I won't claim to have the knowledge Tony does of the cans and loading of the jets. But I will share a couple anecdotes from Asia...

NRT-SIN is gone from the 767 bidpack in Mar, and flight 5311 is now distributed across the 3 MD-11 bidpacks. Scheduled for just under 7:30, I went 8:19 on the flight yesterday. ATC delays and strong winds make that a pretty long flight. Add a few hiccups like holding and you go over 8 hours. Rather than jam an RFO into the 767 it appears the company decided the MD11 might be a better fit after all.

Second point was a friend ended up on Hotel standby because his CAN-ICN run had too much freight and they gauged up to an MD11 for that flight. The LAX hotel stby crew indicated they "expect" to fly most nights during their standby and this was a common occurrence.

I R simple pilot, not a smart MBA. I have no idea what the yield is per pound or total costs of using an -11 vice 767 on any segment. What is apparent to my operator perspective, however, is that the comm indicating the 767 will "replace" the -11 flying intra-Asia may have been a tad premature. Unless we reduce the scheduled freight and add an RFO to some of the longer legs, I suspect the MadDog is still gonna be seen on the CAN ramp....at least for a while.

And for the record, I'm not sniping at anyone in flight ops or on the line on this one. It just seems to me that maybe some of the capabilities we have with the MD-11 may not be captured on a 1 for 1 basis with the 767. We burned about 87,000 pounds of gas on the trip, so its obviously a pretty fuel efficient platform. Looking at PFC, you rarely read about any issues with the plane when you read the duty officer's reports. It may be the ideal MD-10 replacement domestically. For over-water class II ops, however, we need a few improvements to match the capability of the -11, and I am not sure even if those are made the plane still won't be leaving some freight behind on some of the legs if we really do the 1 for 1 switch. Kudos to those guys trying to be efficient and make a buck...I get it. It just seems (to my untrained eye) like it might have been an optimistic overreach on at least a couple of the pairings.