Logistics GB Rules

[kitbasher]

We've been asked if we can give a minimum percentage of freight but we cannot. Let it be enough that a significant portion of the transport should consist of freight.

One way of looking at that might be to say that if the cargo displaces potential passengers then it's in scope, but if it's carried in addition to the full passenger load, then it's not in scope. So by way of example, an airliner that carries some paid freight in the underfloor cargo compartment is not in scope, because it can still carry it's full compliment of passengers, but an airliner with a significant number of its seats removed and replaced by a roller cargo floor is in scope, because it's traded passenger capacity for freight capacity.

Clarification point 2 addresses that, Weaver.

[Weaver]

We've been asked if we can give a minimum percentage of freight but we cannot. Let it be enough that a significant portion of the transport should consist of freight.

One way of looking at that might be to say that if the cargo displaces potential passengers then it's in scope, but if it's carried in addition to the full passenger load, then it's not in scope. So by way of example, an airliner that carries some paid freight in the underfloor cargo compartment is not in scope, because it can still carry it's full compliment of passengers, but an airliner with a significant number of its seats removed and replaced by a roller cargo floor is in scope, because it's traded passenger capacity for freight capacity.

Clarification point 2 addresses that, Weaver.

Umm, the sentence I was suggesting a solution to is from Clarification Point 2 and is, by it's own admission, not entirely clear...

[TomZ]

Umm, the sentence I was suggesting a solution to is from Clarification Point 2 and is, by it's own admission, not entirely clear...

Weaver, I think the clarification goes as far as we can and want to go: "A significant portion".
Also I'm not sure if a more exact definition is needed. I f you have specific proposal, please just send a pm to the moderators.


TomZ

[NARSES2]

Right just over a week to go, so can we sign off on the rules Lads ?

Any specific questions after that should be addressed to the Moderators directly.

[kitbasher]

Yes.

[TomZ]

Yes

TomZ

[Weaver]

Umm, the sentence I was suggesting a solution to is from Clarification Point 2 and is, by it's own admission, not entirely clear...

Weaver, I think the clarification goes as far as we can and want to go: "A significant portion".
Also I'm not sure if a more exact definition is needed. I f you have specific proposal, please just send a pm to the moderators.


TomZ

Nah, I'm cool: it was just an idea.

[NARSES2]

Right then the Rules for the GB are as published on Page 2 of this thread.