qazitory Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 On the ITV news it showed different sizes of birthday cards as the example, so i think it does apply to letters. But only if they are above a certain size. It also talked about badgers that are stuck on cards, but i didn't have the sound on, so I don't know what was said!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 By size, I presume it will take in all 3 dimensions and measure the cubic area of the parcel? If not then its stupid. Personally I think the best system would be to combine both weight and size to determine price. This would be best done by halving all weight based costs, and halving all size based costs, and adding them together to form one cost based on the 2 variables. It might make queues at the post office longer though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Originally posted by t020 By size, I presume it will take in all 3 dimensions and measure the cubic area of the parcel? If not then its stupid. That's absolutely correct. If, as the article claims, the proposed UK system will be similar to those already in place in the USA, Australia etc, then it is totally based on cubic area. Because normal letters are generally flat, it's not possible to measure the thickness in order to work out their cubic weight. That's not to say there won't be a graduated letter rate based on size as well (as there is in Australia), but it's very simple with only 2 sizes (standard and large letter) and two thickness (the item has to fit through one of two slots to qualify as a letter or parcel) applicable. I would assume there is a similar system to this already in place in the UK anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Originally posted by qazitory ... It also talked about badgers that are stuck on cards,.... o_O - I'd have thought the Badger Protection groups would have something to say about that!! =D (sorry, couldn't resist!) But I'm happy with the weight charges - it's so much easier than having to weigh it, then measure it and calculate c=m+(w*d*l*pi^2)/f where c=cost, m=mass, w,l,d=width/lenght/depth and f=the post office's current conversion factor value Because knowing the post office that sounds like the sort of over complicated half baked system they'd pay someone half a million to devise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Ludd Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 I think we should be grateful if a package actually arrives at all, no matter how the postage charge is levied, after watching Despatches last night on C4. The public service ethos seems to be largely absent in the Royal Mail itself and many of it's emplyees down in London. To knowingly employ agency staff when it's known that a high proportion of them are incompetent, lazy and dishonest. is madness. The Royal Mail should be doing a lot more to clamp down on this. Prison sentences have to be harsher and the courts must be able to confiscate cars and houses that these crooks are buying from the proceeds of crime. Additionally, any foreigners caught should be expelled from the country after serving their sentences and not be allowed back. Be very wary about sending anything of value to our Capital City...... the scale of the problem is appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qazitory Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Couldn't you be hung in the past for tampering with the mail? As it was against the King/Queen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncrossland Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by 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. It mentioned on the report that anything over 1/3rd A4 size would cost extra - implying that anything over this is sorted by hand. So why on earth did the Royal Mail buy sorting machines that aren't capable of sorting A5 or A4 envelopes?! It surely isn't beyond human engineering to automate slightly larger envelopes??! On a positive note, it might cut down on the amount of junk mail - or else it will just come in smaller envelopes!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncrossland Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by qazitory Couldn't you be hung in the past for tampering with the mail? As it was against the King/Queen? That should include Camilla - she's been tampering with a Royal Male for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickyc Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 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. [/b] Not such a crazy example. I like feather boas and often buy them on ebay and delivery is quite cheap as a box of feathers is light. Maybe this will put a stop to my boa fettish!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickyc Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 How do you do the quote in a white box thing? It dosent seem to have worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.