You have to keep in mind that a hub and spoke airline is better off leveraging their hubs with any new market additions, unless the economics prove you can make the route work by relying on strictly O & D traffic. For United, the only place on the East Coast that would make sense serving Asia would be IAD, because of the hub there. Sure, on the surface flying from JFK or BOS or PHL to Asia might look attractive because those are all large local areas. But United has little, if any, feed there to fill those flights up. And there just isn't enough O & D traffic to make it profitable. I know United has analyzed IAD-NRT off and on for a few years. I believe that if additional slots were had for NRT, it might happen. But you have to also look at to what degree do the rest of United's gateways to Asia suffer if additional lift is added from the East Coast. For instance, if UA added IAD-NRT, traffic to NRT from places like ORD, LAX, and SFO would suffer because the people who connect from IAD now would overfly those gateways, thus possibly causing them to go from the black to the red. It's a difficult game. But now more than ever, the majors are retrenching to their hubs, which is the last area they have left to truly leverage, and even that is a shrinking proposition. That's why you saw United stop MIA flying to South America, stop EWR-LHR, stop BOS-LHR. They're retrenching to their strengths because with our current cost level, and the current fare environment, adequate feed does not exist to fill those flights up to come anywhere near break-even.