
Amazon is delivering nearly two-thirds of its own packages - bookofjoe
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/amazon-is-delivering-nearly-two-thirds-of-its-own-packages.html
======
ogre_codes
What people miss here is Amazon's is taking advantage of the fact that the
cost to deliver packages varies greatly. Where it's cheap/ easy to deliver
packages, Amazon delivers their own. Where it's expensive to deliver, they
outsource to UPS/ USPS/ FedEx. Delivering a package in rural areas where
houses are a quarter mile apart is a lot more expensive than when a carrier
can load up a handcart and deliver 10 addresses.

Traditional carriers break even or even take a small loss on a percentage of
deliveries because it's important to their business model to have consistent
prices and deliver everywhere. Amazon isn't restricted that way, they can
cherry pick which places they deliver based on how profitable it is to get the
package to the doorstep.

Essentially Amazon is draining away all the deliveries which made UPS/ USPS/
FedEx profitable. How sustainable this model is long term is somewhat
questionable.

~~~
bgorman
The US should stop subsidizing rural communities. It is bad for the
environment and people that want to live out there should have to pay the real
costs of serving them.

One possibility is to reduce the days mail is delivered to rural communities
to cut costs.

~~~
SteveGerencser
And city folk could pay the real cost of having their food grown and delivered
to their doors and local stores. The whole issue works both directions but
most people only tend to see their perspective. ;)

~~~
majewsky
Most people living in the countryside rely on the same food distribution
networks that serve city dwellers, so that equation doesn't check out.

------
Someone1234
At what ratio can they reduce the HUGE packaging waste?

A few years ago there was an Amazon promo for when they first started "same
day" delivery in another city, where all deliveries were in paper bags.

But while Amazon now offers "same day" service from a warehouse 20 minutes
away, and delivers all their own stuff, everything continues to arrive in huge
wasteful cardboard boxes.

I like Amazon, I like ordering from Amazon, but I'm tired of recycling entire
trunks worth of cardboard boxes often holding very small items.

~~~
bighitbiker3
I'm interested to know this as well. However I'm more interested to know the
overall environmental impact of buying some from Amazon in their current
state.

At what distance is it overall more environmentally friendly for me to
purchase from Amazon vs. taking my car and grabbing that item myself. I think
I'd be surprised at how little that number is.

~~~
notatoad
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/environmen...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/environmental-
impact-of-amazon-prime)

it's not a direct answer, but it seems like the answer is that it's
essentially never more environmentally friendly to order online, because the
odds that it _actually_ eliminates a trip in your car are so tiny.

~~~
kelnos
I imagine I'm atypical, but if I had to drive somewhere to pick up my online
orders, my monthly car trips would go up between one and two orders of
magnitude. But I do order a decent quantity of things on Amazon (for non-
urgent things I use the "Amazon day" delivery option to help reduce _their_
trips), and generally dislike driving and try to drive as little as possible
(1-3 trips per week; pre-covid I could go weeks without driving).

I'd be curious to know what the environmental numbers are for someone like me.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
You are not accounting for behavior change. Before the online ordering era,
most people never went non-grocery shopping more than once a month. And did
all that shopping in one big trip.

Once you think decide that all highly environmentally-destructive actions are
not even an option on the table, your behavior changes.

~~~
kelnos
That's a good point. Non-grocery items were a special trip, were rare, and
usually involved months worth of purchases.

------
noncoml
Anecdotal, but the only time I am sure my Amazon package will be delivered
correctly and on time is with USPS.

Then is UPS, who are happy to stick a note on your door saying you were not
home, even if the door is open and you are waving at them.

Then is FedEx, who never seem to make it on time.

And last/worst is Amazon, who lose or misdeliver about 20% of my packages.

~~~
kodt
Very different near me. Fedex is the most reliable usually delivering before
2pm followed by UPS who will typically deliver before 6pm of the estimated
delivery date. I get the best tracking details from both providers showing me
where my package is and even a time estimate for delivery.

Amazon itself is next, usually arriving on time, occasionally a package will
be delayed and I'll get an e-mail telling me as much.

USPS is by far the worst unless it is priority mail express. One thing that
constantly happens is Amazon will hand off a package to USPS for final
delivery, USPS will then mark it delivered on the day it is supposed to come,
but won't actually deliver it for another 2 days. I have also had packages
seemingly lost or stolen once being handed off to USPS including a very
expensive computer monitor. Amazon refunded me of course, but it seems clear
someone decided to steal it. Priority Mail Express service though has always
been perfect.

~~~
floatingatoll
I once tracked this down! They're scanning it delivered to protect their
workers from being punished for their location being criminally understaffed.
It's been going on in some zip codes for years. Expect a lot more of it this
fall.

That 2 day delay is because sorters and carriers are scanning packages
delivered in bulk in their vehicle, and then either loading or delivering only
a subset of them, due to your local sorting/delivery teams having been
overwhelmed by package volume. Eventually the overflow carriers catch up on
the pile of packages, and yours is either included or lost. The early delivery
scan protects them against retaliation — but also hides the necessity for more
staffing.

This isn't a defense of their actions, but since I did the months of diligence
with my local post office on this a few years back, I thought you might be
curious to know why.

ps. Palo Alto? :)

------
MuffinFlavored
Why didn't FedEx, UPS, and USPS cut/drop prices in order to be competitive?
They raise rates yearly like inflation but... shouldn't their costs be going
down year over year as they grow larger and larger? Volume discounts,
efficiency gains.

I don't have data in front of me so I'm sort of pulling numbers out of my a
__if you will but I 'm pretty sure UPS + FedEx raise rates about 7% year over
year for all sizable shippers at pretty much the same time of the year.
Meaning, FedEx raises rates, the next week, UPS raises rates.

~~~
treis
>Why didn't FedEx, UPS, and USPS cut/drop prices in order to be competitive?

Amazon retail operates at basically 0 margin. It is very difficult to compete
with them given their scale and willingness to forgo profit. The writing was
on the wall once Amazon decided they wanted to handle their own shipping. No
way Fed Ex et.al. could be competitive on price and make money.

~~~
me_me_me
\- Amazon what is your business domain?

\- Yes

Its scary what amazon will be in the future.

~~~
aglavine
We need to break it.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Yes. It's at the point where it can strong-arm large chunks of the economy.
That's too much power in the hands of a single for-profit entity.

------
GiorgioG
I couldn't be happier with Amazon's delivery service. I can track my delivery
(the tracker tells me how many stops ahead of my delivery, etc) and I get a
picture of the package on my doorstep.

USPS has been mostly reliable and yet on Saturday a package scheduled for
delivery didn't make until Monday with no status change until Monday morning.

------
skynetv2
No wonder I have seen severe degradation in delivery times. It is a minimum of
5 days now to get anything.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
You don't think the global pandemic currently in progress has anything to do
with it?

~~~
el_benhameen
Anecdotal, but my quoted Amazon delivery times here in norcal are now
significantly worse than they were in March-June. This was true before
everything caught on fire, too.

~~~
jrockway
At the start of the pandemic, things were pretty rough, with Amazon
conveniently omitting dates on their website (they would say "Arriving on
Tuesday!" but then you'd get further through the flow and it would be
"Tuesday, August 4th"... back in April.)

I wanted some more RAM this weekend, ordered it on Sunday morning and had it
Sunday afternoon.

Personally I think that everyone is a little bit too "okay" about the whole
pandemic thing... but you can certainly buy stuff from Amazon and have it show
up quickly.

------
coldcode
I doubt Amazon is delivering much of anything. Amazon Logistic's partners are
delivering large numbers of packages. See "Amazon Delivery Service Partner".
Many of those "Partners" then hire contractors to drive the trucks in order to
meet Amazon's requirements and still make money. If Amazon had to pay for
employees directly to do the deliveries then it would cost them much more and
Prime shipping might not be worthwhile.

------
gurumeditations
It’s the Uber model: win by bankrupting the competitors who allow employees to
make a good living. Amazon contract employees have low pay, no benefits, no
union, no protection, no vacation. All the things that Americans are entitled
to in exchange for 40 hrs/week.

The Uber model wins by destroying society.

------
cogman10
Wholefoods was a great purchase for Amazon. I'm sure they are saving a TON in
shipping costs.

------
oliwarner
I thought "independent delivery contractors" _definitely not employees_ were
the ones delivering.

Or is the Amazon Logistics gig-economy tax scam unique to the UK?

------
asah
Trump: Amazon should pay more to use USPS.

Bezos: ok, I'll DIY.

USPS: uh oh.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+amazon+pay+more+usps](https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+amazon+pay+more+usps)

~~~
bena
Regardless of all that, this was the logical step for Amazon.

The world's most sophisticated logistics company is WalMart.

Not because they wanted to be a logistics company, but because by doing their
own logistics, they can cut costs.

Same thing with Amazon. At some point, shipping all those packages is your
last remaining major cost (outside of personnel). The more you can do in-
house, the cheaper you can do it.

And that's not the only space where they've done this. AWS is basically Amazon
selling their infrastructure. Infrastructure they built because at some point
it was their biggest cost. Then they reduced that cost by bringing it in-
house. Then they turned it into a profit center by selling it.

So I don't think this is going to stop at Amazon doing their own deliveries.
Soon enough, you will be able to ship items via Amazon. (This is already kind
of the case with third party sellers on Amazon, but instead imagine treating
Amazon as FedEx or UPS).

~~~
oblio
> Not because they wanted to be a logistics company, but because by doing
> their own logistics, they can cut costs.

For retail, logistics is core business.

~~~
Spivak
It's true of large-scale retail which is really what the parent's point is.
Small retailers just outsource their logistics to a company like XPO.

------
Waterfall
Why is the USPS doing so badly when e commerce is doing so well? Even if the
post office goes away, Amazon will still keep doing well.

In Japan they use 7/11 to do deliveries to people and pay bills there like a
post office. Maybe we can learn from them and use Amazon for that.

~~~
Fronzie
| Why is the USPS doing so badly when e commerce is doing so well?

Because it's actively being sabotaged. It's staffing is held back by pension
requirements which other parts of government and Amazon do not have. Their
perfectly fine working sorting are removed.

~~~
Alupis
> Because it's actively being sabotaged.

I know this is the political line of the day, but the reality is USPS is, has
been, and will be insanely inefficient for decades. Decades. That spans
multiple presidents from both parties. Decades.

The very fact that USPS receives funding by Tax Payers, but also still charges
the same tax payers money to use services, _and_ still manages to lose
billions of dollars every year is a modern marvel all in it's own right.

The very fact it costs USPS more than $0.55 to deliver a letter to your
mailbox (which only USPS is legally allowed to put mail into for whatever
reason in 2020), is insane. Raise rates they'll say! To what end? To the point
where UPS or FedEX rates start looking attractive for normal letter mail? What
will happen then to the USPS?

For larger packages over a few pounds, it's already insanely cheaper to ship
packages via UPS or FedEx. Sometimes over half the price in difference.
Neither UPS nor FedEx are subsidized by Tax Payers + Still Charge for
Services. Somehow, they make a profit and deliver packages on time.

The mismanagement of USPS is as criminal as it is resolute. It is not the
current administration's doing - claiming so is not just intellectually
dishonest, it's flatly wrong. No, the mismanagement of USPS has always been,
and all signs seem to say it will always be.

EDIT: It's a myth that USPS isn't tax payer funded. Pay attention to the
wording they use - "Not Tax Payer Funded". That says nothing about routine
bailouts[1][2][3], which are so routine they might as well be scheduled. How
is a bailout not tax payer funding? Run yourself into the ground then get
bailed out by tax payers again, and again, and again, and again. It would
probably be more efficient to actually just give them the money up front.

[1] [https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congressman-
says...](https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congressman-says-
usps-25-billion-bailout-bill-favors-democratic-party-backed)

[2] [https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/usps-has-
lost-78-...](https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/usps-has-
lost-78-billion-2007-despite-receiving-billions-taxpayers-every-year)

[3] [https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-
service/](https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/)

~~~
dumbfoundded
USPS is a service, not a business. Do we look at how profitable the US
military is or schools?

That being said, USPS used to be profitable until Congress decided that they
pre-fund pensions for all new hires (1). They went from making a couple
billion a year to losing $5 billion a year. Your statements have no truth in
them. Republicans love to actively sabotage profitable and useful public
services and then try to defund them by claiming they don't work.

As a bootstrapped business owner working out of a rural and very republican
community, I'm disgusted by the lies and misinformation people use to try to
destroy the USPS. It's literally in our constitution.

(1) [https://www.thoughtco.com/postal-service-losses-by-
year-3321...](https://www.thoughtco.com/postal-service-losses-by-year-3321043)

~~~
mindslight
The pension thing has become a talking point, but it's a red herring. I agree
with you that the USPS needs to be defended, but we degrade the discourse when
talking past each other with hyperbolic points.

Most private businesses no longer operate with _defined benefit_ pensions,
because businesses have moved on to _defined contribution_ retirement plans
(eg 401k) which are inherently prefunded. Funding retirement obligations at
the time they are accrued is a good thing, and we should push for more of it
rather than silently indebting future generations.

If the USPS was partially compensating workers by promising them a pension out
of some future budget, then they were only profitable as long as their
assumptions about growth held. We can accept this while still acknowledging
USPS as a public service entitled to public funding, especially as needed to
get through this accounting change.

~~~
detaro
From what I understood the main problem is that they need to backfill it
within 10 years, whereas when similar changes were forced on companies having
such pension plans, they got to adjust it over 40 years?

