It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league.
40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John 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 > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
