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. 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. >> 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. >> 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. > >> 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. 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 > > -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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
