3 ms·
The logic of this falls apart. The more the containers are filled, the more they weigh. The more they weigh, the more fuel must be expended to move them from po
by teilo 11y ago
The logic of this falls apart. The more the containers are filled, the more they weigh. The more they weigh, the more fuel must be expended to move them from point A to point B. While there are some gains that could be made by eliminating wasted space, there are losses that offset it.
Granted, there is not a strictly linear relationship between weight and cost. However, the economics of shipping, or any distribution system (like passenger airlines), are such that the need to move a product to its destination in a timely fashion runs up against the desire to maximize the efficiency of a shipping medium. Customers expect their product to arrive on time, and they pay for this to happen.
That said, I love the idea this company is proposing.
- MikeTLive 11y agoThink of FedEx dimensional shipping. You don't pay by weight. You pay by length width height. If the shipping containers can be parted out and packed densely to be closer to their max dimensional weight then it's a deal for me, the intermediary shipper, I can ship stuff "for free" by taking up space in an already paid for container. Just like AWS Large dedicated systems and packing it to 90% utilization by selling back the unused capacity on the spot market.