Anyone on a POV Route would have to be an idiot to vote yes

uselesshasbeen

Active member
Does it really cost them l that much for repairs though? They have their own mechanics and parts are all in house and readily available.
Example: an LLV Breaks down once a month. Let's go extreme and say the repair costs $500 each month.
Now, say they used a POV instead and ema is minimum $25/day. That ends up $600 a month. That's a plus of $100 for supplying an LLV. Now of course then ya got gas costs that would lower that profit but in the end, it does seem like the cheaper way to go is with LLV's because I cant see the repairs being even close to $500/month
Tend to agree from my experience it was more likely that they weren't really putting much money in the LLV I was driving.
Despite the fact that we were located in a "metropolitan area" and not exactly what you would call rural when we first got LLVs they were maintained by a contractor. Years later they were maintained by VMF. I suspect like all else in the postal world, individual experiences can be different and often completely opposite. I suspect the more rural you are than the less likely it would be cost effective for USPS to run an automotive shop and the further away from actual usage the less effective. Doubt this would in any way influence the spread of USPS owned vehicles, as would it be unlikely that the need to replace aging vehicles is influenced at all by the desire to have vehicles designed to be used for mail delivery.
 

Sandygirl

Well-known member
Only one rt in our office POV now, still carrying in suv...but I suspect parcels are left in office regularly. No way volume on the other routes would fit anymore, barely fitting in an LLV this time of year and will be 2 trips soon. Our new RCA was told to have vehicle and showed up in LHD Cherokee, gonna be tough for that big fellow to straddle and deliver. One rca delivers that route in a pickup..parcels just go in back..no topper😱
6 out of 8 carriers in our office drives pickups and packages go in back!!
 

MiddleOfNowhere

Well-known member
Does it really cost them l that much for repairs though? They have their own mechanics and parts are all in house and readily available.
Example: an LLV Breaks down once a month. Let's go extreme and say the repair costs $500 each month.
Now, say they used a POV instead and ema is minimum $25/day. That ends up $600 a month. That's a plus of $100 for supplying an LLV. Now of course then ya got gas costs that would lower that profit but in the end, it does seem like the cheaper way to go is with LLV's because I cant see the repairs being even close to $500/month
don't forget to add in the cost of a garage, equipment, tools, mechanics and their retirement!!!
 

btdtret

Well-known member
P-S-E-N et al -- "Does it really cost them l that much for repairs though? They have their own mechanics and parts are all in house and readily available."

-- Sure the USPS has its own mechanics ( probably in some locations they rely on local mechanics ), but they also have to pay the mechanics and pay for the ( cheapest ) parts too.

-- When gas goes up a penny, having a quarter million vehicles can put a dent in the pot of money. When it jumps 10-12 cents like today - even worse. More jumps ahead as the Labor Day weekend is coming. And it seems the gas stations never let a holiday weekend go by without a price spike. They'll that it is "supply and demand". If no one is filling up a week before the holiday, where is the "demand"?
 

Sandygirl

Well-known member
Really one would hope that the other office thing would be mostly handled by RCAs that want all the work they can get and are willing to travel to other offices to get it... when they start forcing peeps to go to offices when they don't want to go, then I would think that is where problems will occur... I suppose this is one that will have to play out also... but wasn't there supposed to be some new big focus on RCA retention??? :unsure:

The plus side to this tho... is that maybe an RCA is looking to transfer to another office... what a great way to check it out 1st hand to decide if they want to pursue a transfer... (y)
Scenerio: I am an RCA who does NOT want to work at another office, I say this loud and proud where everyone can hear...….then FOLLOW ORDERS..... I work elsewhere ,have a wreck and am hurt badly or hurt someone else badly...…" I told them I was not comfortable traveling to unfamiliar area where I am stressed to the max and because of this I have wrecked...….seems like USPS takes the hit?
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
don't forget to add in the cost of a garage, equipment, tools, mechanics and their retirement!!!
I've heard many of the dog LLVs get about a whopping 6 MPGs as well... so that's quite a bit of fuel... 10 gallons on a 60 mile route... or $20 bucks a day in fuel...

If there were a true accounting of all costs related to LLVs, my guess is that the USPS is spending at least double what we are getting in EMA... USPS is NOT a leader in cost efficiency with anything... just sayin'... :rolleyes:
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
Scenerio: I am an RCA who does NOT want to work at another office, I say this loud and proud where everyone can hear...….then FOLLOW ORDERS..... I work elsewhere ,have a wreck and am hurt badly or hurt someone else badly...…" I told them I was not comfortable traveling to unfamiliar area where I am stressed to the max and because of this I have wrecked...….seems like USPS takes the hit?
Sadly, in my experience, the USPS has 2 main rules... #1 It's always the carriers' fault... #2 See rule #1...

But your point is well taken... sending RCAs to unfamiliar areas will result in increased accidents.... Safety 1st.... Safety, Safety, Safety.... Safety depends on me... and every other BS slogan they can come up with..... :oops:
 

Skierstmoritz

Well-known member
Scenerio: I am an RCA who does NOT want to work at another office, I say this loud and proud where everyone can hear...….then FOLLOW ORDERS..... I work elsewhere ,have a wreck and am hurt badly or hurt someone else badly...…" I told them I was not comfortable traveling to unfamiliar area where I am stressed to the max and because of this I have wrecked...….seems like USPS takes the hit?
I like the thought, but we both know that the po will find a way to " blame the carrier". Having limitless resources helps in this endeavor.
 

LostinDakota

Well-known member
something to keep in mind, rca's. years ago, had there time served, count for retirement. not time worked, but time from date of hire. this went away with the po promising an rca for every route. now that were going back to the way of being denied time off, because the po has a shortage of rca's, the union needs to figure out what will be just compensation. were about to lose another rca in our office, so we will be down to three rca's covering an aux route, and 7 k's and an h. i can see in the near future, carriers thinking they need to put in for vacation over holidays 3-5 years in advance, and then being pissed when their demands aren't meant. also keep in mind, we have a carrier retiring in a year, with another having 30+ years in, and 2 others with over 20 years in. one of the 20 year carriers is over 65.

what is the solution for extreme lack of rca's? what are you doing in offices, already in this position?
No solution here but we had RCAs quit when they got forced in to deliver Amazon in the local metro offices and more are on the fence if they are going to get forced to travel 50 miles. It is not a safe situation in snow country, Drive 50 miles cross-country to get to the headout office, you are presented with a 4003, no route training, and expected to deliver a 100 mile route with 265 customers in snow country and it is -20 degrees in January where you go to work in the dark and go home in the dark, maybe snowing too. Who thought this was a wise idea????? RCAs are being treated as a commodity to be used as management pleases. Maybe if crappy jobs that allowed you no life were the only option the post office would be rolling in personnel. The pay rates for each new contract have eroded to the point that USPS is not competitive in today's job market. Add that you need to provide a vehicle for said crappy job and it definitely is a no go. The more telling part of your post is that the current rural carrier regulars are old. We are mostly 60 something and if our RCA time had counted for retirement we would all be retired by now. In about 5 years there will be a real shortage of REGULAR carriers because if there are no RCAs, who will be the next regulars? Management? Excessed clerks? That would mean they would have to leave the climate controlled post office building?
 

Altoonaflyer

Active member
I did not realize NAPA was a national chain. I assumed they were local and that the stores had failed. I assumed they went back to supplying auto shops with parts.
Our local Napa store is has been family owned for 50 years...very knowledgeable staff and have met me to supply parts after hours or dropped me parts off when my POV had died on route. Small town has its advantages.
 

rhdriver

Active member
The more telling part of your post is that the current rural carrier regulars are old. We are mostly 60 something and if our RCA time had counted for retirement we would all be retired by now. In about 5 years there will be a real shortage of REGULAR carriers because if there are no RCAs, who will be the next regulars? Management? Excessed clerks? That would mean they would have to leave the climate controlled post office building?
We just had an RCA go regular after, I think, about 2 years as a sub--she could hardly ever do her primary route by herself, and now she'll be on a route on her own, with no help--I hope (not to be cruel, but that's the way it is for the rest of us old regs, welcome to the real world). Another sub is poised to go full time next year after, again, about 2 years as a sub, after an old reg retires. It took me 5 years to go reg way back when, and that was considered extremely fast. I know others back in the day waited over 10 years to make regular. Scary!! They aren't experienced enough to handle it, at least I think not.
 

Sprocket

Active member
We just had an RCA go regular after, I think, about 2 years as a sub--she could hardly ever do her primary route by herself, and now she'll be on a route on her own, with no help--I hope (not to be cruel, but that's the way it is for the rest of us old regs, welcome to the real world). Another sub is poised to go full time next year after, again, about 2 years as a sub, after an old reg retires. It took me 5 years to go reg way back when, and that was considered extremely fast. I know others back in the day waited over 10 years to make regular. Scary!! They aren't experienced enough to handle it, at least I think not.
[/QUOTE ] We have 3 regulars over 60. We had one just retire in March as well. I'm senior rca and will be 63 in May. Next due to retire in January 2021. I joined the po when I was 58.

It is going to get interesting. RCA's are becoming difficult, even in this area. Didn't see this when I first started.
 

uselesshasbeen

Active member
I've heard many of the dog LLVs get about a whopping 6 MPGs as well... so that's quite a bit of fuel... 10 gallons on a 60 mile route... or $20 bucks a day in fuel...

If there were a true accounting of all costs related to LLVs, my guess is that the USPS is spending at least double what we are getting in EMA... USPS is NOT a leader in cost efficiency with anything... just sayin'... :rolleyes:
Well now. Personal experience was somewhat different. Found I could go 6 days on my paid for 17 mile route and need about 10-11 gallons of gas and they appeared to put virtually nothing into the maintenance of the LLV for years. My guess is that on short routes that USPS saves a bunch over paying EMA. My guess is not that many of the routes with over 60 miles have LLVs and that they didn't assign LLVs to routes over 100 miles. Be interesting to hear from someone who actually has the experience, but most likely will either hear crickets, or "I heard someone say". Just saying.
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
Well... I did hear it from a carrier on an LLV route that they only got about 6 MPG... AND, your example even shows less than 10 MPG for your LLV way back when (When LLVs were newer).... so still not exactly the model of fuel effiency... just sayin'...

6x17=102 ÷ 11 = 9.27 MPG... :unsure:
 

uselesshasbeen

Active member
Well... I did hear it from a carrier on an LLV route that they only got about 6 MPG... AND, your example even shows less than 10 MPG for your LLV way back when (When LLVs were newer).... so still not exactly the model of fuel effiency... just sayin'...

6x17=102 ÷ 11 = 9.27 MPG... :unsure:
Just saying, but how much newer was that LLV 3 years ago? Any replacements are bound to be more efficient.
This is actually about the same, but a little better than what my 94 Explorer was getting with only about half the miles being route miles.
Since last years statistics indicated LLV route averaged 30.5 and all rural routes averaged like 46.79 one might jump to the conclusion that LLV routes are shorter than POV routes. Anyone else you might assume that a reason for that was based on economic gain. Since it is USPS and they never do anything right, obviously the longer routes would save money by being LLV. No, no, that's right they would cost 2 or 3 or even more times as much as they are paying. Go figure.
Obviously, those hundred mile routes that aren't POV are really costing USPS. Is that where the 2 Billion went?
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
I would think it would be difficult to put an LLV on a 100+ mile route, simply because they may run out of gas before finishing for the day... some routes do not have gas stations conveniently located midway through the route... in fact mine doesn't... just at the beginning and end... I guess we would have to carry a spare 5 gallon can to add half way through... 😲
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
If you do some Google searches on USPS LLV Fuel efficiency... you'll find some hilariously sad stories... here's one from the Federal Soup site...

"...I have done the MPG a few times...on an all driving route in the summer....I'll get around 5.5 to 6 mpg and around 3.5 to 4 in the winter...and I drive it like a grandpa.
Yes, 13 is the capacity...and yes on that reserve of 1.3 or so..."

"...On a side note...
Do you know how you can tell when a pron star is getting gas?
Just before he's done filling the tank, he pulls out the nozzle and sprays gas all over the car trunk.."

"...Just did the MPG test again.

It's been very cold, avg high temp around 10.
Only I drove LLV.
All driving route.
Drove it like a grandpa, no fast starts ever.

3.56 MPG.." 😲


Oh, and speaking from personal experience... my POV mail vehicle has a V-6 engine, and I get up to about 15-16 MPGs out of it on the route.... just sayin'... :unsure:

 
Last edited:

PastOThirty

Well-known member
Total cost of fuel, maintenance (including vmf and vmf facilities), repair, acquisition, replacement year over year fleet wide divided by fleet assigned to routes + backup/spares as per vehicle cost. Everything it takes to put a government vehicle on and keep it on the road, including shared overhead.

Total fleet miles of route and spares.

Cost per mile.

Total hours fleet is on the street based on normalized depart and return to office scans (statistical outliers removed).

Average operating hours for route assigned fleet.

Cost per average operating hour.

Revised ema: the greater of cost per mile or cost per hour, adjusted at the base rate quarterly (following the financial reporting). Additional regional fuel surcharge based on difference in monthly national average, over monthly regional average. CPI is it is outdated, and this method removes the direct and delayed affect of CPI. This is a case where being built in actually works like it is supposed to: not against us.

I appreciate that we have an opportunity to use our POV for personal use outside of business use. I am not asking or expecting to be compensated for personal use. What I am asking is that we stop being required to subsidize the employer for the privilege of doing work. If we are providing resources to the employer to accomplish the mission, it should not be below the cost of them providing it. If we are providing it, it should come with a notable but not extortionist premium. While the government and other large organizations pay a premium in some cases, they also enjoy the benefits of scaling both horizontally and vertically when it comes to fleet. As a POV operator, I have no scaling or fleet management efficiency to benefit from like they do.

It isn’t complicated and doesn’t have to be.
 
Last edited:
Top