Talk:Midway International Airport/Archive 1

Untitled
This article has been renamed from Midway Airport to Chicago Midway International Airport as the result of a move request.

Where in Chicago?
All the bird's eye pictures are redundant--keep the best one. Then please add a picture of where Midway is in relation to the city of Chicago. It's always sort of hard to remember exactly how it fits into the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.128.19 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Privatization
I heard, by word-of-mouth, that Mayor Daley was considering privatizing Midway as he did the Chicago Skyway to help raise city revenue. Anyone have any information about it? I'm too lazy to look it up...mrcool1122 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

1
Regarding the statement, "It is Chicago's second largest airport": Could this be clarified? I assume this referes to number of flights and/or number of passengers, rather than physical size. For a commercial airport, Midway is among the smallest (physically). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It would probably be better phrased as "Chicago's original airport" or something to that effect than to try to make volume or size comparisions to O'Hare. It was built years before O'Hare International. --66.82.9.41 06:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been more clear. Actually I meant in comparison to the "smaller" airports that are mentioned. I didn't check out the Rockford/Chicagoland airport. But the Gary airport has a longer runway than any of those at Midway, so in that sense Gary is a "larger" airport, that's what I was getting at. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

2
The crash that has happened at Midway (12/08/2005) should entail a serious discusion of nets (ala aircraft-carrier) or possible new runway runoffs that are similar to truck runoffs....... (using new material that absorbs the mass of a huge jet landing gear as it rolls.....) running into houses and killing people...... shame..... dskelly1@cox.net
 * Wikipedia documents events and discussions; it does not originate political discussions. -- Beland 12:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reporting of Dec. 8 Accident
I've removed the following two lines from the Incidents section.

"Preliminary results of the investigation showed that the pilot of the Southwest Airlines jet violated company policy and deployed the plane's autobraking system. As of December 15 2005, the National Transportation Safety Board investigation was continuing."

I think that only the simple facts should be listed in this general article on the airport. More speculative and time sensitive information should be directed to the developing article on the investigation. -- Mindfrieze 18:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

>100,000 passengers on 60,947 flights
''Midway Airport earned the title of "World's Busiest" with over 100,000 passengers riding on 60,947 flights. Midway held that title for three decades until O'Hare claimed it in 1962.''

I know planes were small back then, but this number relationship would almost infer that there were hardly any passengers, just pilots! -newkai | talk | contribs 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's #2?
This article from June states ATA is #2 at Midway. -newkai | talk | contribs 21:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who printed that article but it is definitely wrong. ATA only has about 18 daily departures from MDW while AirTran has about 30. Sox23 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Source? You youself aren't a source. 1ne 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am not, but Midway's website (Flight Departures section) is Sox23 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

New airport picture
The picture of Midway airport is old and shows the old Midway Terminals. Marcusmax 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I see your point. I added in a new Midway picture to the article and added in the Airport Logo in the logo box. Sox23 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Map
There are two maps of the airport runways, but no map showing the location of the airport in Chicagoland. -- Beland 12:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A new map that shows Midway's relation to the Chicago areawas added by Daledogg on December 19, 2006 Sox23 20:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus removing map request. Shorelander 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Legacy carriers?
What the heck is a "legacy carrier"? Is it "everything but low-cost carriers"? It's not explained or linked, and the word "legacy" implies a certain level of "bad" that I'm not sure is appropriate. Yahoo Answers has an answer, but the fact that the question even needed to be asked suggests that the term is dubious. Perhaps some examples would be more useful. GreenReaper 09:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added in examples of Legacy Carriers and also created a page, Legacy carrier, in which there is information from Yahoo Answers. Sox23 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to adjust the photograph sufficiently that the infobox would be more legible.
&#91;&#91; hopiakuta &#124; &#91;&#91; &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This morning, there's a story about modification. A Chicagoan should scribe that.
Thank You.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta &#124; &#91;&#91; &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midway_Airport&diff=94305429&oldid=93944121 >.

The infobox is again hidden.

No one has added the modifications reported nationally, internationally, through the past day or so. Ostensibly, much of it involves the runways, & the De., '005 incident.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta &#124; &#91;&#91; &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean about the infobox. I have no trouble seeing it on three different computers. I was having problems with seeing images further down the page and updating the infobox seemed to fix that, as did your addition of the whitespace. Can you explain what you mean a bit more. And there appears to be something wrong with your signature. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

History section
Although there is a History Section for Midway I belive to much important history is scatterd in the article and should be moved to the History section of this article. --Marcusmax 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (January 27, 2007)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move of "Midway Airport" to "Chicago Midway International Airport". Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made lower in the Talk page).  No further edits should be made to this section.   Sox 23  21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Midway Airport → Midway International Airport – For one, Midway's official website refers to the airport as "Midway International Airport", and second, there was a new customs/immigration facility that was installed in the terminal development project, making Midway an International Airport. I think that the page should be moved to "Midway International Airport". Any opinions? Sox23 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Midway Airport → Chicago Midway International Airport has also been proposed (see below) Sox23 00:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey
''Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * NOTE: See the poll below for the name to be used if renamed. The discussions have mentioned several alternatives and that poll is tying to find consensus for one name.


 * Support
 * 1) Support. The FAA diagram lists the airport as Chicago Midway International.  Vegaswikian 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Official documents support the "International" name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Obviously, as I requested the page move, I support the change and my reasons are listed above. Sox23 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support though I would prefer Chicago Midway International Airport per airnav.com and the FAA airport diagram. At least it doesn't have the slash in it like Gary/Chicago International Airport. --Dual Freq 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. 1ne 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. The general standard is that page titles should use the most common English name for the subject of the article, and a google search suggests that this airport is most often known as "Chicago Midway Airport". Note that the official page generally refers to "Chicago Midway Airport", even in its title. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I've already mentioned this on another talk page (I think it might have been the project page), but WP:NAME, which is an official policy, not just a guideline, says to use common names. Furthermore, the common names guideline says "don't overdo it". The title should be likely to turn up in a search for the subject. A person is most likely to look for "Midway Airport" or maybe "Chicago Midway Airport", but not "Chicago Midway International Airport". DB (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
''Add any additional comments

This is Midway's official page: Official Page I don't know where you got that other website from but it clearly refers to MDW as "Midway International Airport" at the top of the page Sox23 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, This page is incredibly outdated as it still includes American Airlines, Chicago Express, Ted, and doesn't even reference the fact about a new customs/immigration facility. Sox23 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. But note that a google search for "Chicago Midway Airport" gets about 285,000 hits, whereas "Midway International Airport" gets about 63,000, and that the FAA and NOAA refer to the airport as "Chicago Midway Airport". --Akhilleus (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this FAA page includes the international in the name. Goggle searches when a name change is involved are clearly not a good metric to base a decision on.  Even though EWR changed names years ago, a google search shows 785,000 hits for the old name and 547,000 for the new one.  So using google results we should change the name on that article too. Vegaswikian 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be upset if the page went to Chicago Midway International Airport or Midway International Airport, but the arguments for those titles seem to be based on the airport's official name. Are you saying that we should use the official name even if it's less commonly used by ordinary speakers, or are you just saying that google is a bad measure of common use? If the latter, what would be a good metric? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your vote above opposes a move to Midway International Airport. Does your vote need to be changed? Vegaswikian 00:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'll stick with my oppose vote; my comment above was meant as an indication of my feeling that page moves are not a big deal, and that I'll be happy with whatever result is reached. But if I'm reading WP:NAME right, the title is supposed to be whatever the subject of the article is most commonly called. As far as I can see, the airport is still commonly referred to as "Chicago Midway Airport" or "Midway Airport", even by Chicago area media, if this search of the Chicago Tribune is any guide. It seems to me that people are using the official name of the airport to justify the move to "Chicago Midway International Airport". I'm sympathetic to this approach, but that's not what WP:NAME says right now. Is there some convention I'm not aware of? If not, maybe WP:NAME should have a section on airports, if most airport articles are using the official name (which the above comment about EWR suggests might be the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the proposed move not to "Chicago Midway International Airport"? It appears from the FAA page that that is the correct name and not "Midway International Airport". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem with changing the title to "Chicago Midway International Airport". I only proposed "Midway International Airport" because O'Hare is listed as "O'Hare International Airport", and I didn't know if Chicago should be included in the title. I actually like "Chicago Midway International Airport" better and if anyone else agrees with this, I don't see why we couldn't change it to "Chicago Midway International Airport" rather than "Midway International Airport". I just think that the current title needs to be changed. Sox23 17:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe that since this is an "encyclopedic website" that we should have titles of articles with the correct encyclopedic names rather than personal preferences of users. Sox23 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Official policy is to use the common name. "Chicago Midway International Airport" is cumbersome and by no means a commonly used name for the airport. DB (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the above discussion, I believe there is consensus to rename, the question is to what. The article introduction currently uses Chicago-Midway International Airport. Can we have a second pole on what I think are the two names with consensus? Just sign with the numbering, no need for comments. Vegaswikian 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll

 * Keep as Midway Airport
 * 1) DB (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Midway International Airport
 * Rename to Chicago Midway Airport
 * Rename to Chicago-Midway International Airport
 * Rename to Chicago Midway International Airport
 * 1) Sox23 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Dual Freq 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Marcusmax 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Vegaswikian 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) 1ne 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this a poll of? Nobody has indicated which they support. Obviously one of those on the list will be chosen. DB (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think people are indicating their support for Chicago Midway International Airport. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that hard to see! Sox23 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite difficult to see. It has five items and then a list of names. How does that indicate everyone wants the last one? DB (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think people are indicating their support for Chicago Midway International Airport. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that hard to see! Sox23 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite difficult to see. It has five items and then a list of names. How does that indicate everyone wants the last one? DB (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because everyone has voted under the last one Sox23 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I created the list, there were only two choices and the comments above the pole explained how to vote. Someone latter added more choices.  Setting that aside, from the discussions above, the last choice appears to be the one with the most support.  That is based on the discussion above and the pole here. Vegaswikian 03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the additional choices because I just wanted to include the possible changes that were discussed above but evidently, "Chicago Midway International Airport" has received overwhelming support. Sox23 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How long should we continue before a decision is made? Sox23 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Result
After 6 days of voting and opinions, there is a clear concensus amongst users to rename "Midway Airport" to "Chicago Midway International Airport" Sox 23 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Status
Unfortunately I have decided that this article is not ready for Good Article status. My primary concern is the overall lack of references in many of the sections. Here is a summary of the six criteria of a good article:

1. Well Writen:  I think the text is very clear and easy to understand. The incidents section has some information in the text that is repeated in the table. I think since the table is more detailed you should remove the duplicate information and just have a general paragraph about the types of incidents.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:  There are only 5 references for the whole article. This seems to be too few for an article this size with so many statistics mentioned. The entire history section, airfield, airlines and destination sections have no in-line citations, despite all having very specific details mentioned that clearly came from some source that should be documented in the article.

3. Broad in its coverage:  Seems fine

4. NPOV: For the most part the article sticks to the facts and seems to be neutral. I don't like the statement on the runway length stating that the runways leave little margin for error. There is no data to back this up, no comparison to other airports, accident rates, or some other quantifiable statistic. I also noticed the article has almost no criticism of the airport, its policies, development, etc. I looked at O'Hare and there is a section on resistance to the modernization plan. Are there any concerns with the Midway airport?

5. Stable: There do not appear to be any major disputes or edit wars so I think you are fine here.

6. Images: For the most part these seem to be good as well, although I am sure that you could work to get a few more pictures of the inside concorses of the airport or maybe some historical photos if there are any by the federal government.

Again the major problem with this article is that its information needs proper citations. Once this is completed I think you should renominate the article for GA status. Biomedeng 01:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
The previous poster echoes my sentiments almost exactly in certain aspects of the article.

1) There are still not enough references. You need at least one reference for every single paragraph. The entire Early History section has no references. Destinations that are beginning in the future must have a reference.

2) There are a few problems with the prose. The lead is detailed, but does not sum up the article. It only mentions the airport as it is today. The lead must reflect the entire article, and thus must also mention incidents, history and transit

3) There are too many extremely short paragraphs of one or two lines. These need to be combined into larger paragraphs.

4) The incident section is clunky. I would eliminate the table entirely, and provide a more detailed discussion of the major incidents. As it stands now, incidents are being mentioned twice, in the table, and in the text.

I do believe these problems can be repaired easily, therefore I am putting the nomination on hold pending alterations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Zeus1234 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional suggestions

 * Add at least one reference to the following section: Recent history, pragraph 4
 * Get rid of all one-line paragraphs by merging them into larger paragraphs
 * Delete the incident table or the section 'major incidents.' We don't need the same information twice.
 * Provide a fair-use rationale for the picture of Flight 1248.

Fix these issues, and I will pass the article. Zeus1234 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Compass Airlines
Is compass airlines only adding service to MSP or are they adding service to Dulles as well? 76.16.109.18 20:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * NWA's online schedule doesn't show MDW-IAD n/s--theres a connection w/ a change of planes in DTW. Sox 23 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

International flights
ATA Airlines and Frontier Airlines are the only ones that offer international service. I am going to make a section about international flights with that info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * I have removed that section because it just says the same information that is already in the Concourse A section. There is really no need for the section because earlier in the article, it says that: "Midway welcomed the return of direct international service after a 40-year absence with the opening of the new Federal Inspection Service facility in Concourse A", and in the Concourse A section, it says ATA flies to GDL and CUN, and Frontier flies to CUN as a weekend charter for Apple Vacations. Sox 23 03:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AirTran Pic
If somebody could upload an AirTran pic at midway, that would be great, because they are the number 2 airline there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.109.18 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would do it, but I won't be near/at MDW anytime soon... Sox 23 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't you get a picture from a website, or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.109.18 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on getting permission to use the following picture in the article: Sox 23  16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also working on permission to use to replace the Southwest Airlines picture. Sox 23  16:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The photographer of the WN photo replied, and I have uploaded the new picture. Still waiting on AirTran. Sox 23 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot. The photos look great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.109.18 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anytime Sox 23 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AirTran Airways
Does AirTran operate out of gate C2? On midway's website it shows that AirTran does arrive at gate C2 almost everyday. Should I put AirTran under Concourse C then? Under one of Midway airports website it says that the gates in the C concoures are the cities gates and that anyone can ultrilize them. Then they give a list of airlines that can use them, Delta, Conntinental, AirTran, and Northwest, because they operate the boeing 717 and Dc-9 aircraft which are mostly use in the C gates. 76.16.109.18 (talk)
 * Where does it say FL uses C2? I checked Arrivals/Departures for AirTran and it listed A4A, A10, and A12. I know they also use A4B when they are busy, and AirTran has leased those four gates in Concourse A. Continental has leased out all 3 gates (C1, C2, C3) in Concourse C, and Delta subleases C1 from COA since they don't have near enough flights/day to use all three. Sox 23 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * City gates as far as I know are A3 and B25. A2 might also be one as I don't think that Frontier owns it? However ATA uses these the majority of the time, B25 more than A3, but A3 is used for international arrivals. Sox 23 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, I just wanted to make sure. I wish AirTran had more gates. I like flying them, but they don't offer much service. I don't think its fair that Southwest gets all those gates either. Whats your opinion, sox23? 76.16.109.18 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally like ATA. I remember the days when TZ occupied the majority of Concourse A and WN was confined to Concourse B. It's a shame what happened to ATA, but I like Southwest's product, and while it may not be fair that SWA controls about 85% of MDW, we ultimatly benefit from all of WN's service. I can't say much about AirTran as I have never flown with them, but I'm sure they are comprable to ATA pre-2004. Sox 23 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked ATA too. There fairs were good as well. Do you think any airline could beat Southwest out of Midway. I would love to see AirTran has more gates and more destinations, because I always fly them, and I hate connecting in Atlanta. Do you think AirTran could get there space to grow at Gary/chicago airport, so they could operate out of two of chicago's airports? Please say your opinion Sox23. Do you think any airline could grow using two chicago airports instead of one? 76.16.109.18 Also do you think AirTran could request more gates and offer to pay more? Could they expand midway airport? concourse C is really small, do you think they could expand it, if not than that airport is a dead end for any airline wanted to expand, because there are no gates. 76.16.109.18
 * In a business perspective, operating out of both MDW and GYY would just be idiotic. If AirTran did this, they would have to ultimatly pick one or the other. Southwest is too much of a powerhouse to ever even feel remotely threatened at Chicago-Midway, and especially now with the added gates from the ATA deal, unless people just decide to boycott Southwest (which I don't see ever happening), WN will not only continue to grow at MDW, but also expand operations. SWA isn't even operating their 29 gates at capacity; they could probably add an extra 75-100 flights a day, and expect them to in the future. Actually, MDW has great potential to overtake LAS as Southwest's number one destination (in terms of daily departures). Right now AirTran basically has all the space they will ever have at MDW- don't expect them to grow that much. I think AirTran has a better shot at expanding in MKE (like they are currently doing) over GYY, because GYY just hasn't made it yet- every airline that has operated out of GYY has either gone bankrupt or pulled out (AirTran obviously wouldn't go bankrupt, but I don't know how long they would last). Their recent expansion at MKE has to be in large part because of Southwest at Midway. In terms of operating out of two Chicago airports, be it MDW & GYY, or MDW & ORD for that matter, we can see that American and United were forced to pull out of MDW when they served 2 Chicago markets (2 of the more popular Chicago markets for that matter), so how can we expect AirTran to be successful serving both MDW & GYY; besides GYY is only like 25 miles from MDW. I never intended to write this much- hope it helps. Sox 23 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Part 2- AirTran isn't even using all four of their current gates to their full potential; it seems like every time I check flight status, A10 and A12 are almost always in use, and either A4A or A4B. Only at peak times during the day (and of course during late night/early morning for RONs) are all four of FL's gates in use simultaneously. Basically, there are no gates at Midway- Breakdown: Out of 43 gates: SWA controls 29, TRS controls 4, ATA controls 2 (B25 is a city gate, but is in constant use), NWA controls 2, DAL controls 2, COA controls 2 (leases all of Concourse C), FFT controls 1. That leaves 1 gate (A3; used by TZ for GDL and CUN flights), and that is used primarily for international arrivals because the immigration facility is located in Concourse A. If AirTran really wanted to, they MIGHT be able to get a gate in Concourse C, (presumably C2), but I think the reason Continental has leased out Concourse C is to prevent competition (Continental only has like 5 flights a day or something like that so it makes NO sense that they lease out 3 gates; keep in mind that they sub-lease C1 to Delta). You are essentially right when you say MDW is a dead end. What airline in its right mind would enter Chicago-Midway RIGHT NOW and compete with Southwest? I think that had AirTran realized what a power Southwest would become at MDW, they would've put more of a focus on Milwaukee, and I think that they are realizing this right now as they've chosen to expanded MKE over MDW. The difference? Milwaukee has room to grow; Chicago doesn't. Sox 23 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So you dont think they could build on to their concourses at midway. Could airtran also get more gates at mke. When should we expect airtran to add more destinations from MKE? Do you think airtran will ever have a midwest hub? 76.16.109.18 23:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC) I know skybus has been wanted to add service to chicago. Do you think they should use Gary/chicago airport? 76.16.109.18 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Do you think ATA could ever regrow at Midway? thye barely have any destinations. could this mean that some gates could open up? 76.16.109.18 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that AirTran could add a few more flights than what they currently have at Midway. I'm not saying they could add a lot, maybe 7? I don't work for TRS so I can't say when to expect more destinations from MKE- presumably soon, I mean they just moved to Concourse C at Milwaukee, they picked up 2 more gates for a total of four. They actually have already announced new destinations/more frequencies. I'm not sure what else they have up their sleeve for MKE. Right now MKE is their best shot at a Midwest hub. STL also has a TON of open space for AirTran to grow should they want it; they are currently the only airline operating out of Concourse B, and there is TONS and TONS of space to grow in St. Louis since American's dismantle of TWA's former hub. And as an added plus, Southwest's presence isn't as big in STL as it is in MDW. The plus of MKE of course, is that there is NO SOUTHWEST AIRLINES at all, which can only benefit them. As for Skybus, I would love to see their attempt for a successful operation out of GYY. I think that GYY would be a perfect airport for Skybus to use for Chicago service. Gary/Chicago International Airport is like 25 miles from Chicago? and fits Skybus' pattern in terms of serving airports away from major cities. I know GYY is completing some work (extending the main runway, rerouting train tracks on the north end of the field, etc...) which will only be beneficial to luring more airlines. I think that GYY has great potential to be one of Skybus' next new destinations. Sox 23 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think ATA will ever be the same airline it was pre-bankruptcy in 2004. AirTran has a better chance of becoming what ATA once was than ATA does; Back in 2004, TZ and WN were relatively equal in size of operations at Midway. A LOT has changed since then. ATA dropped from 14 gates to 2. Southwest increased from 15 gates to 29. ATA recently ended service to Washington-Reagan, actually that happened Wednesday, and is also discontinuing service to New York-LaGuardia and Ontario in January. This will cut ATA's operations down substantially, but even with these service reductions, ATA will have 2 gates to operate about 10 daily flights. ATA will still need 2 gates for that; AirTran won't be picking one of them up, and the city of Chicago really can't lease A3 to AirTran because a city gate is still needed in Concourse A for international flights. Sox 23 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think MDW can expand their concourses. If you're talking about Concourse C, there are only 3 gates because Concourse C is located really close to Runway 22L. I think that if C4 were to be built, the proximity to Runway 22L would be too great, and a safety issue would be brought up. Concourse B and the main part of Concourse A can't really be expanded, again because of the proximity to a runway (I think its Runway 31R). Maybe they could add on another gate where A4A and A4B are (making the new gate A4C?) but that would most likely take away part of the taxiway to Midway's main runway 31C, and that would probably do more harm than good. Sox 23 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You said St. Louis has alot of space. Why hasn't any ohter airline taken advantage of that space? Also, since theres NOOOO space at midway, why don't the airline try Gyy of chicago Rockford? In your opinion what airport would be the best for airtran to make a hub at? 76.16.109.18 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Do you think southwest airlines could ever go bankrupt? And since ata doesnt have a hub, do you think they could move their base to hawaii? or oakland? 76.16.109.18 03:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Delta and Con. bot use ord and mdw. If they ended service, who would get the empty gates? Can the city take gates away from southwest? 76.16.109.18 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) You know how northwest airlines is the second largest at MKE, why haven't they added service to other airports other than their hub? Why do they even need 8 gates? 76.16.109.18 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * STL does have a lot of space. Virtually all of Concourses B and D are empty. I have no idea why other airlines haven't taken advantage of this space? probably lack of customer demand for St. Louis? I think the primary reason airlines havent resorted to GYY is because nobody has had luck with service there; Seeing as how every airline that served Gary/Chicago in the past has left, GYY hasn't really proved it can handle commercial service. There were reports that JetBlue Airways was looking at serving GYY, but they ultimately chose ORD. In terms of RFD -Allegiant Air and United Airlines, especially Allegiant do relatively well at RFD; not sure why other airlines haven't tried their luck there. Right now, AirTran's best bet for a midwest hub is at Milwaukee. They seem to be building a nice niche there and if that doesn't end up working out, they can always try their luck at STL. Sox 23 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is NO WAY ON EARTH that Southwest Airlines will ever go bankrupt. They are too strong of an airline, and seem to be a very fast-paced growing airline. While other airlines have announced pilot furloughs and service reductions since 9/11, SWA has not only hired new pilots, but also increased service. Southwest is the King of low-fare airlines, and I don't see them losing that status at all in the years to come. It's a shame what has happened to the passenger service of ATA Airlines. They seem to be focusing more-so on the military/charter business now, as I believe their breakdown is 1/3 scheduled; 2/3 charter service. Their primary asset right now is their service to Hawaii, and seem to have focus city-like operations at MDW, OAK, and HNL. This is as big as ATA's scheduled operations will be, at least for the near future. I've heard some big scheduled expansion is coming in 2009, but that's not a fact...yet. As long as nobody enters the MDW-EWR market, Continental will remain at Midway (AirTran once had service to Newark from Chicago, but couldn't make the route profitable and ended service a few years ago). Delta is definitely not leaving MDW anytime soon as ATA is ending their New York-LaGuardia flights in January, leaving Delta Connection as the only carrier operaing MDW-LGA. So nobody will be getting the empty gates because there will be none. (If by some chance they did, I would be willing to bet it would be a 2-way battle between WN and FL for the empty 4 gates, and seeing how AirTran has lost out in the past on virtually everything they competed against in recent years (lost out on TZ purchase to SWA, lost out on YX takeover to NWA), I think Southwest would come away with four more gates at MDW. Southwest Airlines has a long-term lease with the City of Chicago on all 29 gates they currently operate out of. SWA has no intention of leaving MDW (it is their #2 destination, soon to be #1), and Chicago cannot and will not take away gates from Southwest. The more service Southwest provides from MDW, the more money the city of Chicago makes; it is a win-win situation for SWA and Chicago. For NWA & MKE- I think NWA tried to expand MKE a while ago, and just couldn't make it work. Passenger demand to MSP and DTW is greater than MKE, and especially now with NWA owning a large part of Midwest Airlines, we will not see a Northwest expansion in Milwaukee anytime soon. Northwest currently leases 6 gates in Milwaukee (E64-E69). I don't know the frequency of their flights, but if they want to lease out six gates, who is going to stop them? They have to be leasing them out for a reason- whether it be they actually need six gates, or they want to keep out competition: "A.K.A. AirTran." Sox 23 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think ATA could make their hub at honalulu? They have way more destinations than at Midway. Also, you know how airtran has a secondary hub at BWI and southwest operates a ton iof service there, do you think they coould stop airtran from expanding more? Could BWI or MCO become a hub for Airtran in the future? Also airtran recently got slots at La Guardia, do you think that could become a focus city for airtran? Also, could airtran one day become the leading carrier at MKE if they add more destinations and compete with Midwest, and beat them? 76.16.109.18 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ATA, in the forseeable future, will not have a hub. HNL and OAK will most likely be TZ's two largest destinations, and I don't expect ATA to increase new service. They just don't have the resources to do this right now. Like I said before, at present, they seem to have a greater concentration on their charter operations. BWI and MDW are different in terms of the "Southwest effect." BWI is a lot bigger than MDW, so SWA isn't just facing competition mainly from AirTran (like it does at MDW). Also, I think AirTran has more room to grow at BWI than it does at MDW, so I don't think AirTran will have a problem expanding at BWI when and if they really want to. I see MCO becoming a hub before BWI. Both cities have a large AirTran presence, and whether they are upgraded to a "hub" I think will really depend on if they can open a large midwest focus city. New York-LaGuardia presents problems for AirTran, just as Midway does. The problem at LaGuardia: it is a slot-restricted airport. That means that no airline there can have substantial growth, even AirTran. I don't see AirTran becoming the #1 carrier at MKE for a long time. Reason being: passenger loyalty. Customers in Milwaukee are extremely loyal to their hometown airline, Midwest Airlines (it doesn't help either that Midwest was just voted as having one of the best products in the airline industry). AirTran will have to make a name for itself in Milwaukee before they become #1, regardless if they add destinations or not. Sox 23 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Denver is a hub for bot frontier and united, and southwest is building operations, do you think denver can become a focus city for southwest, and take over the airport? 76.16.109.18 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Frontier has a hub spoke system, will they ever open a focus city or hub in the us? They have, used to have a big presence at memphis, but they are discontiuning their destinations there, and should frontier be worried that southwest is builind operations at their hub? and if southwest took over that airport, where would frontier go? 76.16.109.18 15:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In good time, Denver has the possibility to be expanded enough to be on of Southwest Airlines' top ten airports, in terms of traffic. Southwest will never take over DEN, in large part because of Denver's mega-giants United and Frontier. I see Denver increasing their Denver operations in the future, but I don't see them operaing another hub in the United States. Mexico is a different story; they have focus cities at Cancún (Cancún International Airport) and Los Cabos/Cabo San Lucas (Los Cabos International Airport). I see them expanding Mexico before expanding in the United States. They tried expanding at Memphis, but due to rising fuel costs, the new flights were to expensive to keep, so they discontinued all of their new ones except service to their hub, Denver. Frontier has no reason to worry about Southwest because this situation is much like that in Milwaukee with Midwest Airlines and AirTran. Frontier Airlines is "Denver's hometown airline," and passengers in Denver have a huge loyalty to FFT. And if they don't like FFT, they have United (which has even bigger operations at Denver than Frontier). Southwest may be adding flights like crazy, but their flights aren't even close to as full as Frontier's are. I think I heard somewhere that FFT has a 90% load factor from MDW-DEN/DEN-MDW, and Southwest only has a 70% load factor. Southwest will never take over Denver International Airport as long as United and Frontier retain their strong presence there. Sox 23 16:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Could ata add la/ontario airport as a focus city in the future? Also, How does midwest have a hub at Kansas city when they only serve two destinations, and their not even the largest carrier? also, at midway, delta and airtran both serve mdw-Atlanta service, who is winning? Why doesn't airtran add more destinations from MDW, like BWI, or one of the new york airports? 76.16.109.18 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Will NWA ever add service to Memphis from midway? And, since skyvalue usa doesn't operate flights anymore, will gary/chicago ever land cape air, skybus, or any other airline?76.16.109.18 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think ATA will add LA/Ontario Airport as a focus city- right now they don't seem to be concentrating on their scheduled service as much as their charter ops. Midwest, including Midwest Connect, serves 18 destinations from MCI. I don't know where you got 2 from...an airline doesn't have to be the airport's largest carrier to have a hub there...look at Virgin America at SFO. SFO is their hub and they are by no means the largest carrier there. I don't know who carries more pax to ATL between Delta and AirTran- you'd have to look that up somewhere-IDK where. You'd have to ask AirTran why they don't expand to the east coast- They flew to EWR once but that was dropped to seasonal and eventually cut. LGA is flight-capped so they probably can't get more slots to add service to MDW (they got 5 from ATA but are using them for Florida routes). Again with Northwest, I have no idea how they do at MDW- they operate out of 2 gates (A5, A7) so they have to be doing okay to maintain 2 gates. Northwest could add service to MEM, but IDK if they will. Since SkyValue has gone bankrupt, I think its just a matter of time before GYY receives service to IND (via Cape Air) and CMH (via Skybus). I think both airlines have expressed interest and Gary/Chicago seems to fit the profile of both those airlines. Sox 23 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I ment to say Midwest airlines focus city at eppley field. they will only operate two destinations from there soon, so how is it a focus city? 76.16.109.18 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Also, i was just at Midway Airport, and why is there still a American Airlines ticket counter? 76.16.109.18 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Acutally, I've just been discussing this with MasonJ0890. We don't consider it to be a focus city because only 2 destinations are served- same as some other cities with 2 destinations (MKE & MCI). There was a press release that named OMA a focus city but I think that with the discontinued service to LAX I don't think they consider it to be one anymore. To get a true answer, I'd email someone at Midwest and ask them. I have no idea why AA still has a ticket counter at MDW. My guess is that that space hasn't been needed yet but if SWA continues its expansion, its only a matter of time before that gets taken over. Sox 23 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New Sections after 2004?
A look at a certain airport drawing leaves me to believe that there were extra sections added to the airport concourses after 2004; however, nothing else I've looked at seems give evidence of these new sections. Specifically, there should be a new section for each concourse... 207.34.120.71 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean? The concourses were done by 2004; Concourse A had the current 17 gates, Concourse B had the current 23 gates, and Concourse C had the current 3 gates... Sox 23 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A picture of the existing layout dated 2008 shows several extra sections/gates that jut out from the concourses. Pictures in 2004 do not seem to correspond... 207.34.120.71 (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Post a link to this pic because as far as I know, MDW only has the 43 gates that were completed during the expansion... Sox 23 21:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey it's me. I'm guessing the drawing I was given was wrong.  Has anybody had a first-hand look at the current state of the concourses? (ie. any "extra sections").  Otherwise this topic is closed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace blazer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This map from Midway's website will show you the terminal layouts for Concourses A, B, and C. They are up-to-date and include all 43 gates. Maps and Concessions at Midway Sox 23 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename of Article
Not sure if this one needs to be renamed yet a second time, but the airport is no longer being called Chicago Midway International Airport now the main Chicago Airport Authority website calls it simply Midway International Airport.

These changes are shown here:





I propose a vote for rename, to Midway International Airport -Marcusmax (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a comment to my own post, I relized that in a past rename we relized that the FAA uses Chicago Midway International Airport, hence if we are going to use the FAA names we will have to rename O'hare International Airport to Chicago-O'hare International Airport and many other airports that share the same problem. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – the average reader knows that O'Hare is in Chicago, but the word "Chicago" is necessary to identify the geographic location of the lesser-known Midway. Bwrs (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to have to agree with Bwrs; most people may not know where Midway International Airport is, as it is a significantly smaller airport than ORD. The sign at Midway reads: "Welcome to Chicago Midway International Airport". I think it's fine listed as CMIA, so I oppose. Sox 23 05:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the two above, speaking as a non-American, I'd wonder who build an international airport in the middle of the pacific ocean. I'm not sure this airport is well known enough internationally for us to drop the Chicago. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If no objections, I move to close this, and keep the article as Chicago Midway International Airport using WP:SNOW. Future rename disscussions (if any) can be held at WP:AVIATION for a rename of ORD. -Marcusmax (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to close approved. Sox 23 21:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CLOSED Result was Keep using WP:SNOW -Marcusmax (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Square mile?
At some points the area is given as 320 acre, which is 1/2 square mile, at other points it's given as one square mile. Does anybody know what's right and where the different values come from?--ospalh (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Took a look in Google Earth. It's a mile by a mile. So. Where's the 320 acre figure coming from?--ospalh (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In, say, 1936 the airport was a half-mile north to south, with a railroad running along its then-northern boundary. When it opened the airport was 160 acres, on the southeast quarter of the present square mile; dunno how long that lasted. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Volaris started service to Chicago-Midway
I updated the airlines list since Volaris started serving Chicago-Midway with direct flights to Guadalajara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.176.63 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Page Move
I suggest this page be moved back to it's original name, Midway International Airport. I don't see a need for the Chicago on the end, many smaller airports in smaller cities do not include the city in their titles, unless it is in their name. Look at LaGuardia Airport, it is NYC's second airport, but does not have New York in the beginning, so I don't see why we need it here. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 12:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Anyone? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone....? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

MDW in motion pictures.
I am curious to know if those who administer the wikipage on MDW would consent to my adding a chapter on Midway's appearance in motion pictures. First and foremost, of course, is Hitchcock's "North by Northwest". Please contact me at ros.pratch@gmail.com. I am a Wikipedia subscriber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.83.165 (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

MDW in motion pictures.
I am curious to know if those who administer the wikipage on MDW would consent to my adding a chapter on Midway's appearance in motion pictures. First and foremost, of course, is Hitchcock's "North by Northwest". Please contact me at ros.pratch@gmail.com. I am a Wikipedia subscriber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.83.165 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

April 1957 OAG - Edit War
An edit war is in effect between myself and Tim Zukas. He wants to list the flights from the April 1957 OAG. I have two problems with this, one, it is absolutely not needed, two, I don't see a source, whether he gives me one, it is not needed. Someones take on this would be helpful. Kairportflier (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what's exactly the issue? I see this is a good article, so care must be taken when adding or modifying anything. Please do compromise not to modify anything until the dispute is solved or consensus is reached. I'll be watching this page.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that the information is not needed or helpful that he is adding. I have just noticed this user is doing this on multiple pages, i might bring this to wiki:airports to determine. Kairportflier (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad idea to ask for full protection of the page too.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are the two versions. See which one has more info and less pointless verbiage (the two versions total somewhere close to the same byte count, as I recall)


 * ===Early history (1923–1962)===
 * Originally named Chicago Air Park, Midway Airport was built on a 320 acre plot in 1923 with one cinder runway that primarily served airmail services. In 1928 the airfield had twelve hangars and four runways, lit for night operations.


 * Midway chicago.jpg International Airports]]


 * A new passenger terminal opened in 1931 and the following year Midway Airport claimed to be the "World's Busiest" with over 100,846 passengers on 60,947 flights. The March 1939 OAG shows 47 weekday departures: 13 on United, 13 American, 9 TWA, 4 Northwest and two each on Eastern, Braniff, Pennsylvania Central and C&S. New York's airport (Newark, then LaGuardia by the end of 1939) was then the busiest airline airport in the United States, but Midway passed LaGuardia around 1950 and retained the title until O'Hare claimed it in 1961.


 * More construction was funded in part by $1 million from the Works Progress Administration; the field expanded to fill the square mile in 1938-41 after a court ordered the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad to reroute tracks that had crossed the square along the north edge of the older field. In 1941 Midway handled 25% of the nation's 417,000 airline passengers.


 * In July 1949 the airport was renamed after the Battle of Midway. That year Midway saw 3.2 million passengers; passengers peaked at 10 million in 1959. The April 1957 OAG shows 414 weekday fixed-wing departures from Midway: 83 American, 83 United, 56 TWA, 40 Capital, 35 North Central, 28 Delta, 27 Eastern, 22 Northwest, 19 Ozark, 11 Braniff, 5 Trans-Canada and 5 Lake Central. Air France, Lufthansa and REAL (of Brazil) had a few flights a week.

--


 * ===Early history (1923–1962)===
 * Originally named Chicago Air Park, Midway Airport was built on a 320 acre plot in 1923 and consisted of a single cinder runway that primarily served airmail services. During its first full year of operation in 1928 the airfield had twelve hangars and four runways, lit for night operations.


 * Midway chicago.jpg International Airports]]


 * A new passenger terminal and administration building, funded by a bond issue, was dedicated in 1931 by Chicago mayor Anton Cermak, and in the following year Midway Airport claimed to be the "World's Busiest" with over 100,846 passengers riding on 60,947 flights.


 * In 1941 Midway Airport joined World War II efforts. The war years were a boon for Midway, which saw new construction funded in part by $1 million in federal monies from the Works Progress Administration. Work on additional runways moved forward in 1941 when a court ordered the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad to reroute tracks that had crossed the airfield. Midway handled 25% of the nation's 417,000 passengers in that year.


 * The airport was renamed on July 8, 1949 by the City Council to "Chicago Midway Airport" in honor of the World War II Battle of Midway. Midway saw 3.2 million passengers carried on 223,000 flights during 1949.


 * The airport's current IATA code MDW dates from 1949 when Chicago Municipal Airport was renamed Chicago Midway Airport. The airport is managed by the Chicago Airport System, which also oversees operations at O'Hare International Airport and Gary/Chicago International Airport. The airport is named after the Battle of Midway during World War II.

[The point of the flight counts is (of course) to enable comparisons with other airports, whose articles have the same info. Aside from the OAG flight counts we don't know how many airline flights the airport had in 1932 or 1939, or how many other airports had. Some people aren't interested in knowing that; I think a fair chunk of readers would like some halfway definite comparisons of how busy different airports were in the 1930s and in the 1950s. It'll help them judge the goofy claims that like to pop up here and there.]Tim Zukas (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One of my first comments is that one of the references comes from YouTube, which is not considered a reliable one.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the information about number of flights per airline is really that important to the average reader. I would almost consider it to be fancruft. Perhaps it'd be fine to keep this info for 1957, but not for 1939. &mdash;Comp dude 123 00:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Requested full protection.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dumping the Youtube is fine with me. It's plenty reliable, but useless.


 * How busy the airport was (compared to other airports) is useful info, and there's no other way to measure it. Anyone know how many airline ops MDW and EWR and Washington had in 1939? Or any other prewar year? I don't.Tim Zukas (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have protected the article from editng for the moment to encourage discussion until you guys come up with some consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * His information is not sourced, and it is simply NOT needed. Kairportflier (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See? It's simple-- the info is simply NOT needed. No need for any discussion.


 * And discussion does look pointless, all right. No one knows why he's so certain he knows what the reader wants to know, and looks like no one ever will know. (Anyone know why he thinks the OAG isn't a source?)


 * He says I'll be blocked if I continue to add "unconstructive" info to articles; it'll be interesting to see if he can arrange that. Tim Zukas (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not being mean so don't get offended if I don't agree with you. Where is the source in your OAG sentences? Where is the source? Kairportflier (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops-- forgot some people don't know what the OAG is. No objection to spelling it out-- it was still the Official Aviation Guide then, rather than the Official Airline Guide (the latter title dates from 1948).


 * In other news-- just found out American Airlines alone had more than 800,000 revenue passengers in 1940. So we need to delete that claim about Midway having a quarter of the country's 400,000+ airline passengers in whatever year it was. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the protection to let others edit the article, I have to assume good faith that you guys will not start an edit war again. If you do then other sanctions may have to be used, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)