Are there any alternatives to Royal Mail after the price changes from 30 April 2012?

custardy

dragonfruit wrote: »

So how was the Royal Mail able to run their service for half that price not that long time ago (like 7, 10 years ago and earlier)?

well has anything different happened in the last 10 years?
I can think of something

dragonfruit wrote: »

But if you compare the prices with USA then it is expensive, and they have to cover much greater distances than in the UK.

and can you directly compare?
is there maybe a slight difference in their business model?

RFW

dragonfruit wrote: »

But if you compare the prices with USA then it is expensive, and they have to cover much greater distances than in the UK.

It's actually a much better service too, I used Ebay/Paypal in the US, the standard post there can get tracked too. It looks as though the USPS is going the same way as Royal Mail though with jobs going and processing centres closing, post offices too.

dragonfruit

custardy wrote: »

well has anything different happened in the last 10 years?
I can think of something

Me too, but before the privatisation the prices were stable and low for years. Thus, it is worse for customers now.

custardy wrote: »

and can you directly compare?
is there maybe a slight difference in their business model?

So perhaps RM should change to their business model?

custardy

dragonfruit wrote: »

Me too, but before the privatisation the prices were stable and low for years. Thus, it is worse for customers now.



So perhaps RM should change to their business model?

there has been no privitisation.
do you think there has been?
so you would have RM go against UK and european regulation?
how does that work?

dragonfruit

custardy wrote: »

there has been no privitisation.
do you think there has been?
so you would have RM go against UK and european regulation?
how does that work?

So why were the prices stable and low for years, but they are not in the last 7 years or so for RM services?

custardy

dragonfruit wrote: »

So why were the prices stable and low for years, but they are not in the last 7 years or so for RM services?

So you have no idea what is going on then?
you have no idea about the market being opened?
Down stream access mail?

you draw comparisons with a monoplised country,yet have no idea what you are comparing.

dragonfruit

custardy wrote: »

So you have no idea what is going on then?
you have no idea about the market being opened?
Down stream access mail?

you draw comparisons with a monoplised country,yet have no idea what you are comparing.

That's what I called wrongly "privatisation", but meant opening the market.

But the whole point of competition is to have lower prices than when there is a monopoly.
Usually when there is a monopoly the prices are high, because the monopolist can dictate the prices, as there is no real competition.
So the whole point of opening the market is to lower the prices, to force the monopolist to lower the prices, because of the rise of its competition.

That was not the case here. Here we had the low prices when there was a monopolist, and have every year increasing prices since the market has been opened. So what was the point of opening the market? This is everything upside down. The prices should be falling, and not increasing, after the market became open, when there is a competition.
There was no point in opening the market if the monopolist had low prices. That's bad for customers, bad for us.

If USA, which are the primary example of capitalistic economy, have the monopoly of postal service, then there is no reason why we should not have one.

custardy

because the market was opened with a caveat. Dsa.
so rather than provide a rival service.companies simply used RM for the expensive delivery component.RM did the same work(pretty much),but got paid less. income dropped year on year. RMs answer was to slash and burn.PO's,delivery staff,MC staff etc. all moot now

dragonfruit

custardy wrote: »

because the market was opened with a caveat. Dsa.
so rather than provide a rival service.companies simply used RM for the expensive delivery component.RM did the same work(pretty much),but got paid less. income dropped year on year. RMs answer was to slash and burn.PO's,delivery staff,MC staff etc. all moot now

So someone made a mess, but why we have to pay for that someone's mistakes? Why were these mistakes not predicted and prevented?

StaffsSW

dragonfruit wrote: »

So how was the Royal Mail able to run their service for half that price not that long time ago (like 7, 10 years ago and earlier)?

Possibly because they were heavily subsidised, and still running at an operational loss.

Remember it is not specifically the government that has increased prices, but RM themselves have now been given more control over their pricing structure to ensure that they can operate without a loss, and without being subsidised by the tax-payer.

Contrary to popular belief and what a certain chancellor believed, the Uk does not have a bottomless pit of money to dip into. It has taken a change of government to make this point, but still people are expecting financial miracles.