Thanks for posting that link, BF263533

Quite an interesting read.If a competitive advantage is realized through the combination of quick turnarounds in America and Europe, relatively cheaper MX labor in Asia and more convenient flight times for travelers at the cost of a few extra hours of idle time in HKG than why not go for it?Yes, but Continental could improve it's equipment utilitization if they gassed up all idle planes and had them circle the airport rather than RON. They’d waste boatloads of fuel and labor but the a/c utilitization would shoot through the ceiling.

Point being that it makes no sense for CO to go through the expense of an additional flight if the revenues cannot offset the expense. Yes, every business is driven by the bottom line but as we all know, in the airline business there's more than just aircraft utilitization driving profits/losses. Furthermore, we do not know what necessary tasks are being performed “behind the scenes” in HKG during the down time which would have to be performed elsewhere should the 777 continue on immediately.

By simply saying "CO should add a flight here because the plane is sitting on the ground for too long" would shortsighted as there are undoubtedly many necessary functions, in addition to the few I've guessed at, which are performed during the down time.

First off, they can - and are - getting new planes which will allow for growth and perhaps better utilitization. But still, it seems like the 787's are going to do to Asia what the 757's did for Europe. To that extent, Houston and Newark have good potential for growth.Correct. But, the addition of ExpressJet flights represent much less of a fiscal risk than negotiating for new rights, launching new international marketing campaigns, doling out the cash for landing fees, etc.