Luggage boxes, not a bad idea. . .

[moshquerade]

5:05 p.m. Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The UPS Store selling "luggage boxes"


The UPS Store, a division of Sandy Springs-based UPS, has created new luggage boxes. The idea is for travelers to use the boxes in lieu of luggage, and ship them prior to travel to avoid the hassles of airport screening and baggage charges, said UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg.



Business Wire Travelers can choose to ship luggage
with The UPS Store luggage box instead of
taking it on the plane.

The boxes were tested for durability at UPS’s package design lab in Chicago, she said.

To ship the small size box at a maximum weight of 55 pounds between Los Angeles and New York on UPS's ground network would cost about $66, including the price of the box, Rosenberg said. It would take about four days to get there. The large box would ship for about $92, she said. Delta currently charges $25 for one bag weighing less than 50 pounds that is checked in at the airport.

UPS's small box sells for $12.95 and the large one for $17.65, not including shipping. The boxes can be reused, she said. UPS stores have been seeing an increase in luggage shipping since airlines started implementing steeper baggage fees, she said.

Customers can check shipping prices at http://www.theupsstore.com/qcc/pages/qcc.aspx Members of the Automobile Association of America (AAA) can 15 percent off the boxes and five percent off domestic shipping costs.

http://www.ajc.com/business/the-ups-store-selling-560223.html

 

[calvinbiss]

hmm...then I might miss out on the anticipation that builds as I stand by the baggage carousel and watch bag after bag come tumbling down the chute and crash into the conveyor belt, thinking with every one that looks exactly like my bag but is not, that my bag did not make it.

 

[mmntech]

It's a good idea but knowing UPS, I'll bet they'll charge a fortune for it. Your luggage will also be guaranteed to get lost or damaged.

This begs the question though, now that I don't have any luggage, can I avoid security by walking through the airport naked? Just a thought.

 

[PricklyPete]

Seems too expensive when I can just carry-on.

 

[Homerboy]

It's a good idea but knowing UPS, I'll bet they'll charge a fortune for it. Your luggage will also be guaranteed to get lost or damaged.

This begs the question though, now that I don't have any luggage, can I avoid security by walking through the airport naked? Just a thought.

And this is different from allowing the airlines from overcharging you and losing/damaging it how?

 

[bignateyk]

I wish airliners would start charging for carry-on's.

I'm sick of trying to find overhead space for my 1 small item when all the other dumbasses of the world feel the need to carry as much onto the plane as humanly possible.

 

[chusteczka]

Their solution is a good idea but is too expensive. They appear to be taking advantage of the situation.

Small box < 55lbs.
$13 purchase price + $66 shipping = $79

Large box > 55 lbs.
$18 purchase price + $92 shipping = $110


I can ship a medium sized package to Poland for $40-$60. UPS is full of fail.

 

[Deeko]

I've done this with USPS Flat Rate boxes. Its cheaper for me to ship stuff than to check it on the plane.

 

[2dt Drifter]

Their solution is a good idea but is too expensive. They appear to be taking advantage of the situation.

Small box < 55lbs.
$13 purchase price + $66 shipping = $79

Large box > 55 lbs.
$18 purchase price + $92 shipping = $110


I can ship a medium sized package to Poland for $40-$60. UPS is full of fail.

Reading Skills full of fail:

"..would cost about $66, including the price of the box, Rosenberg said."

 

[mugs]

How is this not a bad idea? They're charging more than the airlines and you have to ship it 4 days ahead of time.

 

[Gooberlx2]

How is this not a bad idea? They're charging more than the airlines and you have to ship it 4 days ahead of time.

Yeah, from a cost and convenience standpoint, this doesn't seem at all to be any better than checking my luggage for a regular roundtrip. When I was booking on Airtran, it was like $15 each way to check up to 50lbs. *shrug*

If I was shipping Xmas loot back from my parent's place, then sure. I've done that a bunch of times.

 

[chusteczka]

Reading Skills full of fail:

"..would cost about $66, including the price of the box, Rosenberg said."

Thank you. You are right, I missed that. Something seemed wrong about it all.

 

[2dt Drifter]

Thank you. You are right, I missed that. Something seemed wrong about it all.

Doesn't really matter though, still not worth it at that price and 4 day advance shipping.

 

[moshquerade]

How is this not a bad idea? They're charging more than the airlines and you have to ship it 4 days ahead of time.

So what if you have to ship it 4 days ahead of time? Are you that short notice of a traveler?

This alternative way to get luggage from A to B is not a bad idea because:

It would save you hassles at airports like long lines and baggage security checks.

Some people would appreciate not having to haul their heavy luggage around.

Luggage waiting for YOU at your hotel or destination instead of you waiting for it (and hoping it shows up) at the airport sounds nice.

With baggage fees now being charged at the airlines this may be competitive or close to that, and for the convenience I will still go with this not being a bad idea.

"When shipped UPS Ground service, the luggage box is competitively priced with the airlines' baggage fees, especially when compared to the major airlines, many of which are charging well over $100 for comparable baggage."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ne...ing-solutions-2010-06-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp

It may not be a great idea that fits everyone, but... it's not a bad one.

 

[moshquerade]

Reading Skills full of fail:

"..would cost about $66, including the price of the box, Rosenberg said."

Plus the box can be re-used.

 

[Kelvrick]

Stupid idea. So instead of one trip and another half hour of my time, I need to add a completely separate trip to the UPS store and likely half hour of my time. I also need to confirm wherever the fuck I'm going is to receive my package and I don't even know when during the day it will get there.

Cheaper to just use my carryon for clothes and buy a new set of liquids wherever I land.

Regarding the fucks that take up all the bin space, it happens even when airlines don't charge for checked bags like southwest. They need to start enforcing the size rule with that "if your bag doesn't fit in this box, we check it." That will solve all the problems.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Luggage waiting for YOU at your hotel or destination instead of you waiting for it (and hoping it shows up) at the airport sounds nice.

With baggage fees now being charged at the airlines this may be competitive or close to that, and for the convenience I will still go with this not being a bad idea.

Yeah, it certainly can make sense compared to some Airline fees. It just depends on your needs/configuration for that trip. Personally, I don't trust hotel staff with my stuff at all....though I s'pose the boxes are probably made to be tamper-evident at the least (I'd hope so anyway).

 

[vailr]

Shipping ahead allows avoiding airport inspection worries concerning shampoo bottles and such.
For me, FedEx Ground is usually less money than UPS Ground.
But for denser heavy items (lead batteries as one example), USPS Flat Rate shipping would be cheapest.
Here's a suggestion: donate all of the Gulf of Mexico oil spillage to the airlines, for making lowered-cost jet fuel and thereby enable elimination of their checked baggage fees.
BP buys new friends, to compensate for their oil spill fiasco.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

shipping items separately can make sense, esp if it keeps you from having to check additional or 'heavy' baggage. The fees really start to add up then. If anything having UPS start to advertise this is going to keep the airlines honest, and force an artificial ceiling on their baggage fees.