It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Postal Service Has Not Earned a Profit in Almost a Decade

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
where am I getting that from?....from my wife, who as a supervisor had to send up to district offices, a litany of daily reports at the close of each business day. do you think what you said was happening, wasn't known about at some level up the chain?


And if she was not in purchasing her personal experience is rather irrelevant.

Also, I already made it clear they were aware of it above the district level. No one cared.




posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, I guess if you feel entitled to preach at others who are doing the same thing you did, there is nothing else I can say. So i'll just let it be.

Enjoy your day!



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana
Well, I guess if you feel entitled to preach at others who are doing the same thing you did, there is nothing else I can say. So i'll just let it be.


Hey, if they are going to throw buckets of money out the window I might as well get my net and catch some.

The military was just as bad as the USPS at waste. Between the two the things I saw would make your head spin.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't know about that particular problem in New Jersey, but I do know that bulk shipments on semi's are contracted out....why?....because they got rid of seasoned experienced postal drivers, who were paid better, and brought someone else in to drive the trucks that were paid much less, with little benefits, if any.

....not putting words in your mouth, I assumed it through your implication.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
A good country-ide postal service is a social good - hence it is entirely appropriate for it to be taxpayer supported.

Private companies are happy to pick the eye-teeth out of profitable sections of it - but how many of them will deliver at affordable costs to all quarters of eth country?

Privatising post is just another right wing idiocy that ignores the need to have a functioning society with all the supporting services that required, in favour of allowing a few people to get filthy rich.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Hey, if they are going to throw buckets of money out the window I might as well get my net and catch some.

The military was just as bad as the USPS at waste. Between the two the things I saw would make your head spin.


I have also been involved with both, as well as class I railroads. My head is pre-spun.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
I don't know about that particular problem in New Jersey, but I do know that bulk shipments on semi's are contracted out....why?....because they got rid of seasoned experienced postal drivers, who were paid better, and brought someone else in to drive the trucks that were paid much less, with little benefits, if any.


The issue with the straps was not the truck drivers doing, it was the unloaders. The drivers were not allowed to touch the mail wagons.









posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana

I have also been involved with both, as well as class I railroads. My head is pre-spun.


I found the railroads that I dealt with (mainly Class I's) to be particularly efficient, almost robotically so.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wrong again!

If volume goes up the market share absorbs those changes

i.e. if volume of all carriers is up to say 140% total that becomes 100% of the market share

As the article states USPS had higher volume growth of the three carriers, there for their percent of the market share grew even though the others had gains in volume also.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Wrong again!

If volume goes up the market share absorbs those changes


Uh, no. Did UPS or FedEx lose market share?



i.e. if volume of all carriers is up to say 140% total that becomes 100% of the market share


Huh? How do you get 140% of volume? You one of those people who thinks you can give 110%?


As the article states USPS had higher volume growth of the three carriers, there for their percent of the market share grew even though the others had gains in volume also.


It made no statement on market share growth, only on volume growth.

And before you ask how you can gain volume without gaining market share you are doing it by selling on margin; e.g. I delivered 10 packages at $1 each for a gross of $10. I then delivered 15 packages for .75 each for a gross of $11.25. My volume is up but my market share can still remain unchanged if my competitors saw the same metrics for their own volume.



edit on 22-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Gov't isn't suppose to make money its suppose to provide a service.

With that said , if the USPS goes out of service I wouldn't be surprised if the UPS and FEDX oligopoly becomes like the telecom industry and we get comcast and att service for mail service.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Bluntone22

You aren't understanding. Congress passed a bill in 2006 that required the USPS to fund it's retirement, health and insurance for the next seventy years... within ten years time. No other federal, state or private entity is required to do that. It's absurd.


Well Congress passed a law. That makes it all better.

Some people had mortgages that required them to make house payments too. Guess what? That didn't work out so well.

If just having contracts and laws made everything work out perfectly, then there wouldn't be any problems. This is the same kind of magical thinking that makes some people think they can just mandate 100% of our energy come from renewable sourced within 10 years and it will somehow all magically happen, too.

Just because you wave your hand and decree it doesn't actually put any realistic solution in place.

It's like throwing gobs of cash at schools and saying, "There I fixed education." Even though there is no plan that goes with it. And everyone wonders why kids continue to not learn anything.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
A good country-ide postal service is a social good - hence it is entirely appropriate for it to be taxpayer supported.

Private companies are happy to pick the eye-teeth out of profitable sections of it - but how many of them will deliver at affordable costs to all quarters of eth country?

Privatising post is just another right wing idiocy that ignores the need to have a functioning society with all the supporting services that required, in favour of allowing a few people to get filthy rich.


UPS and FedEx deliver everywhere.

Why wouldn't private mail?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Hey, if they are going to throw buckets of money out the window I might as well get my net and catch some.

The military was just as bad as the USPS at waste. Between the two the things I saw would make your head spin.


I have also been involved with both, as well as class I railroads. My head is pre-spun.


I agree with Augustus. The railroads deliver produce from California to the Central and Eastern contiguous states now.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Simply put they gained volume, but yes they lost part of the market share!

USPS 9.1%

UPS 0.6

FedEx 6.6

So the volume is up 16.3% but that is 100% market share, USPS grew UPS obviously lost part of it's market share!



edit on 22-9-2015 by AlaskanDad because: sp correction



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
So the volume is up 16.3% but that is 100% market share, USPS grew UPS obviously lost pat of it's market share!


What percent? You have no data in the article to back up your statement and I already explained you can gain volume and not gain market share. As a matter of fact, you can gain volume and lose market share.

Again, ask yourself, if UPS and FedEx are getting out of the unprofitable e-commerce shipping sector, why is that? Because it is a money maker or a money loser?



edit on 22-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
A good country-ide postal service is a social good - hence it is entirely appropriate for it to be taxpayer supported.

Private companies are happy to pick the eye-teeth out of profitable sections of it - but how many of them will deliver at affordable costs to all quarters of eth country?

Privatising post is just another right wing idiocy that ignores the need to have a functioning society with all the supporting services that required, in favour of allowing a few people to get filthy rich.


UPS and FedEx deliver everywhere.

Why wouldn't private mail?



no they don't...my father was a plant operator at exchequer dam holding back lake McClure located in mariposa county in Calif. years ago.
......en.wikipedia.org...
he was provided a small house to live in at a reduced rent, near the power station.....the post office delivered mail up there.....but, when FED EX had a delivery for him, they would drop it off at the Snelling, Calif. post office, which was 14.5 miles away, he had to go down and pick it up himself.


edit on 22-9-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

What year was that? FedEx, which started in 1971, did not deliver everywhere initially, they did not have the infrastructure.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm sorry, but here I call nonsense. More than 25 years of railroad experience has made me an expert in railroad waste and excess. Please don't even try to blow that smoke. You would be fundamentally wrong.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

I searched for address restriction on the UPS and FedEx websites and found none.

Which sounds counter-intuitive, until considering that delivery is a service for the sender as well as the recipient.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join