paregorike wrote:
Wow. Doesn\'t sound cost effective to me. Specially paying for gas etc.
It\'s more cost effective to have a centralized sorting facility for a large geographic region than to have multiple smaller sorting facilities. In one case, you pile tons of boxes into a plane and fly it over to a location you pay for rent/mortgage in one place, pay for one set of employees, one set of lower management, one set of utilities etc.
With smaller hubs distributed all over the area, you have to pay for more employees, more management, more rents, more utilities, gas for all the trucks that go to/from the smaller hubs to/from the airports (as opposed to larger facilities which are attached to one larger airport)...just to save on airplane fuel.
If UPS were a smaller organization, you would be right. However, considering the many hundreds of packages going everywhere, singular, larger facilities make more sense than multiple smaller facilities.
jcmarney wrote:
Notice it bouncing back and forth from SLC and Idaho Falls? UPS Customer service was no help either...basically a \"hopefully it will get to you\". Um, thanks.
A couple years ago, I participated in a trial in Miami. When it was time to come back to Chicago, I had to box up and ship all of the materials we hauled to Miami. I shipped about 22 banker\'s boxes, 2 odd sized boxes and a large printer box. I shipped it all 2-day (we needed it, but not in a hurry). All the boxes, except the printer box, made it to the firm on time. The printer box suffered the same fate as your package, going between a UPS hub in Miami and an airport outside of Miami multiple times before heading to Chicago.
paregorike wrote:
Wow. Doesn\'t sound cost effective to me. Specially paying for gas etc.
It\'s more cost effective to have a centralized sorting facility for a large geographic region than to have multiple smaller sorting facilities. In one case, you pile tons of boxes into a plane and fly it over to a location you pay for rent/mortgage in one place, pay for one set of employees, one set of lower management, one set of utilities etc.
With smaller hubs distributed all over the area, you have to pay for more employees, more management, more rents, more utilities, gas for all the trucks that go to/from the smaller hubs to/from the airports (as opposed to larger facilities which are attached to one larger airport)...just to save on airplane fuel.
If UPS were a smaller organization, you would be right. However, considering the many hundreds of packages going everywhere, singular, larger facilities make more sense than multiple smaller facilities.
Dec 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Previous versions of kakomu's message #7917812 « UPS MAJOR FAIL »
