<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>nkurz</author><text>Shanghai to Oakland is about 10,000 km: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.greatcirclemap.com&amp;#x2F;?routes=PVG-OAK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.greatcirclemap.com&amp;#x2F;?routes=PVG-OAK&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adding a stop in Anchorage adds about 200 km: 
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.greatcirclemap.com&amp;#x2F;?routes=PVG-ANC-OAK&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.greatcirclemap.com&amp;#x2F;?routes=PVG-ANC-OAK&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The plane is probably limited by takeoff weight: body plus fuel plus cargo.   By adding a stop in the middle, the plane can take off with less fuel from Shanghai.  Since it has 45000 kg less fuel, it can instead carry 45000 kg more cargo.  Total fuel consumption for the trip ends up slightly higher, but fuel per kg of useful cargo is much less.</text><parent_chain><item><author>winslow</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m having a hard time understanding this snippet:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The intermediary stop in Anchorage, as opposed to flying from Shanghai to Oakland, CA, actually increases total flight distance by around 144 miles but allows the aircraft to carry an additional 45,000kg of cargo (instead of extra fuel) increasing revenue for the trip by around $90,000.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why would traveling an extra 144 miles allow the aircraft to carry 45,000kg of cargo instead of fuel? I feel like I&amp;#x27;m misreading it.</text></item><item><author>jeromegv</author><text>Anchorage is because they found out that they can fill their planes with more inventory and less gas if they stop in Anchorage instead of doing the full pacific route.&lt;p&gt;Good article here:
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zdnet.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;why-your-ipad-comes-via-anchorage&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zdnet.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;why-your-ipad-comes-via-anchor...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>noduerme</author><text>I ordered an M1 Max the day after it was announced. It&amp;#x27;s supposed to arrive today. The route it took to get to Portland, Oregon, was Shanghai to Zhenzhou (where it spent a week), on to South Korea, then Anchorage, then a weekend in Louisville, Kentucky. How this makes any sense in terms of efficiency is totally beyond me.&lt;p&gt;As a side note, I&amp;#x27;m mildly paranoid about new Apple devices spending a week held up in Chinese customs. Is the CCP throttling exports, or installing backdoors?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Air cargo is suddenly affordable relative to ocean shipping</title><url>https://www.freightwaves.com/news/why-is-air-cargo-suddenly-more-affordable-compared-to-ocean-shipping</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>koolba</author><text>The last mile of flight time is the most expensive because the jet fuel has to be carried all the way from the starting point. By breaking a trip into intermediate hops, you get to trade “expensive” last miles for cheaper ones.&lt;p&gt;For it to make economic sense it just needs to exceed the extra cost of time spent at the intermediate port. And even that can offset by adding cargo for that intermediate destination to replace the weight savings of not carrying that “last mile” jet fuel.</text><parent_chain><item><author>winslow</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m having a hard time understanding this snippet:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The intermediary stop in Anchorage, as opposed to flying from Shanghai to Oakland, CA, actually increases total flight distance by around 144 miles but allows the aircraft to carry an additional 45,000kg of cargo (instead of extra fuel) increasing revenue for the trip by around $90,000.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why would traveling an extra 144 miles allow the aircraft to carry 45,000kg of cargo instead of fuel? I feel like I&amp;#x27;m misreading it.</text></item><item><author>jeromegv</author><text>Anchorage is because they found out that they can fill their planes with more inventory and less gas if they stop in Anchorage instead of doing the full pacific route.&lt;p&gt;Good article here:
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zdnet.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;why-your-ipad-comes-via-anchorage&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.zdnet.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;why-your-ipad-comes-via-anchor...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>noduerme</author><text>I ordered an M1 Max the day after it was announced. It&amp;#x27;s supposed to arrive today. The route it took to get to Portland, Oregon, was Shanghai to Zhenzhou (where it spent a week), on to South Korea, then Anchorage, then a weekend in Louisville, Kentucky. How this makes any sense in terms of efficiency is totally beyond me.&lt;p&gt;As a side note, I&amp;#x27;m mildly paranoid about new Apple devices spending a week held up in Chinese customs. Is the CCP throttling exports, or installing backdoors?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Air cargo is suddenly affordable relative to ocean shipping</title><url>https://www.freightwaves.com/news/why-is-air-cargo-suddenly-more-affordable-compared-to-ocean-shipping</url></story>