Bonza has its AOC
What’s the size of the fortune you’ve made out of the aviation industry?
Me personally? A few Million, and that's being honest. Ask AJ how much he's made from the aviation industry. There's a few of us that are quite happy with our lot in Aviation. I've even made money on GA aircraft, it's about getting the right equipment for the right job and not getting emotional about wanting the biggest or fastest etc etc... I've even operated large boats, but not quite ships, but a few mates have owned fishing fleets, ferries and stuff. As far as the Warren Buffets and such, we're talking extreme money there.
The shipping industry isn't going anywhere, soon that is, as the technology to move the goods of that quantity is not available yet in other means, however, ships are expensive and not particularly efficient. They are only 'cheap' because of the sheer size of the vessels and the quantity they carry. If you were to create an aircraft that carried the same as a mega freighter the scale would make it cheaper to operate than the equivalant ship. Hence why they have tried to pursue options like ekranoplans and airships. There is also further crunch on fuel to move to less polluting higher refined fuels and biofuels as well as LNG, which is driving costs upwards. Some stats that show the increasing cost base of shipping is that over the last 20 years the accepted minimum cost effective load went from 4000 TEU to 8000 TEU, from 8000 TEU onwards the cost per container starts to be a gentle decline that still favours bigger ships but is acceptable. This is the reason the companies push for bigger ships now well in excess of 20,000 TEUs. Which means the governments have to dredge deeper channels, and provide larger port facilities as well as the ship building nations offering subsidized ship building as well as tax incentives. All part of the way countries subsidize the industry overall.
That being said there is another debt crunch coming for the container industry with China and Korea offering heavily subsidized ship building to offer replacements for what is an ageing fleet stagnated over the last 20 years due to costs. The next few years will see over capacity and losses return especially to the Asia/Pacific markets. There's already data that the Singapore-Euro market has fallen to below cost freight prices.
In the US some rail sectors are making good money, but its a distorted market as the government effectively gave away rail assets a while back and we havn't got to the stage that mass replacement of infrastructure and upgrades are required. So companies are skimming the cream off what the tax payer had paid for year. Just like Melbourne Airport is finding out how much it is just to replace aging taxiways after they had wasted millions on carparks.
The overall freight industry got a massive boost during covid, but it's about to have a big adjustment.
That being said there is another debt crunch coming for the container industry with China and Korea offering heavily subsidized ship building to offer replacements for what is an ageing fleet stagnated over the last 20 years due to costs. The next few years will see over capacity and losses return especially to the Asia/Pacific markets. There's already data that the Singapore-Euro market has fallen to below cost freight prices.
In the US some rail sectors are making good money, but its a distorted market as the government effectively gave away rail assets a while back and we havn't got to the stage that mass replacement of infrastructure and upgrades are required. So companies are skimming the cream off what the tax payer had paid for year. Just like Melbourne Airport is finding out how much it is just to replace aging taxiways after they had wasted millions on carparks.
The overall freight industry got a massive boost during covid, but it's about to have a big adjustment.
Me personally? A few Million, and that's being honest. Ask AJ how much he's made from the aviation industry. There's a few of us that are quite happy with our lot in Aviation. I've even made money on GA aircraft, it's about getting the right equipment for the right job and not getting emotional about wanting the biggest or fastest etc etc... I've even operated large boats, but not quite ships, but a few mates have owned fishing fleets, ferries and stuff. As far as the Warren Buffets and such, we're talking extreme money there.
Is ‘AJ’ that guy who runs a heavily government subsidised airline?
Is ‘AJ’ that guy who runs a heavily government subsidised airline?
He's certainly been paid very handsomely to do that though.
The following 3 users liked this post by SIUYA:
As far as the physics prohibiting super large aircraft, that is only a limitation of current technology. We also have to remember that ships were limited in size until the 1800s when metallurgy advances allowed the construction on larger hulls and propulsion systems. When the SS Great Britain was floated out of dock in 1845 it was larger than any other ship by 30 mtrs at only 98 mtrs long, and 1000 tons heavier at 3500 ton. Now there are ships over 400 mts and 600,000 tons just over 150 years later. Likewise aircraft are still in development, we might have some stagnation now, but there's still a lot of technology that can be applied. Not saying they will ever reach the carrying ability of the super ships but they definitely can get a lot bigger.
The other more important factor is how much do you trust shipping lines to maintain a fleet of floating nuclear reactors? The EPA is always chasing conventional ships for spill and leaks of oil and biological waste, its a constant war with some of the regular offenders, imagine non algae glowing waters on your shoreline from a coolant leak. Freighters quite regularly sink, catch fire, run aground, even in this modern age and there is still very little to do about it. The floating luxury car carrier that burnt out for days is a good example, it burned for 2 weeks and then sank, add a nuclear reactor to that mess and it would just cap off the environmental disaster that it still is.
The physics is what makes shipping so costly, you are pushing through water the weight of the ship, water also limits the top speed without costing too much fuel. Hence Hydrofoils and Ekranoplans were concepts that are still being looked at today, although other issues come up when you try and fly multi thousand tons at low level at high speed. Hydrofoils and Early Ekranoplans lack the the clearance to operate over rough oceanic areas, the KM while it had a payload of 100 tons it could only fly at 10-20 meters due to its short wingspan, limiting it to relatively flat water areas. At the moment another Russian company is developing a freight Ekranoplan with payload of about 60-80 tons, this one has larger span to operate over oceanic areas.
As far as the physics prohibiting super large aircraft, that is only a limitation of current technology. We also have to remember that ships were limited in size until the 1800s when metallurgy advances allowed the construction on larger hulls and propulsion systems. When the SS Great Britain was floated out of dock in 1845 it was larger than any other ship by 30 mtrs at only 98 mtrs long, and 1000 tons heavier at 3500 ton. Now there are ships over 400 mts and 600,000 tons just over 150 years later. Likewise aircraft are still in development, we might have some stagnation now, but there's still a lot of technology that can be applied. Not saying they will ever reach the carrying ability of the super ships but they definitely can get a lot bigger.
As far as the physics prohibiting super large aircraft, that is only a limitation of current technology. We also have to remember that ships were limited in size until the 1800s when metallurgy advances allowed the construction on larger hulls and propulsion systems. When the SS Great Britain was floated out of dock in 1845 it was larger than any other ship by 30 mtrs at only 98 mtrs long, and 1000 tons heavier at 3500 ton. Now there are ships over 400 mts and 600,000 tons just over 150 years later. Likewise aircraft are still in development, we might have some stagnation now, but there's still a lot of technology that can be applied. Not saying they will ever reach the carrying ability of the super ships but they definitely can get a lot bigger.
Ships scale quite easily; aircraft do not. Take a 250,000 tonnes payload; modest by shipping standards. Work out what wing area and how much thrust you would need to lift that. If you could get it to work, it will not be more efficient than a ship.
Unless you want to apply magic to the problem, it is simply impractical. And that's not even factoring in some other basic practical considerations such as undercarriage design, runway and pavement strengths, etc
Again you are purely thrusting in line with current technology.
You are not getting something for nothing with displacement, as you have displaced the water to carry the load, the ship has to be able to displace that water constantly and move through it efficiently to provide the reliable transport aspect. The environment in which the ship lives is also corrosive to its existence and all it's parts further adding to the complexity of the cost of operation. Displacement is just a well known and easy to work with concept. The problem now is the lack of speed in the method due to hydrodynamic drag being far greater than aerodynamic drag, fly a float plane and you will learn the difference very quickly or end up inverted. Oil producers get around this by having 'product' constantly in motion, and tankers can be diverted en-route to a more profitable destination should that need arise, which is fine if you have one product type.
There is still a lot of engine improvements that can further reduce fuel consumption markedly for aircraft, and allow hotter burn without mixing air to prevent melting hot sections which is the current issue with efficiency. Obviously the metallurgy or ceramics needed are still in development to make them capable of mass production or cheap enough to be viable. But like Battery technology this is constantly evolving, with every new generation of aircraft becoming more efficient in terms of energy use. So not only is scale increasing but there are also huge gains in efficiency happening.
Shipping is already at a size wall for a lot of routes as you can only go so big before the existing canals are too small to navigate. Smaller non specialized ships are already uneconomical and becoming rarer.
A little over 20 years ago I was party to acquiring an ex-Sydney ferry to operate Port Phillip bay, the vessel was in ok condition but required much work to get it to the state we needed it in for the task we wanted. After a survey was completed and costs added up, the static costs of just keeping it afloat without being mobile exceeded the break even costs without it even being operationally crewed and capable of movement, let alone sailing out on the bay. It was much easier to let somebody else try that gamble and it definitely did not pay off for them.
You are not getting something for nothing with displacement, as you have displaced the water to carry the load, the ship has to be able to displace that water constantly and move through it efficiently to provide the reliable transport aspect. The environment in which the ship lives is also corrosive to its existence and all it's parts further adding to the complexity of the cost of operation. Displacement is just a well known and easy to work with concept. The problem now is the lack of speed in the method due to hydrodynamic drag being far greater than aerodynamic drag, fly a float plane and you will learn the difference very quickly or end up inverted. Oil producers get around this by having 'product' constantly in motion, and tankers can be diverted en-route to a more profitable destination should that need arise, which is fine if you have one product type.
There is still a lot of engine improvements that can further reduce fuel consumption markedly for aircraft, and allow hotter burn without mixing air to prevent melting hot sections which is the current issue with efficiency. Obviously the metallurgy or ceramics needed are still in development to make them capable of mass production or cheap enough to be viable. But like Battery technology this is constantly evolving, with every new generation of aircraft becoming more efficient in terms of energy use. So not only is scale increasing but there are also huge gains in efficiency happening.
Shipping is already at a size wall for a lot of routes as you can only go so big before the existing canals are too small to navigate. Smaller non specialized ships are already uneconomical and becoming rarer.
A little over 20 years ago I was party to acquiring an ex-Sydney ferry to operate Port Phillip bay, the vessel was in ok condition but required much work to get it to the state we needed it in for the task we wanted. After a survey was completed and costs added up, the static costs of just keeping it afloat without being mobile exceeded the break even costs without it even being operationally crewed and capable of movement, let alone sailing out on the bay. It was much easier to let somebody else try that gamble and it definitely did not pay off for them.
Last edited by 43Inches; 26th May 2023 at 01:23.
I get it now.
If Bonza’s aircraft weigh the same as a duck, they must be ships and Bonza is bound to be less profitable.
Warren Buffet has much to learn from you, 43.
If Bonza’s aircraft weigh the same as a duck, they must be ships and Bonza is bound to be less profitable.
Warren Buffet has much to learn from you, 43.
The following users liked this post:
Maybe you should invest in a ferry from Mildura to the Sunshine coast? I have a couple I could sell you.
I forgot to add that all you need to do is lobby the LNP for an inland canal from Victoria to Queensland. It can go alongside the really cost effective inland rail line being built, I means whats another trillion dollars from the tax system.
I forgot to add that all you need to do is lobby the LNP for an inland canal from Victoria to Queensland. It can go alongside the really cost effective inland rail line being built, I means whats another trillion dollars from the tax system.
Last edited by 43Inches; 26th May 2023 at 02:07.
It can go alongside the really cost effective inland rail line being built, I means whats another trillion dollars from the tax system.
The following users liked this post:
Again you are purely thrusting in line with current technology.
You are not getting something for nothing with displacement, as you have displaced the water to carry the load, the ship has to be able to displace that water constantly and move through it efficiently to provide the reliable transport aspect. The environment in which the ship lives is also corrosive to its existence and all it's parts further adding to the complexity of the cost of operation. Displacement is just a well known and easy to work with concept. The problem now is the lack of speed in the method due to hydrodynamic drag being far greater than aerodynamic drag, fly a float plane and you will learn the difference very quickly or end up inverted. Oil producers get around this by having 'product' constantly in motion, and tankers can be diverted en-route to a more profitable destination should that need arise, which is fine if you have one product type.
There is still a lot of engine improvements that can further reduce fuel consumption markedly for aircraft, and allow hotter burn without mixing air to prevent melting hot sections which is the current issue with efficiency. Obviously the metallurgy or ceramics needed are still in development to make them capable of mass production or cheap enough to be viable. But like Battery technology this is constantly evolving, with every new generation of aircraft becoming more efficient in terms of energy use. So not only is scale increasing but there are also huge gains in efficiency happening.
Shipping is already at a size wall for a lot of routes as you can only go so big before the existing canals are too small to navigate. Smaller non specialized ships are already uneconomical and becoming rarer.
A little over 20 years ago I was party to acquiring an ex-Sydney ferry to operate Port Phillip bay, the vessel was in ok condition but required much work to get it to the state we needed it in for the task we wanted. After a survey was completed and costs added up, the static costs of just keeping it afloat without being mobile exceeded the break even costs without it even being operationally crewed and capable of movement, let alone sailing out on the bay. It was much easier to let somebody else try that gamble and it definitely did not pay off for them.
You are not getting something for nothing with displacement, as you have displaced the water to carry the load, the ship has to be able to displace that water constantly and move through it efficiently to provide the reliable transport aspect. The environment in which the ship lives is also corrosive to its existence and all it's parts further adding to the complexity of the cost of operation. Displacement is just a well known and easy to work with concept. The problem now is the lack of speed in the method due to hydrodynamic drag being far greater than aerodynamic drag, fly a float plane and you will learn the difference very quickly or end up inverted. Oil producers get around this by having 'product' constantly in motion, and tankers can be diverted en-route to a more profitable destination should that need arise, which is fine if you have one product type.
There is still a lot of engine improvements that can further reduce fuel consumption markedly for aircraft, and allow hotter burn without mixing air to prevent melting hot sections which is the current issue with efficiency. Obviously the metallurgy or ceramics needed are still in development to make them capable of mass production or cheap enough to be viable. But like Battery technology this is constantly evolving, with every new generation of aircraft becoming more efficient in terms of energy use. So not only is scale increasing but there are also huge gains in efficiency happening.
Shipping is already at a size wall for a lot of routes as you can only go so big before the existing canals are too small to navigate. Smaller non specialized ships are already uneconomical and becoming rarer.
A little over 20 years ago I was party to acquiring an ex-Sydney ferry to operate Port Phillip bay, the vessel was in ok condition but required much work to get it to the state we needed it in for the task we wanted. After a survey was completed and costs added up, the static costs of just keeping it afloat without being mobile exceeded the break even costs without it even being operationally crewed and capable of movement, let alone sailing out on the bay. It was much easier to let somebody else try that gamble and it definitely did not pay off for them.
You know, I was thinking the other day I need to understand shipping and the process a little more. I thought, where could I go?
I know!
To the Bonza AOC thread on an aviation rumour site. There’s bound to be shipping experts there…
I know!
To the Bonza AOC thread on an aviation rumour site. There’s bound to be shipping experts there…
The following 9 users liked this post by BigBoreFour:
And you were correct! Well done.
The following users liked this post:
And that ...
Who'd have thunk it?!
The following 2 users liked this post by MickG0105:
You lost any credibility when you mentioned purchasing used vessels to make money.
As for Bonza, their flights look fullish, as always who knows what yields and such are occurring. If they could get most of those pax to repeat custom on higher fares they might just have a business.
Last edited by 43Inches; 27th May 2023 at 02:24.
If they could get most of those pax to repeat custom on higher fares they might just have a business.
Tiger showed and also claimed they needed twenty aircraft to be viable.