You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million.
Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. You are actually off by much more than "an order of magnitude", and it has nothing to do with the age of the data, and a lot more to do with simple common sense. Or uncommon sense, in some cases. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:06:44 +0100, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- 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
