Forum: Author Hangout

Which begs the question: who will sort and deliver the mail when we deport all the aliens?

@Bondi BeachWhich begs the question: who will sort and deliver the mail when we deport all the aliens?

What difference would it make? The Royal Mail decided to send all my mail abroad, refused to help retrieve it and didn't pay the costs. On top of that some mail was deliberately destroyed - and they claim to have no responsibility or liability.

As a retiree I have the theoretical right to subsidised rail transport; Royal Mail's actions have had that right blocked for the rest of my lifetime (unless I give false information or move elsewhere).

With the rise of email and other electronic forms I can see the mailing of letters becoming an anachronism

Actually it saves a lot of money by not having the main haulage trucks stop off at every other place they pass through.

Depends, when there is enough volume to take a "straight shot" correct, it's advantageous to skip stops. The Less Than Truckload carriers love to use 10 and 20 foot trailers in double or triple combinations for pretty much that reason, although they may make extra stops.

The driver turns up, breaks apart the trailer chain to leave one or more trailer behind, in a dock or parked for someone else to dock, pick up next set of loaded trailers and back on the road.

Much faster than stopping at every whistle stop along the way, open up the trailer, unload what's staying, load what's leaving and hope things are "in order" for the next stop so they don't have to unload 3/4this of a trailer to get to their stuff.

As things get more advanced they'll probably have an AI optimizing the routing to minimize miles traveled and simply start "skipping" their way down the line in some form. Probably about the time robots start driving the trucks so the traditional workday is less of a concern.

Which is the other side of the problem many postal services have. Like most government employees, they enjoy generous retirement plans, which are largely government (pay scale) mandated, but aren't funded by the government. So that postage stamp you just purchase may instead be funding some pensioner who retired 30 years ago.

Depends, when there is enough volume to take a "straight shot" correct, it's advantageous to skip stops. The Less Than Truckload carriers love to use 10 and 20 foot trailers in double or triple combinations for pretty much that reason, although they may make extra stops.

The driver turns up, breaks apart the trailer chain to leave one or more trailer behind, in a dock or parked for someone else to dock, pick up next set of loaded trailers and back on the road.

Much faster than stopping at every whistle stop along the way, open up the trailer, unload what's staying, load what's leaving and hope things are "in order" for the next stop so they don't have to unload 3/4this of a trailer to get to their stuff.

And the problem with having loads (even partial ones) dropped off here and there is you need facilities & staff and equipment to sort it all out ready for delivery.
It costs. It costs a lot.
Hence the use of a very few main centres where the mail is broken up & then forwarded (even though it may be going back the way it came) to the relevant delivery centre for the actual delivery.

And the problem with having loads (even partial ones) dropped off here and there is you need facilities & staff and equipment to sort it all out ready for delivery.
It costs. It costs a lot.

Yes and no. So long as things have already been sorted to some degree, it just requires containerizing the load in such a way that someone with a forklift can easily sift through what's on a trailer to get at what their stop can use. But that calls for further development of facilities along the way, and does little for cargo picked up enroute at some/many facilities.

Future options are another matter, but that depends on where robotics and AI ultimately takes us. Time still is a consideration as well. Truck/trailer turn around times would decide a lot, as well as the volume of trucks moving through.

A freight corridor that sees a truck rolling through every hour or so(or less) has more options than one that only sees one per day. As the higher traffic route can support having the truck drop one trailer, grab another and go, even if that stop only needs part of that load, since the next truck will turn up shortly to grab that dropped trailer and take it to its next stop.

It largely becomes a "game" of trying to keep your trucks moving with freight to the maximum extent possible, while also trying to minimize the number of idle trailers you have sitting around. There is a reason why many large trucking companies, UPS and FedEx included, maintain trailer fleets that typically outnumber their tractor fleet by at least 2 to 1, with 3 to 1 or more being common even in single full size trailer fleets(one trailer being loaded, one in transit, and the other being unloaded at any given point in time). The tractor + driver is the most expensive part of the operation when it comes to movement.

Postal service just has the added complicating factor of needing to sort many specific things to many specific places.

Unlike Wal-Mart which just normally needs to ensure they get a toaster to a given store, any particular toaster of a given type will do. Rather than getting a particular toaster with a specific serial number to a specific store. Site to Store is another matter, and that experience can be wildly variable for the customer as they DO try to move a specific item from Distribution Center to Distribution Center until they finally kick it out to their local store.

Too bad if the mail has to go past the destination to reach the state centre.

Yep.

The result is an extra couple of days delay in delivering the mail, and they wonder why people say not to use the postal service because it's too damn slow.

In some cases, maybe. In most cases it's not.
In fact it's on par with most freight services even in the major centres that have their own aircraft. And well ahead of them in many of the remote areas. And is the only option in many more remote areas.

The fact is one size doesn't fit all, but that's what management aims for because it makes it easier for them.
And any input pointing out any flaws in the system from inside is generally ignored, or not taken as factual.
It either takes an external consultant to recommend something that those inside Post have been saying for years, or for enough customers to show that there is an issue for those higher up to take notice.

I know a fellow who does the Melbourne Sydney run on a regular basis. He stops to collect at the Lavington MDC in Albury, but only delivers there when on the way from Sydney.

An individual driver doesn't comprise a representative sample. His "run" is optimized for what he's doing. There is nothing there that says there aren't 3 additional drivers working that same comparable route who handle the other 3 remaining respective legs to or from that facility and those locations opposite that driver.

Just because he didn't mention them, or is unaware of them himself doesn't mean they aren't there.

Melbourne to/from Sydney strikes me as a postal route that probably keeps a decently sized postal fleet of trucks moving between them. They aren't exactly small population centers.

When he can cite and show you the policy and operational change documentation, and how it affects all the drivers, it does constitute a very valid sample.

Ok, that's different, and valid.

1. Australia Post has a guaranteed business because there's federal law making them the only organisation allowed to deliver mail. There are other companies doing a similar service but they don't deliver mail, under the law they operate a document delivery service and what they handle has to be, by law, over a minimum size. Which is why they have satchels for you to put your documents in because the satchel is just over that size.

The legislation sets a physical size for the various mail items, then everything over that becomes a parcel and the document delivery services are, legally, delivering light parcels.

USPS is also a government granted monopoly on mail, specifically the bulk-mail categories, but IIRC, "1st Class" mail falls under their purview as well.

However, "Express Mail" is a field where others can compete against them on. Although the other providers cannot use the Mail Box, they'll have to deliver to the door or other designated location.

FedEx being the biggest example of that(Although UPS does as well, their "Expedited service" doesn't get as much marketing attention)

Parcel delivery likewise isn't a monopoly, obviously, otherwise the UPS business model wouldn't work in the US. ;)

My understanding is that all UPS mail/packages are sent to Worldport in Louisville, Kentucky. They get sorted and are the sent to local distribution centers for delivery. Their system seems to work okay.

UPS (United Parcel Service) doesn't handle mail, although they do have an "Express Mail" option, albeit by a different name.

As to ground-freight, no, it doesn't see world-port unless World-port is the closest UPS sorting facility.

All UPS Air-Freight in the United States goes through World Port. So yes, in theory an overnight air express package from San Diego, CA to San Diego, CA would, in theory travel by way of their WorldPort facility in Kentucky. Although I suspect you'd find their system would kick it back to San Diego before it ever got on the more often than not.

Now if you sent it to LA from San Diego, that's another matter. ;)

As to UPS Ground packages, I think the local facilities do some basic checking to verify that it needs to leave the facility at all. If it does, it then heads to the nearest RDC. So even my local to/from UPS package shipping would be via the same City that the USPS is using to handle ALL of my local mail. Which makes them functionally the same in most respects.

Broad-brushed, unjustified slander. Sounds like something from the current White House tweet book.

The reason why the lines at the PO are slow is because there is no reason for them to do the work quickly.

If it's anything like Australia the reason the lines are slow is because while most of the system now has tracking from the start to where it's either delivered or taken to the nearest Post Office for collection, that tracking isn't made use of when it comes to shelving the parcels- everything is still done the same way it was prior to item tracking coming in. 100% manually.

The way things are now, each item that comes in has the customers name written on it so it can be found on the shelf. That name is not always particularly legible & it's not unusual for letters to be misread. The shelves are set up for letters, small packets, parcels, large parcels & oversized items. Often the information on the card is vague (or not there) or the customer can't recall what it was they've ordered so they might have to check all of the different shelves before they finally find it. Since the shelves are alphabetical it's not unusual to have some sections jam packed, and others with barely anything on them. The smaller the item, the more difficult it can be to find it amongst all the others on that shelf.
Or the customer comes in with the tracking number on their phone, but can't remember what name they ordered it under (First name? Last name? Boy/girlfriend's name? Kid's name? Nick name? Friends name? (didn't want family to find out they're still ordering crap on line)) or they just had a typo (or 5) when they entered their name so it's not under the letter you would expect it to be (Please don't shop online while drunk, stoned, fatigued or extremely emotional in general).
There goes 10min time going quickly through everything to try and find it. No luck. Come back later with the right details or wait for a follow up card to be sent out with the actual name used- you idiot.

If there was even the slightest bit of intelligence in the higher levels, they would have implemented a system where each and every shelf and section & subsection of shelves at the Post Office would have it's own location barcode, and that barcode would be scanned when a item is placed on the shelf (along with that item's bar code).
When the customer comes in, they hand over their card with the tracking number, the person at the counter scans it, and the computer tells them which room, shelf, row the parcel is waiting.
If it's a heavy item, it'll flag that, and they give the card back to the customer and send them around to the loading bay to collect the oversized item.
From the time the customer presents their card, to the time they sign for & receive their parcel(s) would be no more than 30 seconds in 85-95% of cases.

Believe me, the people behind the counter don't like dealing with pissed off customers, or asking reasonably behaved customers to come back later when they'd have a chance to go though things more thoroughly when there aren't 50 people behind them in the queue. They will do their best to get through the backlog as fast as they can.
Of course if you choose to act like a total cockhead, then you can expect to be screwed around with.

Good idea, except 90% of the Post Offices are now privately owned and they don't get paid enough to pay for that sort of storage and technology,

It's already there, they already have it in the systems they've got for tracking the parcels/letters.
It just a matter of software & putting barcodes on the shelves. It just needs to be implemented.

The parcels are recorded into the system using a barcode scanner supplied by Australia Post simply because they insist they be scanned and thus have to supply them.

The only reason Australia Post does it is to collect revenue from all the overseas mail/packages & because other companies offer tracking & customers expect it. If they could operate without it, they would. It would save a fortune, of course they'd also loose all that revenue when people took their business elsewhere.

Now, for them to have that shelve broken up into sections with barcodes on them someone has to come out to do it, print the codes, and put them up.

No need for new shelving unless they are already short of space.
The barcodes are readily available as stickers on rolls.

Then they have to be managed within the computer system on site. Two problems, like most local post offices now they have no on-site computer for that service,

Unusual, as all the LPOs I've come across have at least one system that ties in with post- otherwise it's not possible for them to do any searches for parcels, nor do Western Union money transfers & the Post Bill Pay and other transactions.
Having a scanner on the desktop would be an added expense if they don't already have one, otherwise they would just be able to use the handheld scanners as they do now, with the added feature of it displaying where a parcel is located when someone comes to collect it.

Assuming AP update the software to allow for a local storage barcode, who is going to pay people to set up the locations, and then pay for the extra time of people to enter the codes and update what's in them. The contractors won't agree to accept the burden unless paid more, they get damn little as it is.

If they didn't want it, they wouldn't have to implement it. The whole reason for doing so would be to save them time & effort & reduce people's waiting times while staff try to find items they've come for.
If their time & their customers is of no importance then they can continue to use the present manual system that results in so many wasted hours & upset customers as they queue up to 30 deep waiting to collect stuff.

There's an AP policy in place that any parcel not collected within 3 working days is to be sent back

First I've heard of it.
I think it was late last year the word came down that after 7 days they were to be returned. 7 days had always been official policy, but generally most places would give up to 4 weeks.

EDIT- officially on their web site it's 10 working days, so 2 weeks. Slightly more than 3 working days.

I've seen official AP signs at five different LPOs that say Parcels will only be held for three business days before being returned if not collected in that time.

Then that is their policy, not Australia Post policy. I suggest you take it up with them.

Which they do you mean?

The LPO.

To do as you suggest the LPO owner will have to incur costs and create a secondary system that doesn't link to the AP system at all

Why are you making things up?
What I have been talking about is a system that Post should develop & implement. Once done it would then be available to all that use the Post tracking system as it would be part of that system.

If it's done only at one or two LPOs it has to be cost effective for them to operate two systems instead of the current manual one that works well for most.

The current system does not work well for most. It is one of the greatest causes of customer complaints.
It would be possible for those that don't wish to use to not do so, they could continue to use the present manual system.

At the LPO level if this was happening for long enough each day they'd solve it by employing more part-time staff - - if it was cost effective to do anything at all.

If it was cost effective. It's not, so people have to queue up at peak periods during the day.

It's an AP printed sign with AP logos - I strongly suspect the AP has two sets of policies but only publicizes the ones that affect the facilities they own. The five LPOs in my region I've been into are owned by deferent people, spread out over 200 Kms apart and all have the exact same sign with the AP logo - I don't see them paying to have it made themselves.

Ask them about it.

The Post policy is 10 working days (ie 2 weeks). The only reason for it being shorter at those LPOs it that they don't want to be holding people's parcel's for them till they finally feel like picking it up.

EDIT- the other option is call 131318 & lodge a complaint and ask them why it is that everywhere else the Post requirement is for it to be held for 10 working days, yet at these locations it's only 3.

It's cost effective for AP because the issue is a contractor one, so AP has no interest in fixing it.

It also affects their Post Offices and parcel collection centres. It is not just a LPO issue. And given that the LPOs are generally much smaller than the Post Offices, the impact on them is less than it would be on Post itself.

Mind you, in the rural areas if the item won't fit in a standard letter box, it doesn't get delivered by the local bike contractor at all, you get a card and have to get it from the post office.

That's the case for all bike and foot based Posties.
The Postie delivers to the l/box. If the customer authorises a safe drop, then they will do that (if possible). For items requiring a signature they'll honk the horn & ring the bell/knock on the door (if it's possible).

It's already there, they already have it in the systems they've got for tracking the parcels/letters.
It just a matter of software & putting barcodes on the shelves. It just needs to be implemented.

It just a matter of software ... It just needs to be implemented. WTF?
Sorry - there's no such thing as "just" when it comes to software. It does not grow on trees; somebody has to write it. And installing it in a huge number of different locations would be a massive undertaking.

It just a matter of software ... It just needs to be implemented. WTF?

Sorry - there's no such thing as "just" when it comes to software. It does not grow on trees; somebody has to write it. And installing it in a huge number of different locations would be a massive undertaking.

Yes, someone has to write it, and any company with any sort of experience would have routines that already do what is required. All they'd need to do is determine current requirements, allow for future requirements establish the required work flow, data dictionary, error handling & data formats & entry requirements. The biggest headache would be integrating it the existing system.

As for upgrading the software, push updates have been around for decades and are what's currently used for software updates.

All they'd need to do is

I cannot see how you could possibly finish that sentence without making things up.
I regard the fact that what you suggest has not been done as pretty conclusive evidence it is nowhere as easy as you think.

I regard the fact that what you suggest has not been done as pretty conclusive evidence it is nowhere as easy as you think.

Or it could be so effective that someone has put a block on it. Kind of like the theory about super-efficient vehicles.

Or it could be so effective that someone has put a block on it. Kind of like the theory about super-efficient vehicles.

Or human factors killed it when they did their test/pilot programs.

An inventory control system is only as good as the people who use it. Also, an inventory control system that is reliant on Barcodes is only as reliable as the barcode stamp/plate on top of all of that.

Which isn't to mention you'd need to find a way to make that barcode make sense to the humans as well. So they're having to scan 20 shelves before finding the right one. ;)

Which isn't to mention you'd need to find a way to make that barcode make sense to the humans as well. So they're having to scan 20 shelves before finding the right one. ;)

The shelves would all have their own numbers and letters based on each group, row, shelf & location along shelf, and position within that area.
The would be no more than 3 items in any location. (although in extreme peak periods it could be up to 5).
Scanning the item barcode would result it it giving you the location for that item eg A2 D4 R (Section A Row 2, Shelf D Section 4, Right).

I regard the fact that what you suggest has not been done as pretty conclusive evidence it is nowhere as easy as you think.

I regard the fact that it hasn't been done is because management is too tight arsed & while they claim they want the customers to have the best possible experience, they don't have to deal with pissed off people that have been waiting 20min to get a parcel and then staff can't find it. Since they don't have to deal with those customers, it's not an issue.

It would save both Post and the customers incredible amounts of time and money. But the problem is convincing those with the authority that it is the case.

The simple fact of the matter is all the data is already there. Most of the programme is already in place. All it requires is a couple of extra fields & the additional programming to implement it.
As database software goes, it isn't a big deal- you're not building something completely from scratch, just adding to what already exists.

Note: According to shipper both parcels have barcodes with tracking number which includes info on post codes for shipping address and delivery address. Automated scanners and sorters shouldn't have them going to Sunshine or Clayton South. I now wonder if someone in AP has redirected one to steal it.

Automated systems make mistakes too. Items also have tendencies to "stick" to other items. So it's possible your package hitched a ride alongside another package that was headed to those locations.

Which of course accounts for the respect and notice that American members of congress will pay when a staffer approaches with a message:

Your worship (not really, but it doesn't hurt!), we have Mr. Abney [multi-millionaire] on the line;

--or--

Sire (again, not really, but egos are egos!), we have Mr. Smith of FedEx (richer than UPS CEO!) on the line:

--or--

Hey, Boss! That pushy broad, Ms. Brennan from the Post Office Department, is on the line again! (Federal pay scale, less than half a million)

Guess who drops coin in the Congressional donation box and gets a First-Class Reception, and guess who gets shown the bums' rush!