ETOPS fee on their ticket to offset the costs of maintaining it. If a non ETOPS plane lands there (like a 747/A380) then simply charge the airline a $50,000 emergency landing fee for using it. Its the FAA who is allowing aircraft makers to get these ETOPS ratings in order to sell more fuel efficient planes. So place the burden where it belongs. If it is required, put the fee in the ticket. If it's not required, charge the airline for the privilege of it use when it happens.

2
‼ 0
Kevin Guest

I wish we could have a body that all airlines could contribute too that would cover for these types of things. We are talking about probably around $10 per flight that would provide significant resources to these airports. I am not suggesting some huge fee, but only those flights that fly using those rules would incur the cost. It would make the math that much easier. We have fees that airports charge for every passenger that travels through and that works for 99% of airports, but this one airport does not have regular passengers to pay for the necessary improvements, but we all benefit at the best time to have these airports available (ie when we lose an engine traveling across the pacific). The airlines that benefit should propose this and make it happen. I am looking at you Qantas, United, Delta, American, Air New Zealand, JAL, ANA, etc

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published