We've had this discussion before. While intuitive, the "major" to = low-cost comparison is not apples-to-apples. To say that the major airlines are losing money simply because they do not operate high frequency, = one-class aircraft is just wrong. And operating high frequency, one-class aircraft = is not a sure path to success, as Vanguard, National, Midway, and others = can attest (yes, these operated two-class aircraft, but not to a degree that makes it statistically relevant). -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alireza Alivandivafa Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:18 PM To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: An interesting bit of...COLUSION (sic?) And the mainlines are going bankrupt while low fares make money. RJs = really don't allow people to bypass hubs as they normally fly to the hubs from smaller markets (SBA-LAX or DEN, FAT-DEN...). They just fly people into hubs so they can bypass security (maybe). The low fares use far bigger planes than RJs (around the PAX capacity of what UA and AA fly on 762s, = more on jetBlue), out of smaller markets and/or airports, and fly with = frequency. They make money because they take into account economies of scale and = are not so greedy with margins that they cannot sell tix.