Price mail by size rather than weight

[John]

Is this a crazy idea or does it make sense to charge mail based on size rather than weight.

 

Can you imagine xmas cards being the size of a stamp to save on cost?

 

source

[Yodameister]

In the current climate under which Royal Mail works (trying to gear itself up to work in a free market) it is not a crazy idea at all.

 

You might say commercially it is fairly crazy to charge the same amount to send a letter to John oGroats as it does to ssend it to Sheffield City Centre, but it was decided that that was a good way to work it (probably to help the commerce of this country with a simple reliable method of postal delivery andcalculation of costs)

[mojoworking]

If this is what I think it is, it actually makes sense in some instances to charge by volume, rather than weight.

 

They've been doing this in Australia for years and nine times out of ten it makes no difference to the cost.

 

But imagine if you wanted to mail, let's say, a big box of feathers*. It might weigh very little, but it would take up a lot of space compared to a box of the same weight containing something heavy, like books. That's when the volume charge would apply.

 

*A crazy example, but one which demonstrates the thinking behind the idea.

[max]

I'd say the sizing issue is related to whether or not the sorting can be mechanised or would need to be done by hand. The machines used are capable of processing envelopes of a certain size. Anything out of the ordinary, like those really tasteful 2 foot by 2 foot greetings cards, require human intervention. Like any organisation, wages are the major part of the Royal Mail's costs so it makes sense to mechanise as much as possible to bring these down.

[mojoworking]

I suspect it would only apply to items (parcels, packages etc) physically handed over the counter, not letters.

 

When the system was first introduced in Australia, it was so complicated that nobody (including the post office staff) understood how it worked. The customers didn't have a clue how to work it out.

 

There was such an outcry that the system was withdrawn after a couple of months and a simpler version was re-introduced a year later. It works on a complicated equation based on the cubic weight of the parcel. The volume charge only applies if the cubic weight is greater than the actual weight.

 

As I said in the post above, virtually the only time this occurs is when something very light is mailed in a large box. So pillow manufacturers all over Britain must be getting very worried right now

[max]

Originally posted by mojoworking

I suspect it would only apply to items (parcels, packages etc) physically handed over the counter, not letters.

 

I beg to differ. The article which prompted this thread refers to the Royal Mail not Parcel Force so it is, in fact, letters which will be subject to any proposed price change. Additionally, the article talks of 13 first class rates being reduced to 5 and, afaik, there are far more than 13 charging bands for parcels.

[fnkysknky]

Royal Mail deliver lots of packets and parcels max

[mojoworking]

Originally posted by max

I beg to differ. The article which prompted this thread refers to the Royal Mail not Parcel Force so it is, in fact, letters which will be subject to any proposed price change. Additionally, the article talks of 13 first class rates being reduced to 5 and, afaik, there are far more than 13 charging bands for parcels.

 

This is probably the most boring thread ever to appear on this forum, but here goes:

 

The article also says "Countries which already take account of size in their prices include Germany, Ireland, Australia, Japan and the United States"

 

And I can tell you that in those countries, charging by volume only applies to bulky items (ie packets or parcels) with a surface area greater than their weight as calculated by a complex equation as follows:

 

You can calculate the cubic weight of a package in pounds by dividing the cubic size of the package in inches by 166.

 

To calculate the cubic weight of a package in kilograms, divide the cubic size of the package in centimetres by 6000.

 

None of the above would apply to a standard letter (ie greetings card size)

[t020]

As far as I'm aware it would only apply to parcels and not standard envelopes, so things like Xmas cards would be unaffected. According to the news on BBC it said 75% of post would not be affected by it.

[Ned Ludd]

Originally posted by Yodameister

You might say commercially it is fairly crazy to charge the same amount to send a letter to John oGroats as it does to ssend it to Sheffield City Centre, but it was decided that that was a good way to work it (probably to help the commerce of this country with a simple reliable method of postal delivery andcalculation of costs)

The origins of this policy relate to the Royal Mail actually being a public service where the inhabitants of Shetland would pay the same to send a letter to London as someone sending one from Wandsworth to Westminster and not suffer punitive costs. Unfortunately the public service ethos seems quaintly old fashioned to many and others may not know what it is at all.

I suppose Balfour Beatty will end up doing this as well and as efficiently as they maintain the rail networks!