USPS Office of Inspector General

Comments (28)

• 

  K

  The OIG needs to examine transportation schedules. The closing of some BMC's and other offices has caused trucks to not be needed but the PostaL Service has not adjusted the truck schedules. Trucks are driving empty. Many other schedules have trucks scheduled one on top of another causing the second trucks to have no mail to carry. The biggest problem is late trucks--late for no reason, then the same contractor being paid for an additional trip because the first one caused late dispatch.

  Apr 28, 2010

• 

  John

  I think the postal should do ALL of the things mentioned in the original post. Why is it even an issue? Heck, if we could trust people, we could also use every day citizens to move bulk mail.

  Dec 15, 2009

• 

  snoop

  Using the numbers above, a 1 cent increase in fuel is actually $1.25 million per year, not $8m. The bigger question is why is the fleet using vehicles that get 10.5 mpg. The average truck in your fleet does about 19 miles per day, which makes it the perfect candidate for electric. Phoenix Motors and Coda Automotive would be good fits for the USPS.

  Sep 22, 2009

• 

  sbalduff

  I think the Postal Service needs to take advantage of the fact that they visit, or at least pass every house every day. From utility companies needing meters to be read to marketing companies wanting to know the type of car parked in the driveway. I believe the Postal Service could provide valuable information to companies who would be willing to pay for this type of service.

  Jan 15, 2009

• 

  Just A Little C...

  This is a great discussion!!! Now, my 2 cents on how to reduce transportation cost. Basic business strategy: when revenues decrease, expenses MUST also decrease...unless the company wants to go out of business. I know the Postal Service can focus on increasing revenues, which is a great idea, but the bleeding has to stop also. Now, not knowing the background of why there are transportation routes that overlap or are underutilized, my initial suggestion is to immediately stop the bleeding by eliminating both of these situations. In addition, although it may be difficult to reduce the reliance on air, airline carriers are also suffering financially and transporting mail may not be all that bad. If the Postal Service has not already done so, it should develop air carrier delivery standards and hold the airline carrier financially accountable when it does not meet those standards...this could be another stream of income (that's a joke). I also disagree with relaxing delivery timeframe standards...although the mission is to deliver the mail...the competitive edge is to deliver the mail timely!

  Jan 15, 2009

• 

  rprescot

  Hi, I found the above discussion informative but the track it took on drop shipping bulk First-Class is a minor one. Sure, generating new mail volume at lower costs is just what the Postal Service needs to do, but maybe the big picture question should be "If mail volume continues to decline due to the internet,etc. what kind of future, downsized postal service is the US going to end up with - or what kind of future downsized postal service do we want to establish?"

  Jan 02, 2009

• 

  BMEU CLERK

  I think that first class mail is going to eventually go away. People are not writing letters. They are paying their bills on line. If it wasn't for greeting cards it would be on a respirator right now. We must advertise and tighten belts. Service needs to be number one. One thing I have noticed with scans of tracking. Our carriers and plants don't buy into it. I have sent packages out with tracking and it will be scanned in on purchase and nothing else. With UPS, I can get several scans a day from departure to arrival. It this keeps up, we'll be the dinosaur and be S.O.L. Also upper level management has to start doing things to get people to retire or move on. We are too top heavy. Like the auto industry we need to retool.

  Dec 24, 2008

• 

  Radix lecti

  Does anybody with instituional knowledge know why dropshipping for FCM has not been suggested before? Thanks.

  Dec 24, 2008

• 

  BMEU CLERK

  rmit, I don't know that drop shipping first class is the answer. As a BMEU clerk I am at a low level and I don't think that the volume would be there. I too think that our volume is tied to economics. I am able to spend some time doing this, because our volume is down. Something I've always have heard is that a business must advertise in all economic conditions to survive. Especially in bad economic conditions. The idea is to keep your name out there so that people will think of you when they are ready to spend.

  Dec 22, 2008

• 

  Radix lecti

  This is quite informative. Thanks. I am not opposed to more worksharing opportunities and better incentive pricing for FCM. I just did not think they were much opportunities in dropshipping. But you suggest otherwise. I hope you're right. Given the current declining mail volume situation, perhaps it is high time to revamp strategically the whole FCM pricing structure to incorporate more worksharing, specifically more dropshipping opportunities. while the Postal Service goes about rethinking strategically its Bulk-FCM pricing structure, they need to reconsider the amount of automation discounts they are currently offering and whether they make sense economically and strategically. But I am getting off topic here. Thanks again for the post above. I found it informative.

  Dec 22, 2008

• 

  rmit

  The question to which we are responding refers to heavy transportation costs of all kinds and asks what can be done about it. Possibilities suggested in the question are to reduce the use of air and to reduce service standards. The Postal Service stopped developing average haul information for the subclasses in the mid 1980s. This may not have been a good idea. In FY2007, the long-haul transportation costs (omitting local transportation such as most intra-SCF, all vehicle service drivers, and all carrier vehicles) for First-Class letters was $1.4 billion. Of this, $736 million was for air, which is only used when an overnight truck cannot get it there. Most of the rest is long-haul highway. In addition to transportation costs, there are handling costs associated with distance, as the mail is loaded and unloaded, transferred around, and containers are sorted. These figures suggest that a great deal of First Class is non-local. Many banks and insurance companies mail nationwide from one point. Even local utilities have no incentive to take their mail to an SCF near its delivery points. We have limited dropship discounts in Periodicals and a very great deal of it is now entered at destination facilities. Mailers not only do an effective job of getting it there, they deal with their service needs at the same time. More could be done here. Dropship discounts for Standard Mail (formerly third class) were implemented in 1990. The proportion that is destination-entered has grown phenomenally. Sometimes printing can be done near the destination so no transportation at all is needed. This also allows the rates to be more competitive. Service is also often important. More could be done here too. Mailers get the same discount amount for driving the mail 200 miles as they do for driving it 2,500 miles. Also, 1 truck of lightweight pieces gets the same discount amount as 4 trucks of heavier pieces. The situation is not good, but it is much better than in 1990. In First Class, the signals in the rates are poor. The rates say to a New York mailer: You can print it in California if you want to; we will carry it back on a big airplane, at no additional cost to you. Also, the Postal Service adheres to high service standards even when the mailer does not require rapid service. The position of the Postal Service has been that there is a high return on investment for the delivery point sequencing equipment and that the equipment allows low carrier costs. If this is the case, the cost of completing delivery for letters dropshipped to the DPS machine should be the lowest thing around. If these costs are recognized in rates, mailer costs should be low, even after doing an efficient job of getting the mail to the destination. This would help keep volume up and would serve the nation well, which should be the goal.

  Dec 21, 2008

• 

  rmit

  The answer is: Implement dropship rates for bulk First Class. Mailers will do a very efficient job of getting the mail to its destination, and you just take it out. Mailing costs will be low. Volume will be high. And you don't have to transport it at all.

  Dec 19, 2008

• 

  BMEU CLERK

  (shrug) I'm just going by what I read and an email conversation with the editor of link.

  Dec 18, 2008

• 

  BMEU CLERK

  Professor, I too have wondered why the postal service has not mentioned the money that they didn't have to spend on gas since the price has plummeted. Possibly because they are eyeing the next spike which is on it's way. I emailed Link about the alternative energy vehicles they were talking about and was assured that the testing was ongoing. My opinion on that is that they are going too slow. The more alternative energy vehicles we use the less gas we use and the more money is saved on it's purchase. I also think that with the size of the fleet that we own; we ought to be a leader in R & D and be pushing the envelope with most of the fleet, if not all of the fleet being alternative fuel driven. Some one (organization, business) has to have a breakthrough in alternative fuels that will work for the masses and why shouldn't it be USPS?

  Dec 17, 2008

• 

  ProfessorPO

  I'm sorry, but I don't buy the one cent increase in fuel prices costs $8 million nonsense. I have never seen a competent analysis which shows how this was calculated and it seems too high. In the past, I saw different numbers until this version of Kool-Aid was sent out. Also, now the price of gas has declined by $2.35. Why isn't this described as a one cent change impacts fuel prices by $8 million? Why isn't this figure being trumpeted today at USPS? By my simple calculation, the recent decline in fuel prices has saved the Postal Service $1,880,000,000 (235 * 8 million) - or almost $2 BILLION! I can't see why there would be financial problems given this financial windfall. I have to call BS on this whole thing. Show me the money!!

  Dec 17, 2008

• 

  PastorRob

  My thought is that the USPS could cut out at least one delivery day (IE: SAT) thus saving hours, pay , gas and fleet usage. I am sure we could live two days a week with out mail. Otherwise, you could pick a week day to not operate. Thanks Robert

  Dec 16, 2008