Forum menu
Jeez, some people are dense!
Weight is what costs you more in fuel. Volume is what costs you more in the number of delivery vehicles. That's fairly easy to understand. The caveat on courier order forms is to cover minimum costs, surely. Again, that's just common sense.
I have no idea what the supply chain in the PO is like, but if they're charging more for larger volume items then that would suggest a limit in the number of vehicles they have (which someone has already said), or a constraint in their sorting equipment (which someone else said). A postman can fit fewer packets in his bag than letters now, can't he (I understand there are female postpeople too)?
It's not simply about how they handle it when you take it to the PO, or how they deliver it to your house now, is it?
Jeez, some people are dense!
They are, aren't they.
or a constraint in their sorting equipment (which someone else said).
Of course, as you've already read, this was agreed to in the third post as being a logical reason.
All this piffle about volume, however, isn't logical.
Take two letters, a letter and, by definition, a large letter.
I'll keep the dimensions nice and simple so as not to confuse, and I'll use the maximum letter size and I'll only change one defining measurement.
letter= 240X165X5 will give me the max volume according to the post office, let's say the letter has a max weight of 100g and we have 100 letters for our postie to carry.
We are now asking our postie to carry 10kg for the princely sum of 46 of your English pounds.
With a large letter of the same dimensions except 20mm wide, therfore falling into the category of large letter, becoming a large volume object and being 4X wider than the std letter, for the same width we can carry fewer letter, 3x fewer, yet we're charging only 75p for said letter. Assuming the letter is the same weight and 100 letter fill the posties bag, they now have to make 4x the number of trips for less than double the charge.
Now let's introduce the idea of the large letter weighing only 50g. Half the weight, 4X the number of trips for 28% more money.
Clearly you'd have to be dense.
I would expect the hole in the plastic would be representative of an average letterbox and not one third the size.
Has clearly not had a paper round in the last 20 years.
How does the same weight but slightly bigger affect the price?
Posties have tardis-like mail bags, it is true.
Anyhow, the instruction is that the package has to go through the hole [b]easily[/b]. Or is it [b]without resistance[/b]? Wouldn't want your package (I mean, really small package) to cause a jam? Create delays? Raise prices? Your recipient would then receive a red note, have to travel to the sorting office, pay the 29p difference and then an extra £1 to collect it...
You can understand how the post office counter have have to err on the side of caution, don't you?
Clearly you'd have to be dense.
Clearly. Previously you were arguing they were overcharging on the dimensions, now you're arguing they're charging too little?
Of course your analysis doesn't consider that only some parts of the delivery cost are size rather than weight affected, nor that the size related cost isn't necessarily directly proportional. What exactly makes you think you know more about the PO cost model than they do themselves?
Anyhow, the instruction is that the package has to go through the hole easily. Or is it without resistance?
Which is logical, because as I pointed out above, the limit is on the dimensions of the package rather than whether it fits through the gauge (which is just a guide). Clearly if you have to squidge it to fit it through it's actually over-dimension. You'd have to be pretty dense not to realise that.
mornin' aracer, how are you today sweetheart? Logic is the argument not too much or too little.
Of course your analysis doesn't consider that only some parts of the delivery cost are size rather than weight affected, nor that the size related cost isn't necessarily directly proportional.[b] What exactly makes you think you know more about the PO cost model than they do themselves?[/b]
Where have I said that? (Not that it is impossible to be so). The Post Office is full of human beings and human beings make mistakes/take advantage and lie. What makes you think that the Post office doesn't make mistakes? Do you simply accept everything a corporation says without thinking? You are a salesman's dream and I love you for that.
😆You'd have to be pretty dense not to realise that.
Logic is the argument not too much or too little.
Logic would suggest they've probably got the proportion about right. Unfortunately you came into this thread with emotion, not logic.
Actually I don't think it has anything to do with what Postie can or can't carry, or how big a letter box is. I think its what the automatic sorting machines can handle is the limiting factor. larger packets have to be sorted manually - hence more cost. Its not as simple as how many you can fit in a bag/lorry.
As to the fitting through the hole in the guage, it has to be able to fall through the hole, not be forced through at all. This is so it does't muck up the sorters.
As someone said, I think they do have slightly more idea on costings etc than the man in the street.
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-this-with-the-post-office#post-2845152 ]That seems quite plausible stgeorge[/url], the weight vs volume, however, doesn't.
Awesome troll DS. Postage, who'd have thought? 😆
What STGeorge says!
Actually I don't think it has anything to do with what Postie can or can't carry, or how big a letter box is. I think its what the automatic sorting machines can handle is the limiting factor. larger packets have to be sorted manually - hence more cost. Its not as simple as how many you can fit in a bag/lorry
Well, it's all of the above factors and more, put in to a cost calculation engine for the delivery pipeline. RM made huge investments in machines [url= http://www.nec.com/global/solutions/postal/content/catalogue/NEC-NS10.pdf ]like these[/url] and sorting kit to go in APCs [url= http://www.curtins.com/projects/industrial/leeds-mail-centre.html ]like these[/url]. Mail that could be processed through those was the most cost effective. Larger mail has more manual steps in the pipeline and a higher cost to process and deliver.
"Weight vs Volume" doesn't have to be binary, but it's too complex a pricing model to do both; for RM and its customers - so they picked volume as that was a bigger determinant on processing cost than weight (as did most of their competitors).
Purely speculation, but I wonder if the charging method has changed because the type of mail has changed?
Once of a time, the vast majority of letters Royal Mail delivered were just that, letters. They were priced so that they could deliver a piece of paper from one place to another relatively cheaply.
With the rise of Internet shopping, there's a sudden explosion in the amount of small packets being delivered as 'letters,' costing considerably more to deliver as they take up ten times the space of a regular letter in the van (and, it seems, require more manual handling), yet earning no more revenue.
With differentiating between a letter and a "large letter," they're basically saying "look, we'll still deliver your jiffy bags for you for next to no money, but we're going to charge you a bit extra if you're going to take the piss."
Never has a thread about postal charges been a more entertaining read!
With the rise of Internet shopping, there's a sudden explosion in the amount of small packets being delivered as 'letters,' costing considerably more to deliver as they take up ten times the space of a regular letter in the van (and, it seems, require more manual handling), yet earning no more revenue.
Amazon etc. just have a yearly deal with the PO - they give them £x millions to delivery all their parcels regardless. Someone from Amazon doesn't sit in the PO office queue with 10,000 CDs to put stamps on.
And if you've noticed Amazon now send multiple smaller parcels rather than putting all your, say, CDs in one big box after a bit of feedback from posties - you can stick 5 individual CDs though a letterbox but can't do the same for one big box. Plus 4 out of 5 might get through rather than losing the whole lot.
As people have said, it's more complicated than postie X can carry 25kg of post, therefore thats x hundred letters blah blah.
Glad I got involved in this.
🙄
Thanks for your contribution veedubba.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
Who are you?