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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3660571.stm)

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)

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.

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.

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There was such an outcry that the system was withdrawn after a couple of months and a simpler version was re-introduced a year later.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 :)

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.

Royal Mail deliver lots of packets and parcels max :)

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)

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.

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!

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!!

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...

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.

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

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.:mad:

Couldn't you be hung in the past for tampering with the mail? As it was against the King/Queen?

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!!!

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...

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][/QUOTE]

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!!

How do you do the quote in a white box thing? It dosent seem to have worked.

Oh my word, don't things get complicated? Why have they changed this age-old tradition?

It's part of our national heritage rather like traffic jams, roadworks and the Ron Atkinson diet - being made to eat one's own words.

What will we have left?

Goodness me.

Originally posted by nickyc
How do you do the quote in a white box thing? It dosent seem to have worked.

See the bit in your first post which has [/B][/QUOTE] on it's own? Well if you put that at the beginning of the quoted section without the slashes that would do it.