Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:36 am
Sounds a bit small for a container ship. I wonder if it should be square metres? Perhaps they missed a nought off the end?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:17 am
Definitely missing a nought then.
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:06 pm
Ah - the penny drops. Perhaps if I'd seen the original article...?
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Not at all ... Try googling "ms beluga" and the first 3 links are to the Daily Telegraph, BBC and Wikipedia. So whether you're a reactionary old fart, trendy pinko leftie or altogether 21st century person, you are catered for in that lot, are you not?
Derek
Derek
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:25 pm
OK, so not an April fool (unless very elaborate indeed) but I still can't believe that 160 sq.m is enough to save 20% off the fuel bill of a 10,000 tonne ship unless they're flying it in the jet stream!