Archive for December, 2009

UPS

Friday, December 18th, 2009

UPS waited until the Friday before Thanksgiving to release its 2010 rate increases. If I were a betting man my tummy tells me that they did this so that the press on the topic would be buried in the vacations and hubbub and noise of the holiday season. Right after Thanksgiving comes the race to the year end and Christmas finish line so perhaps the hope is that few will notice or have time to consider the ramifications of what UPS (and FedEx with their match of the UPS ground rates) has done.

Last year UPS announced in mid October which prompted a surge of calls to UPS reps to come in and explain things. Few will have the time to do that between now and year-end.

 

This year comes with some new and improved increases. I never cease being amazed at the creativity of the carriers to come up with new ways to enhance their revenues.

What you don’t see the carriers promoting is the tool which tells the sales rep how much more your account will pay as a result of the tariff changes. Wouldn’t you like to know the impact the changes have on your budget. You know with the IT resources of the carriers and the detailed data they have on your shipping activity they can tell you to the penny how much more 2010 will cost you versus what you paid in 2009 based on your historical pattern with them.

 

Let’s look at some of the changes;

First much of the activity of ground shipping, in particular if you have a discount, gets mitigated by the minimum charge. The Minimum is currently $4.57 and this is increasing to $4.84. UPS claims the ground tariff is increasing by an average of 4.9%, but averages can be deceiving. The minimum is going up almost 6% and this affects a lot of shipments. I suspect that

80% of all parcel shipments are 1 to 10 lbs.

Let’s see what they did in that arena:

 

weight\zone Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8

1

5.91%

6.60%

6.02%

6.59%

6.64%

6.16%

5.29%

2

6.88%

6.88%

6.69%

6.92%

6.63%

6.31%

5.39%

3

6.82%

6.96%

6.73%

6.85%

6.38%

6.18%

5.29%

4

6.85%

6.53%

6.91%

6.74%

6.50%

6.43%

5.50%

5

6.13%

6.43%

6.43%

6.46%

6.21%

6.25%

5.32%

6

6.14%

6.42%

6.49%

6.45%

6.24%

6.49%

5.67%

7

6.02%

6.40%

6.36%

6.27%

6.06%

6.17%

5.36%

8

5.96%

6.20%

6.34%

6.15%

6.00%

6.02%

5.15%

9

5.63%

6.02%

6.23%

6.00%

5.86%

5.83%

4.94%

10

5.45%

5.98%

6.26%

5.97%

5.87%

5.78%

4.93%

 

So no matter how large a discount you have UPS is going to enjoy $4.84 on those transactions.

Wall Street believes that the carriers do not yield the announced average increase. I suspect this year they will capture a lot of it.

The rate I always look at is the Zone 5 – 5 lb price because that to me was always an indicator about what is really going on. But the highest increase is a 3 lb, zone 3 shipments and somehow that makes me think that perhaps, perhaps, the jolly brown giant knows that more shipments fall in this cell than any other. I could be wrong, but I grew up in New York and am forever a cynic and a conspiracy theorist.

Please note that the current fuel surcharge on these ground shipments is 4% and the new index guarantees pretty much that the fuel surcharge is going to be 4.5% or a 12.5% increase in your fuel surcharge. I hope I’m not ruining your week.

Let’s look at the next morning air product increase. Granted they once again buried 2% of the fuel surcharge into the base tariff and the expectation is that your fuel surcharge goes down in concert with your base rate going up, but we already saw this past year how that game plays to the carriers advantage when the fuel surcharge dips to zero. The carriers now have embedded into the base tariff 10+% (because of compounding) and when fuel now goes down the base tariff does not. Sure enough the increases where the shipments are appear to be much larger than the “averages” announced in the carrier’s press release.

 

Weight\Zone

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

Letter

6.40%

6.84%

7.69%

7.76%

7.78%

8.10%

8.04%

1

6.52%

5.88%

8.40%

8.33%

8.25%

8.56%

8.58%

2

5.43%

5.79%

8.21%

8.38%

8.44%

8.62%

8.63%

3

5.30%

6.59%

8.24%

8.31%

8.29%

8.73%

8.64%

4

5.15%

6.47%

8.37%

8.29%

8.32%

8.62%

8.59%

5

5.31%

5.66%

8.48%

8.43%

8.35%

8.61%

8.69%

6

6.10%

6.68%

8.36%

8.29%

8.42%

8.66%

8.64%

7

6.02%

6.66%

8.32%

8.36%

8.36%

8.61%

8.64%

8

6.30%

6.48%

8.38%

8.46%

8.29%

8.66%

8.63%

9

5.23%

5.66%

8.38%

8.35%

8.47%

8.62%

8.60%

10

5.22%

5.65%

8.35%

8.39%

8.41%

8.55%

8.64%

 

Next Day Air:

 

Weight/Zone

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

Letter

6.46%

6.73%

7.71%

7.83%

7.77%

9.33%

9.36%

1

6.27%

6.91%

8.29%

8.32%

8.29%

8.69%

8.58%

2

4.86%

7.01%

8.18%

8.29%

8.17%

8.54%

8.60%

3

6.34%

6.83%

8.46%

8.17%

8.24%

8.51%

8.57%

4

6.13%

6.82%

8.21%

8.78%

8.24%

8.59%

8.59%

5

5.14%

1.16%

8.41%

9.03%

8.38%

8.59%

8.49%

6

6.13%

7.09%

8.62%

9.01%

8.43%

8.61%

8.53%

7

6.28%

6.96%

8.24%

8.34%

8.33%

8.64%

8.61%

8

6.19%

6.93%

8.26%

8.31%

8.33%

8.57%

8.59%

9

6.32%

7.13%

8.32%

8.24%

8.33%

8.61%

8.61%

10

5.29%

6.85%

8.33%

8.35%

8.33%

8.58%

8.49%

 

2nd Day air A.M.

 

Weight/Zone

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

Letter

6.36%

6.67%

5.98%

7.78%

12.97%

12.99%

9.29%

1

6.19%

6.52%

5.83%

7.55%

9.57%

9.12%

8.99%

2

6.58%

5.96%

6.15%

7.42%

9.19%

8.93%

9.07%

3

6.55%

6.20%

5.81%

7.40%

8.96%

9.05%

8.97%

4

5.93%

6.40%

6.45%

7.18%

9.01%

9.30%

9.21%

5

6.17%

6.59%

5.92%

7.50%

9.04%

8.89%

8.73%

6

5.88%

5.95%

6.36%

7.55%

8.78%

9.09%

9.04%

7

6.06%

6.46%

6.15%

7.53%

9.04%

9.04%

9.19%

8

6.18%

6.23%

6.27%

7.72%

9.28%

9.10%

8.97%

9

6.60%

6.59%

6.31%

7.53%

9.16%

9.14%

9.19%

10

5.59%

6.18%

6.31%

7.56%

9.05%

9.16%

9.01%

 

2 Day Air

 

Weight/Zone

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

Letter

6.35%

6.74%

5.97%

7.69%

9.85%

9.82%

9.35%

1

6.19%

6.57%

5.83%

7.46%

9.32%

9.25%

8.75%

2

6.63%

5.94%

6.19%

7.41%

9.06%

8.90%

9.12%

3

6.60%

6.25%

5.86%

7.49%

9.01%

8.97%

8.93%

4

5.91%

6.51%

6.25%

7.40%

9.02%

9.23%

9.17%

5

6.22%

6.31%

6.13%

7.56%

8.97%

8.91%

8.81%

6

5.94%

6.06%

6.34%

7.45%

8.84%

9.11%

9.11%

7

6.17%

6.32%

6.17%

7.54%

9.11%

9.03%

9.25%

8

6.36%

6.16%

6.38%

7.62%

9.19%

9.09%

8.97%

9

6.45%

6.62%

6.50%

7.50%

9.18%

9.13%

9.23%

10

5.75%

6.21%

6.28%

7.62%

9.15%

9.14%

9.01%

 

Are you seeing how large the increases are on the longer haul transactions for the deferred shipments? The carriers know that most likely you will not downgrade those shipments to say ground service to save money. Ground can’t buy you the same transit time as it can on the short haul shipments.

I do want to point out that the UPS base tariff is less expensive than the sample rates Fedex has posted. A comparison of how much less UPS is say for Next morning air service is as follows:

 

Weight/Zone

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

Letter

-7.06%

-7.18%

-7.26%

-7.29%

-7.28%

-7.14%

-7.26%

1

-7.16%

-7.18%

-7.20%

-7.27%

-7.31%

-7.31%

-7.22%

2

-7.18%

-7.28%

-7.29%

-7.29%

-7.22%

-7.25%

-7.27%

3

-7.22%

-7.18%

-7.29%

-7.23%

-7.29%

-7.26%

-7.29%

4

-7.30%

-7.31%

-7.27%

-7.29%

-7.30%

-7.27%

-7.25%

5

-7.21%

-7.30%

-7.25%

-7.30%

-7.31%

-7.27%

-7.26%

6

-7.28%

-7.19%

-7.25%

-7.27%

-7.28%

-7.24%

-7.30%

7

-7.30%

-7.24%

-7.29%

-7.24%

-7.29%

-7.28%

-7.31%

8

-7.17%

-7.28%

-7.25%

-7.24%

-7.30%

-7.26%

-7.25%

9

-7.25%

-7.26%

-7.25%

-7.28%

-7.25%

-7.30%

-7.28%

10

-7.24%

-7.26%

-7.29%

-7.25%

-7.26%

-7.30%

-7.26%

 

So you need to be comparing net rates between carriers not just the magnitude of the discounts they offer. Don’t assume the base price is the same. This example clearly demonstrates that a much lower percentage discount from UPS may result in a much better net price versus a discount from FedEx.

I wanted to see how much less than UPS Blue (2 day) the Priority Mail Commercial base price is.

Keep in mind that the USPS has no residential surcharge, no delivery area surcharge, no extended area surcharge and no fuel surcharge. The difference is staggering even if you have a huge discount from the carrier.

 

Weight/Zone

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7

Zone 8

1

-53.40%

-54.03%

-54.59%

-58.78%

-66.23%

-67.15%

-66.32%

2

-53.11%

-53.36%

-51.75%

-47.74%

-56.02%

-56.95%

-53.94%

3

-51.62%

-46.97%

-42.21%

-42.93%

-51.68%

-52.61%

-46.51%

4

-46.79%

-40.96%

-38.98%

-39.28%

-46.80%

-47.71%

-43.44%

5

-39.91%

-33.56%

-35.96%

-36.43%

-45.50%

-45.84%

-42.36%

6

-36.64%

-29.47%

-34.04%

-33.66%

-45.05%

-44.51%

-39.94%

7

-34.11%

-28.77%

-31.87%

-31.09%

-46.00%

-43.49%

-38.57%

8

-32.19%

-29.97%

-30.06%

-30.42%

-46.39%

-43.69%

-37.24%

9

-32.65%

-27.78%

-30.82%

-30.23%

-46.28%

-44.04%

-36.47%

10

-30.80%

-26.95%

-30.05%

-29.22%

-45.63%

-43.60%

-36.11%

 

The fact is that pricing has become so complex, the volumes so great, the discounting so sophisticated that you need a professional with the tools to tell you how much you are being hit, where to focus you negotiating to mitigate this increase and to make sure your program is staying competitive in the marketplace.

FedEx DHL

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009
List of top U.S. places to work – survey

Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:00am ESTDec 16 (Reuters) – Southwest Airlines topped the list of the 50 best U.S. places to work, based on employee opinions, according to research released on Wednesday.

 

Stocks

The following are the top 50 companies to work for, according to Glassdoor.com, an online jobs site which collected and compiled reviews from U.S.-based company employees throughout 2009. 1. Southwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) 2. General Mills Inc (GIS.N) 3. Slalom Consulting 4. Bain & Company 5. McKinsey & Company 6. MITRE 7. Boston Consulting 8. Continental Airlines Inc (CAL.N) 9. Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N) 10. Juniper Networks Inc (JNPR.N) 11. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co NMLIC.UL 12. Kraft Foods Inc (KFT.N) 13. National Instruments Corp (NATI.O) 14. Google Inc (GOOG.O) 15. NetApp Inc (NTAP.O) 16. Goldman Sachs & Co GSGSC.UL 17. FactSet Research Systems Inc (FDS.N) 18. Medtronic Inc (MDT.N) 19. Publix Super Markets Inc (PUSH.OB) 20. Chevron Chevron Corp (CVX.N) 21. FedEx Corp (FDX.N) 22. Apple Inc. (AAPL.O) 23. Edelman 24. Edward Jones Money Market Fund JRSXX.O 25. Qualcomm Inc (QCOM.O) 26. CareerBuilder 27. Novell Inc (NOVL.O) 28. Schlumberger Ltd (SLB.N) 29. Adobe Systems Inc (ADBE.O) 30. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc BOOZA.UL 31. Scottrade 32. Sherwin-Williams Co (SHW.N) 33. EMC Corp (EMC.N) 34. GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK.L) 35. Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) 36. Turner Broadcasting System Inc TWXTB.UL 37. Paychex Inc (PAYX.O) 38. Kaiser Permanente 39. Travelers Companies Inc (TRV.N) 40. Rackspace Hosting Inc (RAX.N) 41. Intel Corp (INTC.O) 42. Cintas Corp (CTAS.O) 43. SAP America 44. Intuit Inc (INTU.O) 45. Best Buy Co Inc (BBY.N) 46. Harris Corp (HRS.N) 47. Prudential Plc (PRU.L) 48. Whole Foods Market Inc (WFMI.O) 49. PricewaterhouseCoopers PWC.UL 50. Marriott International Inc (MAR.N)

The following companies were ranked worst to work for, starting with the lowest ranked, according to Glassdoor.com. Gibson Guitar Corp GIBSN.UL United Airlines (UAUA.O) Spherion Corp (SFN.N) AutoZone Inc (AZO.N) Rain Bird DHL Express (USA) DHL.UL Level 3 Communications Inc (LVLT.O) Dominion Enterprises Hertz Global Holdings Inc (HTZ.N) Houghton Mifflin Harcourt LexisNexis DISH Network Corp (DISH.O) Xilinx Inc (XLNX.O) Acxiom Corp (ACXM.O) Kmart RadioShack Corp (RSH.N) Panduit Ferguson Enterprises Cognizant Tech Solutions Forever 21 Affiliated Computer Services Inc (ACS.N) Hewlett-Packard Co (HPQ.N) Sports Authority Fastenal Co (FAST.O) Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY.O) (Reporting by Ellen Wulfhorst; Editing by Eric Walsh)

FedEx

Monday, December 7th, 2009

FedEx Inflation: Raising Rates To Protect Margins (FDX)

Vincent Fernando|Dec. 4, 2009, 9:32 AM | 290 |While FedEx has announced that they plan to increase their average shipping rates next year, by a substantial 4.9 – 5.9% depending on the service, this move shouldn’t be seen as simply a bullish indicator for the economy.

Primarily FedEx needs to bolster its margins right now, which are down from where they historically have been. Operating margins were just 12.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 11.1% is the fiscal year 2009 according to Value Line. This is far lower than the 13.2% – 14.5% operating margins FedEx achieved during fiscal years 2004 – 2007.

Price hikes are always based on a consideration of many factors such as revenue growth objectives and the strength of the economic environment. Yet this time around, while FedEx has said they see further economic recovery in 2010, they are probably more focused on the fact that they need to shore up margins.

FedEx: will increase the standard list rates for FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery by an average of 4.9 percent. FedEx SmartPost rates also will change. The new rates will be effective Jan. 4, 2010. FedEx Corp. previously announced that it would increase shipping rates for FedEx Express by an average of 5.9 percent for U.S. domestic and U.S. export services also effective Jan. 4, 2010.

UPS

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

United Parcel Service (UPS) 12/2/09 PriceWatch Alert Targets 20.46% Return

Posted: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:29 AM EDT

United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) closed yesterday at $57.88. So far the stock has hit a 52-week low of $37.99 and 52-week high of $59.63. United Parcel Service stock has been showing support around 57.44 and resistance in the 58.38 range. Technical indicators for the stock are Bullish and S&P gives UPS a neutral 3 STAR (out of 5) hold rating. UPS appears on the Investors Observer Analysts Favorites list. For a hedged play on this stock, look at an Apr ’10 60 covered call (UPS DL) for a net debit in the $55.75 area. That is also the break even stock price for this trade. This covered call has a 136 day duration, provides 3.68% downside protection and a 7.62% assigned return rate for a 20.46% annualized return rate (comparison purposes only). A lower cost hedged play for this stock would use a longer term call option in place of the covered call stock purchase. To use this strategy look at going long the UPS Jan ’11 45 Call (OPS AI) and selling the Apr ’10 60 call (UPS DL) for a $12.12 debit. The trade has a 136 day life and would provide 1.31% downside protection and a 23.76% assigned return rate for a 64.00% annualized return rate (for comparison purposes only). United Parcel Service has a current annual dividend yield of 3.13%. [WBA-Seven Summits Research]

Fedex

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

FedEx (FDX) NewsBite – FDX Hits 52-Week High

Posted: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:04 PM EDT

FedEx (NYSE: FDX) hit a new 52-Week high of $87.10 so far today. Currently the stock is up $0.86 (1.00%) to $86.74 on 1,534,445 shares traded. Today’s high is up $52.72 from a 52-Week Low of $34.02. FedEx stock has been showing support around $84.02 and resistance in the $87.50 range. Technical indicators for the stock are bullish and S&P gives FDX a positive 4 STARS (out of 5) buy ranking. If you are looking for a hedged play on FDX the stock seems like it could be a candidate for an April out-of-the-money bull-put credit spread below the 75 range. [ABR-Seven Summits Strategic Investments NewsBite]

USPS

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Financial Insolvency

In a recent post, APWU President suggested that the Postal Service’s financial problems has one cause and one cause only, the onerous payment schedule for funding retiree health plans. He is right that this is a serious problem. There are reasonable arguments that both the amount that Office of Personnel Management (OPM) says the Postal Service owes significantly overstates what the Postal Service actually owes and that payment schedule makes no sense for the enterprise. (See USPS-OIG white paper, PRC Report) Furthermore, the position that correctly measuring the Postal Service’s CSRS payments by excluding obligations for time credited while not in USPS employment needs to be reexamined on its merits regardless of the Federal budget consequence.

Given the problems with retiree health plan expenses, I have come to think of the disagreement between the Postal Service and OPM in two ways

  1. OPM, and Congress, by putting the payment terms in legislation, is acting as a creditor with overwhelming power over individuals that owe it money. It can both determine the amount of the debt using whatever assumptions it chooses make and change the payment schedule at whim.
  2. OPM and Congress are acting like creditors with severe liquidity problems and see the Postal Service as borrower that it can squeeze to improve its financial position. In this position, the creditor is more concerned about its own finances than the impact that its actions have on debtors ability to operate as ongoing entity.

Unfortunately, even if the retiree health benefit disagreement was resolved to the Postal Service’s satisfaction, it would still leave the Postal Services earning losses for many years to come. The following graph illustrates losses under the current legislated payment schedule. The graph was presented by Mary Anne Gibbons Senior Vice President & General Counsel U.S. Postal Service Linda A. Kingsley Senior Vice President, Strategy & Transition U.S. Postal Service presented in their presentation at the Center for Research in Regulated Industries Workshop on November 20th (Page 8 of the presentation: A New Business Model for the United States Postal Service)

Now what happens to that gap if one changes the Postal Service’s payment for retiree health benefits in order to fund various measures of its unfunded liability. The next chart compares current law with payment estimates calculated by the USPS-OIG, PRC and one assuming that the entire pre-funding obligation is covered in over payments in CSRS obligations. This chart shows that all potential options result in losses through 2012. Eliminating additional pre-payment of retiree obligations puts the Postal Service to break even in 2013 and earn a minuscule profit, assuming a long range revenue forecast is right in 2014. All other payment schedules continue to generate losses through 2014.

This graph uses the Postal Service’s numbers with little information on the Postal Service’s long range pricing and revenue generation strategy, its plans to manage operating costs and overhead; and its capital spending plans including whether those plans are sufficiently robust to make the investments necessary to sustain the business or maintain its existing its existing infrastructure.

Given these projections, financial insolvency appears inevitable without a combination of 1) change in the pre-funding requirement; 2) additional revenue from existing products; and substantial cuts in operating costs beyond what attrition generates. These projections suggest that Congress, in trying to develop a new business plan will likely have to deal with the challenge of funding operating losses for the foreseeable future unless there are significant changes.

Posted by Alan Robinson at 8:11 AM

FedEx, UPS, USPS

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

From shopping to shipping; a few holiday tips to save time and money

GOLDEN VALLEY, Minn. — This time of year you hear an awful lot about the “holiday shopping season.” Change one letter, you’ve got another very busy season, and it’s just starting right now. Welcome to the “holiday shipping season.”

“It helps our system if people mail in the middle of the week, not on Mondays,” St. Paul’s US Postmaster Mike Larson said at a news conference on Tuesday. The US Postal Service is predicting Monday December 14th and Monday the 21st could be the two of the busiest mailing days ever.

The post office was also touting its new flat-rate boxes. They’re small boxes with fixed prices (starting at $4.95) that operate under one premise: “if it fits, it ships.” The box just has to be less than 70 pounds. Officials also hoped to push customers out of line by guiding them online, where you can pay for and print postage. “We’ll come and pick it up so you never have to leave your house,” Larson explained.

Down the street, at the UPS Store in Golden Valley, Randy Holst was adjusting holiday work schedules to deal with the onslaught of customers. He says shippers can side-step a lot of hassle by packing their boxes properly.

“You want to use what’s called the 6 strip method. 3 on the top, 3 on the bottom,” he said. Holst was demonstrating with packaging tape, which he says is the only one that is resistant to condensation.

Another warning; don’t wrap those boxes with holiday paper, no matter how tempted you may be. “It’s actually a big cause of lost packages. That paper gets torn off and then no one knows where the package needs to go.”

Both UPS and FedEx are offering to package fragile items for their customers. For a fee, the shippers will guarantee the goods arrive in good condition. “It is becoming very common,” Ridgedale FedEx/Kinko’s store manager Chris Bakeman said.

Bakeman says one of the biggest problems he sees is people not packing the boxes full. “When we receive a package at the counter, we’re going to do a (very light) shake test to make sure nothing’s moving around in the package,” Bakeman explained. You and the shipper have the same goal. Make sure your piece gets to its recipient on time and in one piece.

If you’re searching around for the best shipping price, the computer is a great place to start. USPS, UPS, and FedEx all have very easy to use websites that can help you determine what the shipping cost might be based on destination, weight, and package size.

Bakeman and Holst will warn you, the longer you wait, the more it will cost you. Shipping by air could double, triple, or even quadruple the cost when comparing it to ground rates.

It is advised that you bring your package in by December 17th to make sure it gets to the destination on time if you’re using ground transport.

You can wait til’ December 23rd (with all 3 shippers) and still get your gifts to the intended people in time for Christmas if you ship by air, but again, it’ll cost you. “If you want to save money, ship early,” Bakeman concluded.

By Scott Seroka

USPS

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

CAN THE POSTAL SERVICE BE SAVED?

The U.S. Postal Service announced this week that it lost $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year, which ended September 30th. It also delivered less mail — 26 billion fewer pieces, a nearly 13 percent drop from the previous year. The bad news follows losses totaling $7.8 billion in 2007 and 2008.

The Postal Service is legally prohibited from taking tax dollars. But in order to stay afloat, the agency has been actively borrowing from the U.S. Treasury: At last count, according to Postal Service spokeswoman Yvonne Yoerger, it owes the government $10.2 billion.

Moreover:

Federal law dictates that the Postal Service can borrow up to $3 billion per year — but the debt cannot grow beyond $15 billion.

That means that while the agency, which had revenues of $68.1 billion last year, could potentially borrow another $3 billion in 2010, it will soon no longer be able to legally borrow billions from the government.

Meanwhile, the Postal Service is estimating that without significant changes, it will lose another $7.8 billion in the coming year — and deliver another 11 billion fewer pieces of mail.

Which raises the question: Can the Postal Service be saved?

The agency cut $6 billion in expenses over the past year, eliminating 40,000 of its roughly 750,000 jobs and slashing overtime hours. But it says that isn’t enough. And it’s pushing for two major changes that it suggests could help get it back into the black in 2010:

The first is freedom from a government-mandated requirement that the agency pay more than $5 billion per year into a fund to cover its retired employees’ future health benefits over a ten-year period; the government allowed the agency to forgo $4 billion of that obligation this past year, but the requirement remains on the books.

The second goal is to end Saturday mail delivery; the Postal Service has suggested cutting Saturday service could save $3.5 billion per year, though the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), which regulates the Postal Service, puts that figure at $2 billion.

Source: Brian Montopoli, “Can the Postal Service be Saved?” CBS News, November 19, 2009.

For text:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/politics/main5711797.shtml