UA 747s seat 347. LH runs a version that seats 349. I have to confess that I don't get the logic behind not running larger aircraft as being what is wrong with the industry. The 777 is = acknowledged as a leader in cost efficiencies, significantly outstripping the 744. = More seats and lower prices does not always translate into more revenue--in = fact, just the opposite is as likely to be true. Couple this with the fact that UA is parking or selling most of their = 744 fleet and you have what looks like a pretty sound decision, especially because its alliances result in no net loss in passenger capacity. Let somebody else fly the bigger aircraft and try to make a go at it. -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alireza Alivandivafa Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:12 AM To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: An interesting bit of...COLUSION (sic?) They weren't filling the 744 because they charge grotesque ticket fees = to NRT while providing the worst service (outside of NW, which still uses a 742). What is worse is that their 744s only seat 357, probably the least = of any airline (outside of some far flung exec charter), driving their Seat-mile cost up, and driving them further into bankruptcy. This is a keen example of what is wrong with the airline industry. = Back when airlines made money, they used smaller aircraft (DC-10, 767, = L-1011) to do the truely long, thin stuff, and 747s for the big routes (of which LAX-NRT is certainly is). The profitable EU carriers, like BA and LH (though not last quarter) still do this. On the thin routes (PHX, SAN, = DFW, PDX...), they use A340 or 777, and for the big routes (MIA, LAX, SFO, = JFK) they use the 744. They also offer great discount deals often, far more often than AA or UA.