Post Office says it will deliver mail etc. slower... to SAVE money???

[Little-Acorn]

You've probably heard that the U.S. Post Office is now saying they might eliminate the normal 1-day service for delivering letters across town or to a town a hundred or two miles away etc. Now delivery will take at least two days, or more.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ap-to-save-billions-for-usps/?test=latestnews

I've been wondering something about the Post Office taking two or three days to deliver something that UPS takes one day to deliver, by ground transportation.

If I send something from Los Angeles to San Jose, it's about a 400 mile distance. UPS ground usually gets it there in a day. The Post Office often takes two or three days, or longer if it's Parcel Post.

The actual "transporting" part is the same in both cases. Both services use a truck, both bring the package 400 miles. That's around 8 or 9 hours spent actually moving over the road from one place to another. The rest of the time (total 24 hours for UPS Ground, total maybe 72 hours for Post Office) is spent sitting in a truck that's parked, or in a warehouse waiting to depart, or in another warehouse (or two) near the destination.

Aren't the two services, spending money for that truck that's parked? Or for the warehouse where my package sits?

And if the 1 million packages going from LA to San Jose every week spend 64 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (with the Post Office), versus maybe 16 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (for UPS Ground)....

...then doesn't the Post Office wind up spending a lot MORE money taking care of those 1 million packages, than UPS does?

The Post Office has to spend a lot more money on enough warehouses etc. to house those 1 million packages for 64 hours, than UPS does to house them for 16 hours. Doesn't it?

Now the Post Office is telling us that it will keep the packages for EVEN LONGER than it usually does... and that it's saving money by doing so?

I don't get it.

I figure the PO and UPS spend about the same amount to actually move the packages from LA to SJ. But doesn't the PO have to spend MORE than UPS, to keep the packages for three days instead of for one day?

So how does taking even more time to deliver stuff, "save money"?

Anybody got any comments on this?

 

[dogtowner]

I sincerely doubt the USPS and UPS spend the same for the same to and from. but that being said I suspect the intent is to develop some public outcry to aid the cause for milking the taxpayer more.

Just go chapter 11 and get out from under the personnel burdens, drop to twice a week mail (or charge for more) and learn your lesson about unions.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I sincerely doubt the USPS and UPS spend the same for the same to and from.

Why? They use the same kinds of trucks, on the same roads with the same speed limits.

It's the time they spend NOT moving the packages people give them, that's the big difference.

 

[dogtowner]

Why? They use the same kinds of trucks, on the same roads with the same speed limits.

It's the time they spend NOT moving the packages people give them, that's the big difference.

personnel/administrative costs.

UPS has less people as they only deliver to where packages are going while the USPS comes by your place every day whether you have any mail or not.

 

[steveox]

Why not just exculde Saturday mail? Mail doesnt have to be on time. But if it comes to your bills and if you get hit with a late due you sue them! Thats another thats on Lawyers lists. Doctors,Contractors,Police Officers and now your postmen gets sued for negligence if you get hit with a late fee.

 

[Dr.Who]

I suspect that the post office could be more profitable if they were allowed to raise rates whenever they needed to and to find the equilibrium between what people are willing to pay and what is charged like every other business in the country does. They could to better too if the employees were not unionized and over paid to walk around dropping off letters - and why do they have to take a civil service exam to drop off letters?

I also suspect they would be worse off if they did not make it illegal for any other company to send first class mail - a government monopoly at the expense of the other companies.

Oddly enough, I was talking to my mail carrier the other day and she was telling me that UPS ad Fed Ex are dropping off tons of packages every day for the post office to deliver. This sounds like the kind of market cooperation that could help everyone. My only objection is that people make a choice to use UPS or Fed Ex and then at least part of the delivery is handled by the post office anyway. People should know.

OH, I also object that congress gives the post office money every year to keep it in the black at taxpayer expense.

 

[dogtowner]

Oddly enough, I was talking to my mail carrier the other day and she was telling me that UPS ad Fed Ex are dropping off tons of packages every day for the post office to deliver. This sounds like the kind of market cooperation that could help everyone. My only objection is that people make a choice to use UPS or Fed Ex and then at least part of the delivery is handled by the post office anyway. People should know.

interesting, thx for sharing

OH, I also object that congress gives the post office money every year to keep it in the black at taxpayer expense.

like Amtrak if you're going to micromanage from DC its bound to fail. Amtrak knows how to become profitable and so does the USPS. its regs they cant control that kills it. government is nearly always the problem.