Talk:Continental Micronesia

Guam and Saipan
In what way Guam, Saipan and Hawaii are part of North America? &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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? &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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". &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; Instantnood 21:59 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

Add charter flights?
According to the Air Mike press release published on the PDN and the Tribune 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)

Merging Continental Micronesia Flight 614
I've just tagged the Continental Micronesia Flight 614 article for a potential merge into this article. The article there is very short and, other than being an incident where the plane crashed, doesn't seem to be notable (or long enough) to warrant its own article. Nor were there any notable individuals aboard, or significant policy changes made after the fact. Any objections to this merge? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - Because the accident has had a lengthy NTSB accident report written about it, and because it was a hull loss, it is capable of being expanded into a larger article. I might look up archives to see if I can expand the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An NTSB report does not a notable article make. The only notability claim I can figure is that it's the only Continental Micronesia crash (ever), but.... If you want to expand it, be my guest. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent: Can someone please discuss United Micronesia?
Comments here please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.216.93 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the urgency? Merger is a multi-year process. HkCaGu (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your preference for the merged carrier? Maybe the livery doesn't match? Continental Micronesia operated by United Airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.216.93 (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what we think. See WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:CRYSTAL. HkCaGu (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this article could be of any relevant interest, concerning how the planned United-Continental merger will effect Continental Micronesia. Especially this last paragraph from the linked Air Transport World article:

"As part of the merger process, the Continental Micronesia operation will be combined with Continental's ahead of the UA-CO SOC transition. At present, Continental Micronesia has its own operating certificate."

URL: http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/united-transition-continental-operating-certificate-part-merg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.170.26 (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Continental Micronesia headquarters
Continued from the edit summary 1. While there are some cases where what is considered to be the "headquarters" is fuzzy, I don't think this is the case with Continental Micronesia. Everybody agrees that the HQ is in Guam, and AFAIK the terminal is the only place where corporate functions are carried out. 2. Even though CO Mike didn't always occupy the building, usually on company articles I start sections specifically about the head office and its history, especially if the head office doesn't have an article of its own (the old terminal doesn't have a standalone article). It is common to see head offices switch owners, and for companies to switch head offices. I believe that the history of the building (i.e. answering when and why it was originally built) should be documented, even if the company didn't originally have anything to do with the construction. For instance at BAA Limited I talk all about the head office, which for years was controlled by British Airways. (now Compass Centre has its own article because it was designed by a well known architectural firm) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The commuter terminal is still known widely as the commuter terminal, not the Air Mike HQ. It just happens to be leased to Air Mike to use as office. There isn't even signage that says anything to the effect of "Continental Micronesia Headquarters". I don't even know how much of the terminal is occupied by Air Mike, as several homecoming ceremonies of killed soldiers have taken place in the terminal in recent years. Therefore the terminal's history, especially any controversy of its construction, is absolutely not notable to the airline. HkCaGu (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Abasaa's photo shows that the logo of the parent company is plastered on the terminal. A historical photo on Flickr has the Co Mike logo on the building. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilanders/224142426/ - Also it is incredibly common for headquarters to be leased facilities. Co Mike's parent company's headquarters, Continental Center I, are also leased. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a small airline with just one cockpit/cabin crew base, the idea of "corporate" or "administrative" HQ becomes fuzzy, and with the non-universal street mail delivery on the island, it becomes more fuzzy where they were at each stage. (E.g. the Tamuning city ticket office in Century Plaza probably housed the corporate functions before the commuter terminal became available.) Therefore it is better to just avoid going too deep into the subject beyond "then it was Saipan" (when Air Mike was formed to serve the TTPI and U.S. carriers like Pan Am, TWA and Aloha all served Guam) and "now it is Guam's commuter terminal". HkCaGu (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'll do is only have the detailed terminal information be at Guam Airport, because right now I don't have information on how Continental Micronesia arranged for the lease of the terminal and other supporting details about the airline.
 * In the meantime I'm trying to figure out exactly when Co Mike moved into the terminal. This 1997 DOT letter shows that Co Mike was already in the terminal in 1997. I'm checking Flightglobal archives to see when the "Saipan" headquarters records stop and when the Guam ones begin. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I flew Pacific Island Aviation in June 2001, PIA already moved to the Main Terminal. Freedom Air probably moved later (after 9-11). Also, mailing addresses may not be reliable as PO Boxes in 96931 are simply in the Tamuning Post Office. Air Mike offices are in many places, so it may not be easy to determine moves in this fuzzy situation. HkCaGu (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I do know is that the last year Flight Global shows the Co Mike offices as being in Saipan was 1995. See April 5-11, 1995, Page 58.
 * I'll see what other news results I get from searching '"Continental Micronesia" headquarters' and '"Continental Air Micronesia" headquarters'
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a GIAA report hosted on the Guam Chamber of Commerce website, by 2003 (the date of the report publication) GIAA moved the commuter airlines out and had the entire building leased to Continental. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Air Mike Express
By the way, I wonder where more information is about "Air Mike Express."

"World Airline Directory." Flight International. April 5-11, 1995, Page 44 talks about Air Mike Express, a joint venture between CO and Air Micronesia. It used Fokker F27s to serve smaller Mariana islands. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection from bankruptcy
I found a Guam Legislature report: It says on Page 7 (32/54) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "TWENTY-FIRST GUAM LEGISLATURE 1992 (SECOND) Regular Session."
 * "Senator Parkinson felt that the costs would not be spread across the entire Continental system, because a new company is going to be operating from Guam over the old Air Micronesia system. Senator Parkinson indicated that he understood that Air Micronesia would be set up as a separate company partially owned by Continental, and considered a separate airline and independent from the parent company, Continental Airlines. This would protect the local company from- the bankruptcy proceedings of Continental Airlines"

Status of Air Mike during merger
Why I reverted 99.141.8.156's edits:

1. Continental Micronesia (CMI) is a company which is the largest private employer on Guam. CMI ceased to exist as an airline but does not simultaneously cease to exist as a company. A company can remain after bankruptcy and ceasing operations.

2. CMI has not announced any structural changes that appear on the Guam press. If they were "operating" Guam-based flights, they still do, just with the parent's certificate as a step in the merger with UAL.

3. CMI presidents (who may also be COA VPs) come and go every few years. A source saying Duncan becoming something else doesn't prove CMI has no president. I've yet to see a CMI announcement.

4. When CMI (the company) becomes history, the article will reflect what it was for decades, i.e. CS/CMI/AIR MIKE, not the CO/COA/CONTINENTAL codes it used for but a few months. That's why the strikeout font is necessary. Same thing when NWA was merging--we mentioned both WorldPerks and SkyMiles as FFP, and SkyMiles eventually disappear on that article. HkCaGu (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The problems with 99.141.5.165's revert of my edit:

1. If you think Continental Micronesia simply disappeared when the certificate disappeared, then for how long did Continental Micronesia operate using CO/COA/CONTINENTAL code? ZERO DAYS!!!

2. I changed the flight number sharing to past tense, since it is the same code now. Then why did you change it to present tense?

I maintain that CMI remains a company, one that operated an airline for decade. Either address this point, or it is vandalism to simply revert me. HkCaGu (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say its no longer an entity --Drexmacc (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then find the proof. HkCaGu (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Air Micronesia origins
I have found information about Air Micronesia's origins from the United Micronesia Development Company, which was partially owed by Continental. According to my source United Development owned 51% of Air Micronesia, Continental owns 29%, and Aloha Airlines 20%. (Continental owns 32% of United Development.) My information has the first flights by Continental to Micronesia on 1/16/1968. This information is from a book put out by Continental's airline pilots association. Since this is not verifiable (unless you've got this anniversary book that I do), I'm not sure that I can include it in the main article. Sprinkler21 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Sprinkler21
 * I don't believe it needs to be online to be verifiable. I'd say incorporate the data and attribute to page numbers as necessary. HkCaGu (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs to be published, though. Get the info on the ISBN, etc. and/or state how to access the data WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Old corporate name
The Continental Report from 2006 Q2 says that "Air Micronesia, Inc." is a separate subsidiary WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.united.com//web/es/content/company/investor/docs/continental_10q_2006_q2.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/6CYETqTkF

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Continental Micronesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.airlineinfo.com/Sites/DailyAirline/web-content/ostpdf21/58.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323152135/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=3&newsID=47296 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=3&newsID=47296
 * Added tag to http://www.pacificmagazine.net/news/2008/06/13/continental-micronesia-to-cut-flights-to-bali-hong-kong-and-manila

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Continental Micronesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.united.com/web/es/content/company/investor/docs/continental_10k_2001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104133158/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=98875&cat=3 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=98875&cat=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100511080356/http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4897%3Acont-mic&catid=45%3Aguam-news&Itemid=156 to http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4897%3Acont-mic&catid=45%3Aguam-news&Itemid=156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Continental Micronesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130111080058/http://www.mvariety.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=4994&format=html to http://www.mvariety.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=4994&format=html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

HQ was barely in Tamuning
I found census maps of Tamuning and Barrigada (they are under "county equivalent" in the US Census Bureau, not under "place")
 * 2010: Barrigada - Tamuning Index and Tamuning Page 3
 * The address of the old Terminal: "523 Chalan Pasaheru, Old Commuter Terminal, Tamuning"

The old commuter terminal was on a "hook" of Tamuning next to Barrigada. So it is correct that the HQ was in Tamuning.

It turns out that as of 2020 the boundaries did change, and by then the area did shift to being in Barrigada (See Tamuning map and See Barrigada map). But by then, Continental Micronesia folded as a company. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems as of the 2000 U.S. Census it was also in Tamuning, but as of the 1990 U.S. Census, it was in Barrigada.

In 2000 the bulk of the airport (non-Tamuning) was in the Tiyan CDP, see page 1 and see page 2. The Tamuning part was in the Tamuning CDP. In 1990, the bulk of the airport (not the CO Mike HQ part) was in Agana Station CDP. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)