In the span of a few posts, we hear "bulk mail is where the PO makes its money" and then "drop all the bulk mail...big money loser".

Which is it? Anyone with any documented facts?

I do believe that Congress regulation is a problem and I can say that w/o being political. But SammyG2 gets a time out for not being able to contain himself. God, I'm glad I don't have him for a friend or a neighbor. But someone has to set the bar as to what a bigot is.

The USPS lost nearly 2 billion 1st quarter 2013. Elimination of Saturday delivery would save 2 billion a year. Not really enough, but it's 25% of the annual loss.

I'm going to take the position that the USPS has to add in new innovative services to compliment what they are mandated to do now. Again, I don't see why the local letter carriers can't assist in any federal surveys.

Hire hooters girls to deliver the mail.

What would you do to save the USPS?
 

Nothing at all. I would let them go out of business.

Hah! That assumes they are IN business. Anywho, as we know, the USPS is mandated. The whole of the Congress, the House and the Senate, would have to agree on how to change the mandate.

Looking at articles on Royal Mail, the UK's conglomerate of delivery systems is interesting as they normally produce a profit. Not too much information. That would be a good topic for a school paper. How many RM employees per thousand residents?

In the US, it's roughly one postal worker per 600 people or 230 households. Roughly.

I'm a little late to this discussion, but here's my 2c:
The USPS performs a necessary function for the continued operation of our society, but it will always be a money loser. It doesn't seem critical but it is. It was never envisioned to make money, but it makes other things work, like commerce and government functions. It is like the military or the forest service or the Treasury and many other government programs. Not money makers, but they make other stuff possible, like national defense, parks and conservation and money.
The USPS should be re-federalized and taken back into the Federal Government as a legitimate office. Enough of this profit or die BS, that's not how it works. It was designed with a larger societal purpose than making a profit. Non-government functions like GM and Chrysler and B of A and etc can get bailed out by the Feds and returned to profitability, but somehow the USPS, a legitimate gov't function has become the ugly stepchild no one wants but we all in some way use and need.

indeed

the post office was designed to fail by the republicans

$10,000 per year tax assessment for anyone making over $200,000.

To make sure they are doing their part. Plus, they can afford it.

So, let it fail so the R's can finally claim an actual accomplishment.

Great post, Widebody. We should revoke that 2006 law.

Also in 2006, we had post-office employees behind the counter who spoke English and cared about customer service. I hate going to the post office now, because the employees behind the counter are slow and lazy and have a bad attitude, and they get even more surly when customers can't understand what they're saying.

But at least the lines are long...

__

Cut (or raise rates) discounted Junk & bulk Mail.

Change 6 day/week delivery to 2 days/week.

The electric car provision would have been a nightmare unless by "replacing part of its fleet" means a few % and in the hard city. Still, I'm not sure there's any gain for the PO using these cars. I'm against the PO being used as a puppet to support an industry that can't prove itself.

Hybrids, more so maybe. But, they need to be spec built for the right price.

My whole city fleet runs on CNG. The PO could do that in certain areas. These vehicles don't cost like hybrids and DuraCells do. The advantage is in fleet fueling.

route running cars are ideal for electrification, as there range and payload requirements are fixed and well known.

UPS, FedEX, and many other carriers are partially electrifying there fleets now ... nearly 10 years later.

Sounds more like a mandate to address an unfunded pension liability than a political game to me. Do you really believe the global oil markets hang in the balance over the transportation strategy of the USPS? Most sensible businesses that have defined benefit retirement plans actively set aside funds to cover future retirement obligations such that the assets accumulate to cover the future payments to retirees. If this were indeed such a poison pill forced on the USPS by the Republicans it would have been very publicly repealed by now, heralded by a fanfare of Democratic trumpets.

I think you need to look at the restrictions placed on the USPS by Congress. They have to fund pensions for decades in the future -- by law. No business with that burden would be profitable.

The shift to electronic delivery of messages has impacted USPS more than any other business. They were investigating "certified delivery emails" in 2001 with a company I had an investment in. Not sure why they dropped it. That would have been a lifesaver.

Raise stamp prices. $0.45 is CHEAP! When you consider what is required to transport your letter hundreds of miles it is way too cheap. I wouldn't balk at $0.75, but I rarely mail anything.

Cut delivery days. Why 6 days a week? Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri, that would be more than enough. Have postal workers work 4x10 weeks.

Can't research it at the moment - on the road. But it is a fact that business mail (bulk and periodical) is where the money is and ill get the data to you ASAP .

[QUOTE=Zeke;)I'm against the PO being used as a puppet to support an industry that can't prove itself.[/QUOTE]

Airmail contracts were the start of commercial aviation in this country. A lot of early navigation was developed for mail planes. Airmail is credited for much of the technology developed for pre wwII military aircraft.

I guess you haven't read about the payback v. cost. We're trying to save a 'business here, not saddle them with very expensive cap costs with no benefits. Who are they going to turn to for rebates and tax incentives?

Did you really think this through?

Most companies with defined benefit plans do exactly the same thing. It is not a burden it is the only way to dig your way out of an ever deepening financial hole as more employees retire and live longer. Same challenge as social security - continue to kick the can or bite the bullet and try to do something about it now.

Here is what the GAO says :

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-112

What GAO Found
The Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) covered about 49 percent of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) $94 billion retiree health benefit liability at fiscal year-end 2012. USPS's deteriorating financial outlook, however, will make it difficult to continue the current prefunding schedule in the short term, and possibly to fully fund the remaining $48 billion unfunded liability over the remaining 44 years of the schedule on which the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) was based. The liability covers the projected benefits for about 471,000 current postal retirees and a portion of the projected benefits for about 528,000 current employees; it does not cover employees not yet hired. Under PAEA, USPS is responsible for contributing an additional $33.9 billion to the PSRHBF by fiscal year 2017, including the $11.1 billion USPS has defaulted on over the past 2 years. PAEA also requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to calculate the remaining unfunded liability in 2017 and develop an initial 40-year amortization payment schedule. USPS, however, projects further declines in mail volume and revenues that may continue to limit its ability to prefund the remaining retiree health benefit liability.

GAO's analysis of maintaining current law requirements compared to five alternative approaches showed differing impacts on USPS's future annual payments and unfunded liabilities. For example, three of the approaches--1) the Administration's Approach, 2) Senate Bill (S. 1789) and 3) "Pay-as-You-Go" (no prefunding)--would reduce USPS's annual payments in the short term, thereby easing its immediate cash flow problems and financial losses. However, these approaches would increase USPS's unfunded liability, sometimes substantially, and require larger payments later. Deferring funding could increase costs for future ratepayers and increase the possibility that USPS may not be able to pay for some or all of its liability. Conversely, a fourth approach--the House Bill (H.R. 2309)--and the current law requirement would reduce USPS's unfunded liabilities more aggressively but may result in significantly higher USPS financial losses in the near future. If USPS stopped prefunding and let the existing fund grow with interest, the unfunded liability is projected to significantly increase. Under a fifth approach, if USPS stopped prefunding and used the existing fund to pay current and future premiums, the fund is projected to be exhausted by 2026. Private sector, state, local, and other federal entities are not required to prefund these benefits, though some do so to a limited extent, and most are required to recognize the future costs in their financial reporting."