North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Cross-country shipping of large network/computer gear?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Ray Wong wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0500, Andy Walden wrote: > > On 27 Aug 2003, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > > Yes, but my point is that you can stack the deck in your favor by > > > using a company that uses appropriate material handling devices to > > > move every package if you are shipping packages that are heavy enough > > > that moving them with a handtruck or by hand is possible-but-unwise. > > > > I can agree in principal, so long as we can designate a company that will > > execute proper company policy and do so *every* time. Unfortunately, for > > So your position is that the the existence of exceptions defines the > probability and severity of damage? That 1% and 40% damage rates are > in fact the same? $10 and $10,000? Just out of curiosity, What makes them "less likely"? I still think anyone driving a pallet for a living (or running a network for that matter;) could have very well had a binger the night before and still feeling the effects. > > the purpose of the general well-being of our gear, we arrive back at > > generally blue collar, none-the-less, well paid, package handlers that > > individually define preferences for how they feel like doing it that day. > > I still fail to see why I would choose an organiztion with handles hundreds > of times more packages, most weighing less and being less breakable than > mine, over one with the specialized equipment to move it. An air cargo > carrier with heavy-cargo equipment is still less likely to drop a pallet > off a pallet jack than an express shipper with a handtruck. That their > respective employees are equally lackadaisical doesn't mean all other > factors have been equalized. > > Cargo/freight carriers, in general, are also aware that nearly all their > cargo is of declared value, that the fragility warnings are more likely > correct, and, perhaps most important, that the customers are far more > likely to be filing damage claims against them. Fedex, et al, know that > most of THEIR packages are paper and other sturdy items, and that their > customers are much less likely to notice/claim damages. What insight do you have into each shipper's package types and the insurance liability? > It's somewhat like card counting in blackjack. The odds are still quite > poor, but that n% shift can make the difference of coming out of the casino > money ahead or behind. Maybe, but make sure you are correct when you place you bet. > Of course, good packing is critical either way. If you're going freight, > palletize the items with proper/extra padding/packing material, stick some > damage (shock and tipping) indicators on each side, and tuck an INSPECTION > CHECKLIST for whomever is on the receiving end (not they won't have their > own copy, just sends a sign to anyone handling it that someone's going to > look when it arrives). If you're still determined to use a shipper, pack > and pad it well, then pack that box into another padded/packed box. > > If you're desperate to get it moved ASAP, see if you can find a college > intern you can pay to drive it. You'll want your own people to load it > in and out of the car/van, but it'll be cheap and probably less risky than > relying on the odds with a shipper. 100% agreed. We are talking about bringing the entire process under your control in this case. Not always an option, but it certainly let's us feel better if the option is available. Unfortunately, in the real world, this isn't always an option. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp