Talk:Continental Micronesia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Continental Micronesia article.
Article policies
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Houston This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Greater Houston area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project where you join the group and contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Houston
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Micronesia
Micronesia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Micronesia, which collaborates on articles related to Micronesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Guam and Saipan

In what way Guam, Saipan and Hawaii are part of North America? — Instantnood 09:41 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii is often classified with the USA under North America because it is part of the US. I dont think Guam and Saipan receive that treatment thou. Who moved it there?--Huaiwei 09:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US territories are listed under the US along with other US states on all lists of airline destinations. — Instantnood 11:17 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

Thats because someone (or your carbon copy) started moving them under the US when he wasent happy that HK was listed under China.--Huaiwei 13:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Haha...I just checked the history page. The one who added the destination as such was WhisperToMe, who of coz wasent involved in the politics over those stuff.--Huaiwei 13:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's the fifth edit of this page and the first edit to make the destinations a list. Many other airline destinations articles list US territories and Hawaii in the same manner. — Instantnood 14:02 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

So what do you propose?--Huaiwei 14:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Over the discussion on your discussion page you said Aruba, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Netherlands Antilles, etc., aren't listed under their corresponding sovereign states because of geography. The list here already illustrates geography may not matter. — Instantnood 14:13 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

Huh???--Huaiwei 14:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You said " One particular issue when I look at the way dependencies are presented, is whether the territories in question are geographically contigious or not. Aruba and the Netherlands are seperated by an ocean. Will it cause confusion should Aruba be listed in Europe? Similarly, shall we list the Isle of Man as seperate from the UK, when it is geographically contigious? If so, then how about Gibralta? That Hong Kong and Macau are geographically contigious with the rest of the PRC, and they also exists within the same regional influence is one factor for listing it together with the rest of China.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) ",

and I replied " I see. In your opinion it is geography that make the differences. Should Guam and the Northern Marianas be listed under the United States (which in turn is under North America)? They are not "geographyically contiguous" with the lower 48. ". You did you give any further response after that. — Instantnood 14:57 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

So you are turning this talk page into another avenue to advance your agenda? Well lets see. My above statements tells you, that I personally find it problemetic that dependencies/colonies are listed with their controlling countries when they are located on the other side of the planet, and even then, it is still neccesary to access each scenario on a case by case basis. So what are you advancing in this discussion here?--Huaiwei 15:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it necessary to work out how these dependent territories should be listed, either by continent, or by sovereign states? Apart from that, places like Hawaii, French Guiana and some Russian cities in the Far East like Vladivostok has also the problem. — Instantnood 16:38 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

No I do not find it neccesary at all, if it is not obvious enough in my above statements. They only became an issue because you demanded to know why Hong Kong should be listed as part of the PRC, and you started mentioning Aruba etc. for comparison when they are hardly comparable.--Huaiwei 16:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geography was the reason you used to justify that Hong Kong and Aruba are not comparable. In what way listing Guam and the Northern Marianas under North America can be justified? You said some scenarios are hardly comparable, and have to access on a case by case basis. In other words there must be some reasons behind each case you have in your mind. — Instantnood 17:13 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

I said geography was one of a pool of factors I would prefer to look at. If you are going to nit-pick at each one of them and debate at length on one micro point when a macro view is also needed, then I am simply not going to continue debating with you. Its futile, if that was not obvious enough a long time ago.--Huaiwei 21:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Same here. But then you'll be failed to justify why these entities have to be treated in different manner. Is there any general rule(s), or is it possible to work out? An easy way would be grouping these entities into several types, and state how each type should be dealt with. — Instantnood 21:59 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)
Why are you so obsessed with coming up with a standardised means of treating all of these entities, when I have been saying they should be treated on a case-by-case basis, and depending on the context of the listing? I failed to justify? Thats because you failed to read or agree with anything I say. I have said, that you DO NOT treat a autonomous part of a country the same way as a colony. You DO NOT threat a province or state of a country which happens to be in another geographical area the same way as an overseas territory. Hong Kong, despite your continued avoidance of that term, is actually an autonomous territory of the PRC...it is NOT even a dependency anymore. The only other territory on earth which can be compared with HK is Macau, so stop pullingin all sorts of dependencies and even Hawaii into the picture just to force your point of view down. It dosent work this way. I challenge you to go straight to the point and show us why should Hong Kong NOT be an autonomous territory of the PRC, and that the PRC exercises soverignty over HK, before we go into all these pointless nitpicking.--Huaiwei 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's it. And you are already grouping these entities. For instance, Hong Kong and Macao are in the same group. Guam and the Northern Marianas will probably be in the same group too; and so do Guadeloupe and French Guiana; and Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Turks and Caicos Island; and Faroe Islands and Greenland. — Instantnood 10:19 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
And your point being? So what if I am also grouping them, compared to your insistance that ALL such cases should be treated the same way?--Huaiwei 15:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No. I was suggesting that instead of judging from a case by case basis, they can be some groupings that we can identified, which you have already done, and to work out a general rule for each of these groups. — Instantnood 16:03 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
Hong Kong and Macao are not ordinary autonomous parts of a country. Could you name any other autonomous part of a country which has its own delegation to most of the international organisations that members are not necessary to be sovereign states? — Instantnood 10:19 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
As I said...Hong Kong and Macau are in a category by itself. But is it not an autonomous part of a country? Nope. A part of a country having autonomous priviledges can range anything from superficial autonomy to a very high level of autonomy...as is the case with the two SARS, but does the later exclude them from the category of autonomous territories? Nope.--Huaiwei 15:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dependent territories can also be autonomous part of a country too. — Instantnood 16:03 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
From the point of view of politics and government structures Hong Kong and Macao are dependent territories, except for the rights of getting independence. If you're not happy with the term "dependent territories", I don't mind staging another discussion on changing the title of the list into "..non-sovereign entities". — Instantnood 10:19 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
How would you define a dependent territory? Would you consider Tibet a dependent territory?--Huaiwei 15:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tibet is not governed as a dependent territory, but a province with the endorsement (well, perhaps norminal) of rights of the ethnic minorities. Some may argue it is an occupied territory, but whether a place is a dependent territory depends on the way it is governed. — Instantnood 16:02 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
The answer to this is: Is this outlined list based on political divisions or geographical? It's a mix of both right now. Why include North America when there are no North American airports on the list? Because Guam is a US territory, which is under the US, which is geographically North America. There is a long history in reference books of including a far flung nations territories and possessions under the continent of their parent nation. Look at Russia, spanning two continents as a single political entity. In that kind of instance, even a far eastern airport would be listed as European. That's FINE. As long as the outline flows logically from parent to child and onwards, the list makes sense. This list makes sense as it is organized now. SchmuckyTheCat 21:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would slightly disagree with the above, especially by saying territories should be listed as per soverignty etc over geography. We dont exactly find Hong Kong beind listed under Europe prior to 1997, as an example. I would think it is more relevant to observe just how closely intergrated these territories are to their "mother countries". For example, Hawaii is a constitutional part of the US as a full state. Guam and the others are not in the same league. So I am more inclined to place Hawaii as under North America, and the others under Oceania, when weighing the effects of both geography and politics that is.--Huaiwei 21:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I guess we can split the entries of these countries into two, for instance, Paris under France at Europe, and Cayenne under France, with French Guiana in round brackets, under South America. — Instantnood 21:21 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)
(response to SchmuckyTheCat) Exactly. Then would you mind telling why Aruba, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, the Netherlands Netilles, the Turks and Caicos Islands, etc., are not listed under Europe? Bear in mind French Guiana and Guadeloupe are integral part of the French Republic. — Instantnood 21:59 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Services/Destinations

these are not time referenced and it is not clear therefore, when they are valid. Destination list I have for January 2005 is very different. This needs replaced urgently Ardfern 21:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Micronesia - Total MONOPOLY

The fares that Continental Micronesia currently charges are overly outrageous and unfair. It cost almost $600 dollars just to fly to Palau with Continental Micronesia while other airlines in some parts of the world charge less than half that fare for a destination the same distance. I'm sure majority of the public will agree with me when I say that Guam needs open skies so to allow more competition just like what happened to GTA and the cellular industry. Part of Continental's operating strategy to keep the public hush about its monopoly fares is to continously give computers and other donations to various organizations and institutions. In addition to the givings Continental also has a fleet of elites which some are senators and business elites to speak (even though Continental will not acknowledge it. Most of these people will backup Continental because they have luxurious flight class status with Continental)against anyone who critize Continental, case and point many have critized Senator Lujan who has been advocating for more air competition. What Continental is doing is pure Capitalism. It is exploiting the region for its own gain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.55.192.54 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Remote Editors

Users from afar and have never been to Micronesia better understand the region before editing. Micronesia is a different world and there isn't a lot of info on the internet. Air Mike doesn't have its own website which doesn't help either. However this doesn't mean things aren't true. If you have a dispute, state so. Otherwise don't make this entry look unreliable just because you can't find anything from where you are.HkCaGu 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Box

Should we use CMI's own President and HQ location info instead of COA's? HkCaGu 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Manila a Focus City?

Having read the definition of a focus city, I believe MNL fits the description since it has services to ROR, GUM and SPN. Only HNL has as many as 3 routes (Hopper, GUM, NGO). For ROR there're technically 3 (YAP, MNL, GUM) but it's simply a stopover, compared to MNL being a turnaround. And of course MNL is a "huge" market comparable to HNL. If there's no opposition in a week or so, I'll add MNL. HkCaGu 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Nobody wanted to talk but when I did it, it was reverted. Here's the analysis of all Air Mike destinations with more than hub and spoke schedules (GUM-XXX and back):
 HNL:
   GUM-HNL (7x per week)
   NGO-HNL (7x per week)
   GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL (3x per week)
   GUM-KWA-HNL (1x per week)
   GUM-MAJ-HNL (1x per week)
     Total: 19 flights, 5 routes, 4 n/s destinations
 MNL:
   MNL-GUM (10x per week)
   MNL-SPN (2x per week)
   MNL-ROR-GUM (1x per week)
   MNL-ROR-YAP-GUM (1x per week)
     Total: 14 flights, 4 routes, 3 n/s destinations
 NGO:
   GUM-NGO (14x per week)
   NGO-HNL (7x per week)
     Total: 21 flights, 2 routes, 2 n/s destinations
 TKK, PNI:
   GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL (3x per week)
   GUM-TKK-PNI (1x per week)
     Total: 4 flights, 1-2 routes, 2 n/s destinations 
 KSA:
   GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL (3x per week)
     Total: 3 flights, 1 route, 2 n/s destinations
 KWA, MAJ:
   GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL (3x per week)
   GUM-KWA-HNL or GUM-MAJ-HNL (1x per week)
     Total: 4 flights, 2 routes, 3 n/s destinations
Remember, HNL by all means qualified as a focus city before the advent of the NGO and GUM-KWA/MAJ-HNL services, that's 10 flights, 2 routes, 2 n/s destinations. That's why I think MNL qualifies now. In terms of market size, MNL is above all other non-HNL, non-Japan destinations. 30+% of Guam's population is Filipino. Air Mike top officials repeatedly remind Guam GUM-HNL passengers alone number only 60 a day, as they rely connecting passengers (majority MNL) to fill the plane. (Hawaii being another state of high Filipino concentration.) Filipino workers are abound in Palau and Saipan and visa issues support the direct flights into MNL. Therefore I conclude that MNL is comparable to HNL. HkCaGu 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure HNL should be listed as a focus city. Even so, MNL has fewer routes than HNL. Only one is a legit point-to-point; the rest are through flights to Guam with stopovers. United has seasonal IAD-SJU-STT flights, but I don't think anyone would argue for listing San Juan or St. Thomas as a focus city for United. DB (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Saying the routes are just stopover to Guam is so inaccurate. Air Mike is a one-hub carrier, and by its size it almost cannot operate flights that don't eventually terminate at GUM. The fact remains that Air Mike is deliberately serving three routes and three different markets (NGO, GUM, Micronesian islands) from HNL--very few would fly HNL-GUM on the 5-stop Island Hopper on the same day. Likewise, Air Mike is deliberately serving three markets from MNL--Saipan, Guam, Palau. Many more people hop on and off than staying on the plane from GUM-YAP-ROR-MNL. HNL and MNL now serve a special role in the whole Air Mike system for having flights not originating or terminating GUM (NGO and SPN routes respectively)--but of course the planes and crew ultimately are Guam-based. For Air Mike's size and "shape", they are focus cities. HkCaGu 08:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Route Network" edits

I'm reverting this addition:

  • "Route network--Contrary to popular belief, Continental (mainline) flights from the U.S. mainland do not serve as a convenient feeder system for passengers wishing to interchange at GUM for destinations in Asia. Flights from the mainland operate from a non-Continental hub (LAX) as a direct one-stop flight requiring a stopover in Honolulu. Thus, the Guamanian hub serves as a regional hub, but one that remains largely segregated, rather than one that complements or supplements mainline Continental's route network."

for the following reasons:

  • I have never heard of a "popular belief" that mainline mainland to HNL flights are intended to feed into Asia.
  • Mainland to HNL flights are from: EWR, IAH (2x), LAX. Hubs outnumber the non-hub (which happens to be a former corporate HQ).
  • The HNL stopover does not prevent Air Mike (CMI) from complementing or supplementing Continental mainline (COA). Countless passengers from Guam/Saipan/Micronesia transfer from CMI to COA flights everyday at NRT or HNL, and there are countless passengers doing the reverse direction. Most CMI destinations to Asia are the resort/tourist type (thus not necessarily daily), but NRT and MNL flights (more than once daily) distinctly serve the connection market. HkCaGu (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add charter flights?

According to the Air Mike press release published on the PDN and the Tribune [1] on 2008-01-09, there will be 11 charters GUM-TPE over 4 weeks, 25 charters GUM-ICN over 7 weeks, and 5 charters SPN-ICN over 2 weeks between mid-January and mid-March (around the Chinese/Korean New Year). I am leaning toward not doing any edits, since unlike last summer's ICN flights which lasted for months, these winter flights don't last long enough to be called seasonal. Any other thinking? HkCaGu (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)