Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;desertgem, post: 3214719, member: 15199&quot;]This excerpt from a washington post article, and if you do not believe this source search public records. Remember the contract is just between the PO and Amazon.</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;<span style="color: #0080ff">When it sat down to negotiate its deal with Amazon, the Postal Service, in its role as the government-designated postal monopoly, was already required to stop by every home, business and rural post box six days a week, and already had the workforce and infrastructure to do that.</span> In that context, the additional — or “incremental” — cost of delivering the additional Amazon packages would be much more modest. It might involve a few more trucks here and there, or the cost of buying slightly larger trucks than would otherwise have been needed. Perhaps additional delivery personnel would be necessary to accommodate the higher volumes Monday through Saturday. And there’s the extra overtime for providing the service on Sundays, which Amazon required. Looked at from the standpoint of incremental revenue (huge) minus these incremental expenses (modest), the Postal Service could very easily have come to the conclusion that, even at $2 a package,<span style="color: #ff4dff"> the Amazon contract was likely to be highly profitable&quot;</span></p><p><br /></p><p>So I guess if delivery in town is cut to 3 days a week ,and outside 3 miles or more to &#039;pickup at PO.&nbsp; and be forced to drop Amazon, it could survive a while..but search out the contract info before blaming Amazon who gets&nbsp; a lot of off the cuff responses. IMO. Jim[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in