Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy)
John Forbes wrote: >Adam, > >You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 >tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 >million per flight. > > At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. >Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when >there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. > > Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. >Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. > >John > > > > I suggest you do as well -Adam >On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>John Forbes wrote: >> >> >> >>>Aaron, >>> >>>When you're in a hole, stop digging. >>> >>>And put your brain in gear. >>> >>>As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not >>>higher ones. >>> >>>I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS >>>for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would >>>just >>>ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? >>> >>>Work it out for yourself. >>> >>>John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we >>use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. >> >> >>-Adam >> >> >> > > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
