Cheapest passage for thousands of people: air or sea?
michaDELETEel_b...@yahoo.com
determine the least expensive means to bring thousands of people from
Indonesia, Thailand, or India to the U.S. (east or west coast).
Originally we assumed that either a cruise ship or retrofitted oil
tanker would be the least expensive method, however someone suggested
that all things considered air travel would cost less. That was in this
thread:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.transport.marine/msg/5ccc0687888349e1
We're asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker
plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and
others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the
jobs Americans won't do. They would receive a reasonable wage and be
able to send a portion of their earnings back to those most affected by
the tsunami. In exchange, the U.S. would get a willing workforce that
would make us competitive with China and other low-cost producers of
goods. It would truly be a win-win situation.
For more information on our organization, see our temporary website at:
This page describes our goals in more detail:
http://jfsac.blogspot.com/2005/01/welcome-to-jobs-for-south-asia.html
Chanchao
some stuff about "Cheapest passage for thousands of people: air or sea?", to
which I would like to add the following:
>We're asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker
>plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and
>others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the
>jobs Americans won't do.
:D :D :D
Dream on. :))
But as a mind-wank excersize, you could just contact a cruise operator and ask
how much it would be to rent it out for such a trip.. Assuming it would even
have the range, which is doubtful.
After that check what flights cost. Flights have the advantage that you won't
have thousands of people all arriving at some port on the West Coast and
needing further transportation.
Anyway, lovely post. Gave me my laugh of the day. Presumably you've never
seen even a single 747 arrive from Asia with loads of people having to clear
immigration, 'homeland security' checks, etc. I'd love to see you ferry in a
hundred thousand Indonesians from Ajeh. Should give Osama a wet dream, too.
Cheers,
Chanchao
nobody
> But as a mind-wank excersize, you could just contact a cruise operator and ask
> how much it would be to rent it out for such a trip.. Assuming it would even
> have the range, which is doubtful.
It isn't a question of range, it is also a question of whether the ship
is equipped for high sees or not. That is why for instante, The Queen
Mary 2 is built very differently from normal cruise ships.
Secondly, cruise ships are booked long time ahead and they charge an arm
and a leg for luxury cruises. Renting such a ship for such a long
journey to transport low yield pax wouldn't be good for the cruise line.
Cargo ships are not equipped to carry large number of people.
Chartering 747s is far easier because you only need it for about 12
hours for 415 pax.
You're going to spent money to not only rent the 747s, but also fuel and
crews and food, airport fees, taxes etc. Taking that money to buy goods
made in indonesia and give it to indonesians would help then a LOT more
than bringing them to the USA to pick lettuce in a climate, language ,
food and way of life that is totally foreign to them.
Ulf Kutzner
> You're going to spent money to not only rent the 747s, but also fuel and
> crews and food, airport fees, taxes etc. Taking that money to buy goods
> made in indonesia and give it to indonesians would help then a LOT more
> than bringing them to the USA to pick lettuce in a climate, language ,
> food and way of life that is totally foreign to them.
To me it seems that once the immigration and work permits are arranged,
air transportation is cheaper. IIUC, workers from India in Arab
countries normally travel by air, not sea. And this is much closer than
the Tsunami region to the U.S.
Regards, ULF
digi...@hotmail.com
of years.
It should be noted that the area of the South East Asia that were
hardest to be damaged by the tsunami is nearby a heavy travelled sea
route.
Aceh for example is known "Mecca Porch" in the past.
Due that in the past, small ships from many areas in South East Asia
harboured there, then their passengers switched on to bigger ships, the
final destination of these passengers are usually Mecca.
Of course now, many (most?) people go to Mecca using airlines.
If you want to transports hundreds of thousands of people, I think that
the sea is the only way.
The immigration can be handled when the ships are enroute to their
final destination.
But if you want to transport thousands (three zeros) instead of
hundreds of thousands (five zeros), I think that it's better to use air
travel. Just hire a couple of An-124s, the trips might not be the most
comfortable though.
Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
Four flights a day in 50 A380s will transport 5 million people in a
month (charter class).
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
PeterL
<michaDELETEel_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106635157.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Our organization, the Jobs for South Asia Coalition, is trying to
> determine the least expensive means to bring thousands of people from
> Indonesia, Thailand, or India to the U.S. (east or west coast).
Why not send them to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? It's closer, they have plenty
of jobs local citizens won't or can't do, and they are muslim countries.
Perfect for Indonesia citizens.
no.chea...@here.com
michaDELETEel_b...@yahoo.com wrote:
> We're asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker
> plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and
> others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the
> jobs Americans won't do.
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND? we already have tooooo many
*illegal* immigrants driving down wages, and now you want to add
more?
NO FUCKING WAY.
Tebojockey at dot
michaDELETEel_b...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sorry. We're already trying to stop Mexico from the very same thing,
and we really don't have any spare jobs.
The problem this creates is that such guest workers do many jobs for
far less money than an American would work for. Any American would do
any job providing it pays a living wage. Most of the "guest workers"
also avoid taxes.
It's not that we are xenophobic (like Indonesia), but we need to take
care of our own people.
Perhaps the easiest method for the people you are trying to help would
be to apply for legitimate visas or citizenship. Then they would be
carefully vetted and only those who meet US immigration standards
would be eligible to enter. This would save yourself and your
organization much embarrassment.
There should be enough jobs available to these people repairing their
own destroyed economies and countries. Much of that work is sponsored
by international relief and UN-style organizations.
We appreciate your interest in coming to work here, but your proposed
workers, their economies and the countries would be better served by
employing their talents at home. Thank you for considering the United
States as an employer and we wish you success with your continuing job
search.
ASA Lives!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
nobody
> Sorry. We're already trying to stop Mexico from the very same thing,
> and we really don't have any spare jobs.
The government which you have elected is NOT trying to stop this, they
are in fact facilitating mexicans to work in the USA in order to help
the profitability of large farms in the southern USA. They operate buses
across the border to bring in mexican workers for the day and ensure
they go back to mexico at night.
Fact is that if you were to pay farm workers US standard wages, your
food would be way more expensive and you couldn't compete against
vegetables from other countries and you'd end up importaing from
overseas instead of eating your own vegerables isntead of your current
situation where you even export some of your produce to countries such
as Canada.
michaDELETEel_b...@yahoo.com
> your food would be way more expensive and you couldn't compete
> against vegetables from other countries
That's quite true. And, considering that Indonesians and others
affected by the tsunami are used to earning just one or two dollars per
day, they would be tremendously grateful for anything more than that
amount. Our prices for vegetables and other goods would be reduced,
giving us more money to spend on other things and making us more
productive. And, our guest workers would be able to send some of their
money back home and help rebuild their countries.
Ulf Kutzner
>
> Tebojockey wrote:
> > Sorry. We're already trying to stop Mexico from the very same thing,
> > and we really don't have any spare jobs.
>
> The government which you have elected is NOT trying to stop this, they
> are in fact facilitating mexicans to work in the USA in order to help
> the profitability of large farms in the southern USA. They operate buses
> across the border to bring in mexican workers for the day and ensure
> they go back to mexico at night.
Even in Germany there used to be permits (and might still be as citizens
of most of the new EU member countries are still concerned by work
restriction) for international every-day commuters. It was to prevent
full (long-term) immigration.
> Fact is that if you were to pay farm workers US standard wages, your
> food would be way more expensive and you couldn't compete against
> vegetables from other countries and you'd end up importaing from
> overseas instead of eating your own vegerables isntead of your current
> situation where you even export some of your produce to countries such
> as Canada.
The same happens with undocumented workers on Spanish or Italian farms.
Regards & F'up2, ULF
Tebojockey at dot
michaDELETEel_b...@yahoo.com wrote:
I see. And what about the then-disenfranchised US worker? Why should
they have to be on unemployment or subsistence to help someone enter
the country and take their job?
Sorry, but I didn't elect this government. Mr. Bush was appointed the
first term and somehow bamboozled America into giving him a second
term. I'm all for isolationism, and I have given generously to
charity to assist those who were suffering, but I will not allow them
to take american employees' jobs.
But, since you feel that's OK, how about giving up your job and
letting one of the proposed foreign nationals come in and take it.
What will your dependents say? I'm sure your wife and kids (if you
have any, of course) will be fully supportive, and your extended
family won't brand you as a congenital idiot for the rest of your
life, right?
If farm workers were paid a living wage, americans would perform the
work and we would not be relying on illegal aliens for the large farms
and plants. Then too, the small and independent farms and plants who
earn their money honestly and pay their legal workers a decent wage
would have an equal opportunity at profit. It all balances out in the
end.
Contrary to popular belief, America is not here for everyone. There
are correct and legal routes to enter the nation, as well as
responsibilities to fulfill in order to do so. We welcome those who
meet those standards and eschew those who do not. If you truly feel
this idea is right, then let the other industrialized nations of the
world lead by example and absorb the brunt of the burdern for these
people, providing jobs and a "decent living."