[Boatanchors] Media mail

Sun Jul 17 17:17:43 EDT 2011

Sure you can ship seventy pounds for a low rate. But did you ever try to 
cram seventy pounds of anything into one of those boxes that can niether 
hold such a large object, let alone keep from splitting its sides out in the 
process!

I still think that the best deal in America is the pay toilet. Where else 
can you feel so good and get such satisfaction for so little cost?

Duane, W8DBF
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <WA5CAB at cs.com>
To: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Media mail

> The practical problem with the Flat Rate boxes is their physical
> dimensions.  It appears that the dimensions of the three common sizes 
> (Large, Medium
> Flat and Medium Shoe) were picked to be inefficient for packing typical 
> sized
> publications.  The only thing I have found that is a consistant good deal
> to ship either domestic or foreign is an LS-3 Loudspeaker in the Medium 
> Shoe.
> It is a good fit with just enough room to safely pack the connecting cord
> and the cheapest way to ship an LS-3 anywhere on the planet outside of 
> Zone
> 1.  If you are shipping printed matter in any of the common sizes 
> (including
> the early and late QST's), about the best you are going to get in any of
> the three is 12 to 18 months with about 40% of the box empty.  Same 
> applies to
> both the Digest and the large size of Signal Corps TM's, and NAVSHIPS, 
> AN's
> and T.O.'s.  Never a good deal.  The only thing that the Flat Rate boxes
> are a consistent good deal for is clothing or other soft goods to Zone 6 
> or
> higher if they fill the box pretty well.  The recently introduced Regional
> Rate boxes just add further confusion.  I have yet to find anything to 
> anywhere
> that's a good deal in the Small Flat Rate Box.  It would be a good deal 
> for
> Foreign except that unlike all other Priority Mail International, they are
> not trackable.
>
> In a message dated 2011-07-16 21:42:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
> manualman at juno.com writes:
>> Let's say you have 4 pounds of stuff you want to ship in a "box":
>>
>> >From NJ to CA:
>> Priority: $15.90
>> Priority Flat Rate: $10.95
>> Parcel Post: $11.77
>> Media: $3.64
>>
>> >From NJ to IL:
>> Priority: $12.40
>> Priority Flat Rate: $10.95
>> Parcel Post: $9.30
>> Media: $3.64
>>
>> >From NJ to MA(Boston Area):
>> Priority: $7.85
>> Priority Flat Rate: $10.95
>> Parcel Post: $7.14
>> Media: $3.64
>>
>> The prices will change for Priority and Parcel Post depending on the
>> shipper's ZIP to the receiver's ZIP. Bottom line; you need to review the
>> online ship choices to determine the best method of shipping. Priority
>> (70 lbs max - box L,W,H = 108 inches or less), Priority Flat Rate (as
>> much stuff as you can get into the box - as they say - if it fits, it
>> ships), Parcel Post (70 lbs max - box L,W,H = 130 inches or less), Media,
>> restrictions as discussed and documented on the USPS Postal web site.
>>
>> Pete, wa2cwa
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:04:03 -0500 Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>
>> writes:
>> >I would like to know the shipping cost difference between a flat
>> >rate
>> >box that holds N issues of QST and the "media mail" rate for the
>> >same
>> >number of issues.  I wonder if the 100 emails about this have to do
>> >with saving a dollar or two.
>> >
>> >73
>> >
>> >rob
>> >K5UJ
>>
>
> Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
> MVPA 9480
> ______________________________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> -- 
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2081 - Release Date: 4/26/2009 
> 9:44 AM
>
> 