OK, I'll go with William's numbers instead, at least for stuff that fits in a 747-400 freighter.
-Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: >You have to remember, my numbers were for prototype cars that had to >be handled with extreme care. And they were received at an airport >that wasn't well equipped for those kind of shipments. It's an >extreme case, and I doubt that it ever gets more costly than that. >(Chrysler seemed to think they were outrageously overcharged:-). >Paul >On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > >>John Forbes wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>John Forbes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So >>>>>it IS >>>>>$156 >>>>>million. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb >>>>number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So >>>>I'm not >>>>being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about >>>>the >>>>$1000/lb number. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Likely???????? Did you say "Likely"? What a comedian! Not only was >>>$1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that >>>was 100 >>>times (two orders of magnitude) too much. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Umm, it was at most 4 times too much (given Paul's $25/lb cost for an >>actual shipment for a slightly shorter distance), and possibly not >>even >>that much (since I was guessing for larger quantities than 2 cars). I >>said likely because we don't have hard numbers (And I'm sure there are >>situations in which my original number is accurate, just not this >>one). >> >> >> >>>This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If >>>airfreight cost >>>anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection >>>would be >>>enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Funny, but run the numbers on a Shuttle Launch sometime. 27 tons of >>cargo, half a billion or so launch cost (Possibly more, can't be >>bothered to look up the number). Yet they fill the hold with >>commercial >>satellites often enough. High costs don't kill industries, they push >>them into niches. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote >>>>sea >>>>shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect >>>>that >>>>pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than >>>>40'containers, >>>>due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air >>>>freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. >>>>Which makes >>>>no sense economically. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates >>>up to >>>2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If >>>2000kgs >>>IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, >>>if you >>>need to send more than 2000kgs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>No, it actually quotes rates far in excess of 2000kgs, just not via >>air. >>I suspect this was for a reason (Costs going up due to capacity >>issues) >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of >>>>cameras. >>>>Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. >>>>So your> >>>>source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a >>>month, or >>>what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone "my >>>argument". Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made >>>binoculars, >>>which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a >>>Pentax camera. I actually said: "and since the goods get there more >>>quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air- >>>freight." >>>Note the "probably". Since the difference in price between sea >>>and air >>>would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of >>>airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these >>>people >>>are working on a "Just-in-time" manufacturing and stocking system. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Actually, given Pentax's posted production numbers, we can make a >>solid >>guess as to shipping numbers. And we've had references from the one >>person here with solid inside information stating that Pentax does use >>sea freight for large shipments (Which was my basic argument anyways). >>Also you are merely asserting that Air Shipping is safer (It's >>certainly >>faster) although that's certainly a defensible argument, you have >>yet to >>argue it. Note that just-in-time systems work quite well with 2 week >>shipping times, in fact they'd mostly make air freight unnecessary >>since >>they're able to plan around the shipping times to be most efficient. >>Given the size of these binoculars (Approximately 35kgs), it's >>probably >>possible to ship significantly more Pentax cameras via air freight and >>stay in the area of reasonable cost. However you should note that the >>Binoculars appear to be targeted towards individual stores or mail >>order >>firms rather than a single national distributor (a la Pentax US) based >>on quantities that shipping is quoted for. I doubt that Pentax ships >>cameras in qunatities of 1000 to Pentax US, far more likely to ship >>10,0000. Their quotes for quantities of Binoculars suitable for a >>national distributor are all quoted with sea freight. I wonder why >>that is? >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Even with your numbers, you argument about how their shipped is >>>>wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Really? You have been consistently wrong and irrational >>>throughout this >>>discussion. You are utterly without credibility. Nothing you say >>>makes >>>sense or can be believed. I don't believe your figures about >>>passenger >>>versus freight payloads either. They just don't make sense. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Interesting, since I pulled those directly from Boing's site. You can >>check for yourself at http://www.boeing.com. I was quoting payload and >>range numbers for the 747-400ER and 747-400ER Freighter specifically. >>And the only thing I was wrong on was the on $1000/lb number. You've >>been consistently wrong on everything besides the numbers (Since you >>obviously have no idea about how economies of scale actually scale, >>and >>the limitations thereof). Since the Passenger aircraft is >>approximately >>1.5x more efficient (Based on being able togo 1.5x as far onsimilar >>amounts of fuel) even if the costs of air freight via passenger >>aircraft >>is not essentially covered by the paying passengers, the cost of >>freight >>will be lower. >> >> >> >>>Anyway I am reminded of the saying that arguing with fools just >>>makes one >>>look foolish, so I will desist. >>> >>>Goodnight, and pray for a gift from the brain fairy. >>> >>>John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I find it interesting that you so eagerly use ad hominem attacks. >>Especially when you've been able to successfully dispove only a single >>piece of my argument (And one which wasn't core to the essential >>argument, which was sea freight is cheaper and more efficient than air >>freight, so pentax will likely use Sea freight for most shipments) >> >>-Adam >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
