PMG: 84% of city delivery routes and 52% of rural delivery routes are operating at a loss.

[LouSainus]

Post master general revealed this information this week to congress. Based on what I see on other forums and in my office of ~70 routes most city routes are around half the size of rural routes. How or when do they get adjusted for territory? The rural side being well... way more rural with some routes driving say 17 miles between mailboxes should cost 2-3x more per box compared to clustered together city routes. Yet they lose more the double the losses in terms of dollars compared to the rural craft. Is it because most management comes from the city craft and protects their tiny routes from scrutiny?

 

[NorthernPines]

Rural is more cost effective because of the nature of the routes.

On average, a rural route simply services significantly more households and businesses, and therefore, averages higher revenue per average route. There have been multiple OIG reports over the past decades that have pegged rural delivery as anywhere between the mid teens to 30%+ more cost efficient per delivery.

The super rural, 100+ mile, 7 box routes are more than offset by the far more numerous suburban rural routes, where you have a single carrier servicing 800, 1000+ households; that would require 3 or 4 city carriers to service on walking routes.

 

[DB.Cooper]

Clerks are operating at a 100% loss rate .. so in comparison, the carriers are doing pretty good ...

 

[ATCBigE]

Rural is more cost effective because of the nature of the routes.

On average, a rural route simply services significantly more households and businesses, and therefore, averages higher revenue per average route. There have been multiple OIG reports over the past decades that have pegged rural delivery as anywhere between the mid teens to 30%+ more cost efficient per delivery.

The super rural, 100+ mile, 7 box routes are more than offset by the far more numerous suburban rural routes, where you have a single carrier servicing 800, 1000+ households; that would require 3 or 4 city carriers to service on walking routes.

I know from city carrier in my office that worked in other offices that city route HUGELY vary. 1 office if they got 20-30 packages total, that was 8 hour day. Our office is 70-90 package total office each route. The difference in 8 hours between some offices is crazy.

Most rural route are fairly similar evaluated compared to each other. I have worked all over and IMO most routes are about what the should maybe plus an hour or so on a couple. Rural routes all seem fairly similar IMO.

 

[Rural-life-0323]

I'm an all rural office and I can see that. You could easily consolidate routes and drop about 2-3 routes in my small office.

Some of this will happen at some point since some carriers are complete morons and not doing RRECS correctly.

 

[calimailman]

Time for city to retire the satchel.

Also did Steiner let them know management which is bloated beyond belief operates at a 100% loss.

 

[neciat]

There are a myriad of factors that could be associated with routes "operating at a loss" . I would suggest that everyone keep in mind that these "figures" presented BY and FROM the PO are are just that. These numbers are FROM the PO. That ALONE makes these figures suspect at best. For example, if a rural route is evaluated at 8 hours and the carrier consistently completes the route in 6 hours , does / is the PO considering the 2 hours a day under time a "loss" ? We are all well aware of the rhetoric we hear pertaining to "time paid for but NOT worked." There are many ways to slant, tilt, figure, massage, etc. the numbers to make "it" appear that routes are operating at a loss. I mean , look at Express Mail for example. That was once noon. Couldn't make that and the "numbers" looked bad. So, they changed it to 3:00 and the "numbers" looked better and they "made their goal"..............................for awhile , that is. Couldn't make THAT and now it's 6:00. Also, you know those SPM scans ? Well, for a long time the PO was trying to convince The PRC to allow themselves to track delivery times and The PRC would respond with words to the effect , " No, we've seen your numbers before. If you want to keep track you can but you will continue to have an independent firm track delivery times." I don't know how the PO ever convinced The PRC to self monitor delivery times but they did. Anyway, don't be so sold on the numbers presented.

 

[Rogtar]

I would also like to mention, not that I was affected, when RRECS keeps coming around it seems Rurals keep losing thousands of dollars, thus bringing ever more routes to profitability while City somehow stays 8 no matter what adjustments occur. Sometime in the future Rural may even come to 100% profitability, with so many routes being split because no one wants to work at the wages asked likely.

 

[tonsillitis]

majority of the city routes are lower than the h route anyway. and they get paid for 8hrs

 

[btdtret]

neciat et al -- "We are all well aware of the rhetoric we hear pertaining to "time paid for but NOT worked."

-- Something the USPS used to bring up at contract "negotiations".

-- However, at contract time, the NRLCA never countered with the "time worked, but not paid for" whenever someone went over the route's evaluation.

"I don't know how the PO ever convinced The PRC to self monitor delivery times but they did."

-- Most likely, someone in the PO knows where some of the PRC "bodies" are buried. And the PRC is well aware of it!

-- And as far as the city and rural routes operating at a loss, what about those tiny post offices rural carriers here post about? Maybe it is time for the USPS to act like a real business and close "under achieving" post offices.

 

[Metalmailman]

Where I am in the country, City routes were consolidated. Must have been embarrassing to be on the Telecom, trying to explain to the head cheese why a city carrier needed 8+ hours to deliver a route with one tray of DPS and 40 parcels... However, I see the same happening for Rurals at my station.

 

[LouSainus]

I would also like to mention, not that I was affected, when RRECS keeps coming around it seems Rurals keep losing thousands of dollars, thus bringing ever more routes to profitability while City somehow stays 8 no matter what adjustments occur. Sometime in the future Rural may even come to 100% profitability, with so many routes being split because no one wants to work at the wages asked likely.

They dont even adjust the city routes. Ours have not been touched since 2018. We have had some rural routes lose 25 hours of time in that time span.

Also they have full budget breakdowns for every single route. They know how much mail on average like parcels flats etc are routed to every route including city side. We have a city route with 273 boxes and is 8 miles total distance. We have a rural route with 4,000 boxes.