AZ flew the 767 MXPSFO. As others have said...it is pretty much a yield thing...I'm sure loads were struggling and if the planes ever were full, it was people on $400 r/t fares. Even at 100% load factor, the flight would still lose money. AF, LH and the like can make LAX-CDG/FRA/MUC etc. work because there is enough local business demand and a lot more connectivity at the European hub. People will fly AF LAX-MXP via CDG, but no one will fly AZ LAX-CDG via MXP... On Tue, 6 May 2003, Alireza Alivandivafa wrote: > 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 >