On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:03:22 +0100, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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). You can't compare cars with cameras. See Paul's post. >> 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. Now you are comparing the cost of launching a space rocket with the cost of sending a Jumbo across the Pacific. Moron was too mild a word. >>>> 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) So you just send two packages instead of one. How many times do I have to drop that little hint, oh Maestro of Logistics? >>>> 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? It's quite clear that you know nothing whatsoever about this subject, so why persist in making yourself look more silly with every post? >> >> >>>> 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) You're too stupid to realise I've disproved every one. Incidentally, the "hominem" in "ad hominem" refers to homo sapiens, the distinguishing feature of which is a large brain. If you are indeed a member of this species, you have some way to go to prove it. If you had an ounce of intelligence you would not have come up with this stupid number. If you had two ounces of intelligence, you would not have continued to brandish it when everybody was telling you you were crazy. If you had three ounces of intelligence you would, once you realised your egregious error, have owned up, apologised, and shut up. Instead you have tried to attack me. You are dishonest, stupid, credulous, irrational, and unpleasant. Good night. John > -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
