In a message dated 9/2/2003 7:56:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mmontano@xxxxxxxxx writes: << Somewhat makes sense. UA's biggest complaint a while back was the labour (& fuel) costs for a 747 was too high, and running that many seats was too risky. With labour costs slashed, and renewed demand, then running a 747 starts to make more sense again. But with so many birds flying the pacific, with finicky trigger finger customers surfing the web, it doesn't take much for a 747 to not fly full. >> I think you make really good points here. The thing I see, however, is the load factors. Pretty much every airline reports 80% and up load factors, and that is with mostly 747s. UA was reporting 85% Pacific load factors after 9/11 and before they switched to 777s on some prestige routes (including LAX-NRT, the idiots). The demand for these flights is why they stay so expensive as compared to Trans-Atlantic. There are more people flying in fewer seats (albiet on bigger planes), and a great deal of them are business people who will pay bigger money for seats