Case Study
Forklift Trucks (FLT’s) vs. AMT Systems
 |
| |
FLT |
ETV |
| Building length (m) |
100 |
100 |
| Rack length (m) |
12 |
12 |
| Aisle width (m) |
23 |
12.5 |
| Rack length (m) |
12 |
12 |
| Total building area (sqm) |
4700 |
3650 |
|
|
|
| A Typical Forklift Operation |
| Length (m) |
# of boats |
$/Month |
$/p.a |
Revenue $ |
| 7 |
97 |
700 |
8,400 |
814,800 |
| 8 |
117 |
857 |
10,500 |
1,228,500 |
| 9 |
107 |
1,095 |
13,140 |
1,405,980 |
| 10 |
63 |
1,370 |
16,440 |
1,035,720 |
| 11 |
73 |
1,715 |
20,580 |
1,502,340 |
| 12 |
43 |
2,150 |
25,800 |
1,109,400 |
| Return |
|
|
|
$7,096,740 |
| Number of Forklift Trucks used x 3 ($560,000) = $1,680,000USD |
|
A Typical AMT Operation |
| Length (m) |
# of boats |
$/Month |
$/p.a |
Revenue $ |
| 7 |
— |
700 |
8,400 |
— |
| 8 |
— |
857 |
10,500 |
— |
| 9 |
— |
1,095 |
13,140 |
— |
| 10 |
— |
1,370 |
16,440 |
— |
| 11 |
— |
1,715 |
20,580 |
— |
| 12 |
500 |
2,150 |
25,800 |
12,900,000 |
| Return |
|
|
|
$12,900,000 |
| 1 x AMT unit used = $1,800,000 USD |
|
Pros And Cons Of Each Model In Case Study |
| |
FLT |
AMT |
% Difference |
|
| Total building area (sqm) |
4700 |
3650 |
-22% |
|
| Max building height (m) |
20 |
35 |
+75% |
|
| Max Boat Length (m) |
15 |
15 |
0% |
|
| Max Boat Length (feet) |
50 |
50 |
0% |
|
| Max Boat Weight (tons) |
15ton @ only 5m max height |
15ton @ any height |
0% |
|
| Max Boat Weight (pounds) |
33000lbs @ only 5m max height |
33000lbs @ any height |
0% |
|
| Throughput times (/hr) |
9—13 (1xFLT's) |
27 |
+200% |
> +93% |
| Throughput times (/hr) |
18—26 (2 x FLT's) |
27 |
+50% |
> +4% |
| Throughput times (/hr) |
27—39 (3xFLT's) |
27 |
0% |
> -69% |
| Capital Costs $ |
$1,680,00 |
$1,800,00 |
+7% |
|
| Labor Costs $ |
$900,000 |
$790,000 |
-13% |
|
| Revenue $ |
$7,096,740 |
$12,900,000 |
+81% |
|
|
Note — AMT systems can deliver from 27 boats/hr up to more than 60 boats/hr.
|
|
