Royal Mail to be floated on stock exchange

[Nexus]

I personally don't really know what to feel about it really.

Even before this, they have been making cuts and closures, which obviously significantly effect the people who live far from their Post Office and rely on it, like the elderly.

While I think services like Royal Mail Special Delivery are fantastic, I find myself using Royal Mail services less and less. There are a couple of reasons why....

- Whenever I go the Post Office, I have to wait ages because there is always a massive queue of people, who are mostly there to do things which aren't postage. While they offer fast drop services if you print online, you have to pay a premium to do so.

- You can use other couriers for cheaper, and since I discovered I can use Collect+ at a Petrol Station across the road, for a much better price than Royal Mail, I've not really looked back.

 

[antijoke]

Is there a viable alternative to sending normal things like cards etc?

 

[Basher]

the few things you do have to send should be Special Delivery anyway which allready costs more than that.

Lots of people still send cards/letters, particularly in areas that don't have high broadband adoption.

I'm not too sure about the future of the PO, it's something I need to look in to in terms of profits over the past few years etc.

 

[antijoke]

The problem with this is?
Paying what it costs to actually send something. It's no longer a vital thing to do, there's very few things you have to send, the few things you do have to send should be Special Delivery anyway which allready costs more than that.

Should be special delivery? Are you kiding me?

So I should send the birthday card to my Gran via Special Delivery?

Lol. U CRAZY MAN!

 

[Theophany]

I personally don't really know what to feel about it really.

Even before this, they have been making cuts and closures, which obviously significantly effect the people who live far from their Post Office and rely on it, like the elderly.

While I think services like Royal Mail Special Delivery are fantastic, I find myself using Royal Mail services less and less. There are a couple of reasons why....

- Whenever I go the Post Office, I have to wait ages because there is always a massive queue of people, who are mostly there to do things which aren't postage. While they offer fast drop services if you print online, you have to pay a premium to do so.

- You can use other couriers for cheaper, and since I discovered I can use Collect+ at a Petrol Station across the road, for a much better price than Royal Mail, I've not really looked back.

The Post Office is a separate company and not being sold off. Only Royal Mail is being sold.

 

[Glaucus]

LoL, why not read. Did I say to send cards special delivery? No, no I'd didn't..
A stamp at a sensible price where they are profitable, isn't going to stop you sending an occasional card. It'll go for £1 a year to say £3 a year in costs.

Ah great another RM parcel at the depot, apparently I was out, then why was I in all day and no calling card. RM used to be good.
fedEx is now by far the best courier.

 

[Basher]

LoL, why not read. Did I say to send cards special delivery? No, no I'd didn't..
A stamp at a sensible price where they are profitable, isn't going to stop you sending an occasional card. It'll go for £1 a year to say £3 a year in costs.

No, you said you should send few things through the post, and those few things should be special delivery.

 

[Glaucus]

No, you said you should send few things through the post, and those few things should be special delivery.

The few things YOU HAVE to send, that clearly does not include a card.
It's things like passports, driving license, financial applications etc.

 

[Basher]

The few things YOU HAVE to send, that clearly does not include a card.
It's things like passports, driving license, financial applications etc.

How else would a card get to it's destination without sending it?

Or should I not be sending Birthday cards to my relatives?

 

[covenantuk]

Before anyone kicks off on politics. It's worth mentioning this isn't a "Tory" privatisation. It's not even a Labour one even though they actually produced the first privatisation proposal.

This has a whole bunch to do with EU competition law.

 

[Glaucus]

How else would a card get to it's destination without sending it?

Or should I not be sending Birthday cards to my relatives?

By post. You know that privatisation doesn't mean the end of all couriers.
People's point was prices would increase, so what, pay for what you need. My point was you aren't going to become poor and have to downgrade your lifestyle.
Anything that has to be sent you pay a fair price for already, anything else doesn't have to be sent and even if you do send it, it is in such small quantities, it'll make sod all difference if they double the stamp price.
Why should government subsidise non essential services.
Postage is very much non essential these days, unlike 10 years ago.

 

[413x]

ive already stopped sending cards. If they arent important enough to phone then whats the point sending a card? Especially ones with 'to xxx' INSERT PRE PRINTED MESSAGE 'From YYY'

waste of resources, money and time.

this will hurt some places a lot. card companies in particular. (if they use royal mail?)

I also recently found that couriers are actually mostly cheaper than royal mail, especially for large low value items!

Tbh i dont really care what happens to them now. but a lot will, especially elderly people. Is it worth buying shares.. quite a risk i would say

 

[kaiowas]

Multiple competing companies encourages duplication of effort/infrastructure and massive inefficiencies driving up costs for the whole nation. A single provider provides the greatest efficiencies.

However no big business can be trusted not to abuse a monopolistic position.

As a result I think it's appropriate that any large scale infrastructure is publicly owned and run for the benefit of the nation rather than the shareholders.

A prime example is mobile networks, as it stands we have 4 competing networks all with good coverage in highly populated areas and only 1 network (if your lucky) with decent coverage in many more remote areas. If the infrastructure was combined as a nationalised network everyone would have good coverage everywhere, probably requiring less masts than we have already.

 

[Basher]

Multiple competing companies encourages duplication of effort/infrastructure and massive inefficiencies driving up costs for the whole nation. A single provider provides the greatest efficiencies.

However no big business can be trusted not to abuse a monopolistic position.

As a result I think it's appropriate that any large scale infrastructure is publicly owned and run for the benefit of the nation rather than the shareholders.

A prime example is mobile networks, as it stands we have 4 competing networks all with good coverage in highly populated areas and only 1 network (if your lucky) with decent coverage in many more remote areas. If the infrastructure was combined as a nationalised network everyone would have good coverage everywhere, probably requiring less masts than we have already.

Somewhat true, but on the flip side competition drives innovation.

 

[King Damager]

In my mind, prices will go up, but so should service quality if it becomes private.

Will be interesting to see how this effects the different parts of RM. Annoyingly, the letter part of RM, is actually pretty efficient, and I don't feel stamps should go up. It's parcel service that I'd like to see improvements on, although RM are still at least average in my mind for parcel services. I see this resulting in some closures of post offices mind you, and more things having to be collected if you want to send them, which could be a pain.

There will also be added complexity no doubt from the natural monopoly nature of post boxes/postmen. It will be an interesting area to see develop, but personally, I'm not sure it's going to drive the right competition the way we want...

kd

 

[Glaucus]

I don't see why you would have to have more collections.
Many private firms have enlisted local shops, garages etc as drop off points. It's nt like you need a cashier and printer these days, you can do that all at home and just drop it off.

 

[elmarko]

I can understand some of the rational behind it curbing it back (not privatising it), but I do think it's about 20 years too early for closing down the post offices around the UK - most of the 60 year old's I know are hardly computer literate.

In another generation I can see them becoming more & more obsolete - but that time hasn't come yet.

 

[Glaucus]

I can understand some of the rational behind it curbing it back (not privatising it), but I do think it's about 20 years too early for closing down the post offices around the UK - most of the 60 year old's I know are hardly computer literate.

In another generation I can see them becoming more & more obsolete - but that time hasn't come yet.

Did you even read your own link.
Who's closing post offices?

It will not include the Post Office. The two are separate companies with independent boards.

Post offices are far more than posting a letter. In fact who goes to a post office to post a letter.
Parcels yes, letters though?

 

[Basher]

I can understand some of the rational behind it curbing it back (not privatising it), but I do think it's about 20 years too early for closing down the post offices around the UK - most of the 60 year old's I know are hardly computer literate.

In another generation I can see them becoming more & more obsolete - but that time hasn't come yet.

No one is talking about closing the post offices down AFAIK...

 

[jimjamuk]

Multiple competing companies encourages duplication of effort/infrastructure and massive inefficiencies driving up costs for the whole nation. A single provider provides the greatest efficiencies.

However no big business can be trusted not to abuse a monopolistic position.

As a result I think it's appropriate that any large scale infrastructure is publicly owned and run for the benefit of the nation rather than the shareholders.

A prime example is mobile networks, as it stands we have 4 competing networks all with good coverage in highly populated areas and only 1 network (if your lucky) with decent coverage in many more remote areas. If the infrastructure was combined as a nationalised network everyone would have good coverage everywhere, probably requiring less masts than we have already.

In an ideal world yes this is true - but with a monopoly there isnt the appetite to drive prices and costs down which is what happens in the competitive world.