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.
>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. >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. >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. -Adam > > > >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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
