{"id":6699,"date":"2004-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-31T23:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portstrategy.nfdtesting.uk\/greenport\/2004\/09\/01\/and-the-return-on-investment\/"},"modified":"2004-09-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-08-31T23:00:00","slug":"and-the-return-on-investment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport\/news\/container-cargo-handling\/and-the-return-on-investment\/","title":{"rendered":"AND THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT?"},"content":{"rendered":"

So how does it all stack up in terms of cost efficiency? Dan Pettersson, Kalmar' s product manager, says: \" We' re not much into the argument between FLTs and reachstackers. Most of the world has recognised that the reachstacker is in most cases a more efficient and cost-effective handling solution when it comes to loaded containers. As to cost, per se, there is not much of a difference. The purchasing cost of the reachstacker is high but the running cost is lower. And you can specify a forklift with a lot of options, which makes it just as expensive as the reachstacker.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n