Several other factors in play. Normally the airlines would be considered in violation of anti-trust regulations, but alas, they either don't apply (trans-border) or were exempted. Second game is cargo. Cathy maybe flying their A340's and 744s with few pax from HKG to YVR and other N.A. points, but I'm guess their bellies are full, both-ways. Matthew On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 11:12 PM, Alireza Alivandivafa wrote: > 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. >