But why do that if they can make more (or equal) amounts of money using = the aircraft on other routes that might have lower costs in general (from, = for example, a lower cost ground service contract at a far-flung airport)? I guess I don't see the value in flying a route "just because." That is, I don't think decisions are made by throwing a dart and saying "oh, = LAX-MXP came up. Let's stop that route." -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alireza Alivandivafa Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 11:57 PM To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: LAX-Italy service They actually dropped them at the same time, I believe. I don't see why = an MD-11 could not have had the economics. It is a very efficient plane = that I actually like better than the 777, but it got lost in corporate = politics. Remember, no ETOPS and still good economy. 767 would be way too small = for a route of that length. It is like when AA tried LAX-CDG with one and did = not make money. I think Alitalia should have taken one of the new 777s, or = even the 744s that now have G-V... regs and driven down the fares they were charging. That would have filled planes and made money