Back to our 'big ship' discussion
Bruce Johnson
(21 Oct 2014 00:05 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion
Greg Caires
(21 Oct 2014 02:05 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion
Craig Berry
(21 Oct 2014 02:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion
Evyn MacDude
(21 Oct 2014 03:18 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion
Phil Pugliese
(21 Oct 2014 08:55 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion
Grimmund
(21 Oct 2014 12:40 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Phil Pugliese (21 Oct 2014 15:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion Phil Pugliese 21 Oct 2014 15:14 UTC
-------------------------------------------- On Tue, 10/21/14, Grimmund <grimmund@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] Back to our 'big ship' discussion To: tml@simplelists.com Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 5:40 AM On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com> wrote: > Remember > they will be on J3+ routes only, as there are only a few > ports in the world that can support Triple > E's (18 all told half in > asia the other > half in Europe) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > So they can't come to North America at all! Oh, they could visit. They'd have trouble loading and unloading directly; have to re-handle a lot of containers. Dan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what's the largest size that the USA & Canada can handle? (E or Double E?) How does those sizes compare? What about Latin America or Africa or Australia? Surely Australia must be at least equal to NAmerica? ===================================================