Big rate cuts on Priority Mail, decision to forgo new dimensional weight pricing could trigger a flood of packages during peak season. Will the market share grab be worth it?
Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will face various tests on its path toward true parcel delivery legitimacy. One of its most important tests has already commenced.
On Aug. 15, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the body that rules on the agency's pricing actions, approved a USPS proposal to radically reduce rates on two of its "Priority Mail" one- to three-day delivery products for high-volume customers. The program rolled out on Sept. 7.
The rate cuts affect two Priority Mail services: Commercial Base, which carries no volume requirements and is available to customers that give parcels to USPS using specific methods of tender, and Commercial Plus, which requires that users have shipped at least 50,000 Priority Mail pieces in the prior year. The latter service is geared toward high-volume users like e-tailers, big business-to-business (B2B) shippers, and parcel consolidators that aggregate packages from multiple shippers and induct them deep into the USPS distribution network to get sizable bulk discounts.
In a statement issued in July disclosing its plans, USPS said Commercial Plus rates would decline, on average, by 2.9 percent. But the overall numbers are skewed because there are virtually no rate changes on parcels weighing up to three pounds. However, starting with the four-pound weight break, considered the "sweet spot" of parcel weight, rates begin to fall dramatically. For example, the new Commercial Plus rate for a five-pound parcel moving between 301 and 600 miles represents an 18.8-percent drop from prior levels, according to data from consultancy Shipware LLC. The rate for shipping a 10-pound parcel between 601 and 1,000 miles has dropped by 36 percent, according to the firm. The price of shipping a 15-pound parcel between 151 and 300 miles has fallen by nearly 48 percent, the firm said. The comparisons apply to B2B and business-to-consumer (B2C) traffic.
For parcels weighing up to 20 pounds, the tariff rates charged by UPS Inc., one of the post office's two main rivals, are now 11 to 56 percent higher than USPS's new Commercial Plus rate depending on the parcel's specific weight and distance shipped, according to Shipware. The UPS list price for a three-pound parcel moving under 300 miles is now almost 41 percent higher than the USPS Commercial Plus rates, the data show. The widest rate differentials occur in the lightweight bands where shipments tend to tilt toward B2C transactions. By contrast, USPS's new rates are much higher starting at shipments weighing seven pounds and that move over longer distances, the Shipware data show.
Unlike UPS and FedEx Corp., the post office's other main rival, USPS doesn't assess fuel surcharges or impose mandatory residential ground delivery surcharges. As a result, the price gap is more pronounced when these so-called accessorial fees are factored in, according to Shipware. For example, when fuel and residential delivery surcharges are included, the list rates charged by UPS and FedEx Ground, FedEx's ground delivery unit, are between 35.4 and 135.8 percent higher than the new USPS Commercial Plus rate for a package weighing 30 pounds or less and shipped up to 600 miles, the Shipware data show.
USPS did not make an executive available for an interview. In an e-mail, Katina Fields, a USPS spokeswoman, said the agency hopes to attract more business by cutting shipping prices.
NO NEW DIM WEIGHT CHARGES
At the same time it was rolling back rates, USPS said it would not implement any new dimensional weight pricing on its parcel shipments. By contrast, UPS and FedEx will soon begin assessing so-called dim weight charges on ground parcels measuring less than three cubic feet. Effective Jan. 1 for FedEx and Dec. 29 for UPS, rates on those packages will be based on their dimensions rather than weight. The result will be a significant increase in shipping costs for producers and merchants who tender lightweight but bulky parcels that occupy a disproportionate amount of space aboard a delivery vehicle. Most of the affected shipments are B2C products increasingly being ordered online.
USPS takes a bifurcated approach to Priority Mail pricing. A parcel weighing less than 20 pounds, measuring between 84 and 108 inches in combined length and girth, and moving under 600 miles is charged a "balloon" rate equal to the price of a 20-pound parcel. However, few Priority Mail pieces fit those dimensions.
For packages moving more than 600 miles, a piece that exceeds one cubic foot is subject to dimensional pricing. USPS uses a volumetric divisor of 194 to calculate dimensional weight, a more favorable formula for shippers than the divisor of 166 used by FedEx and UPS; as an example, a one-cubic-foot parcel measuring 1,728 cubic inches, when divided by 194, would yield a lower shipping charge than if divided by 166.
A source close to USPS said the agency had been aware for some time that FedEx and UPS planned to change their pricing schemes. In addition, the cuts in Priority Mail high-volume rates were planned long before FedEx and UPS made their respective announcements, according to the source.
Rick Jones, president and CEO of LSO (formerly Lone Star Overnight), a regional parcel carrier in Austin, Texas, said USPS's decision not to add dimensional pricing to its short-haul parcel deliveries reflects more its lack of infrastructure to measure each piece than a concerted effort to differentiate itself from the competition.
RISKS INVOLVED
The USPS strategy is not foolproof: FedEx and UPS may be willing to shed large numbers of B2C parcels that are marginally profitable on a per-stop basis; that's because many of those transactions involve one package per stop and rob carriers of the economies of scale that come with handling multiple packages per stop, which is the hallmark of B2B deliveries. A torrent of new B2C holiday traffic from former UPS and FedEx users could strain USPS's distribution network, forcing it to confront the same type of public relations disaster that befell UPS and to a lesser extent, FedEx, during last year's holidays, a fiasco that USPS was able to avoid. USPS, which by law must serve every U.S. address, also runs the risk of taking on the same uneconomical lightweight, high-cube packages that its rivals would be glad to be rid of. Jones of LSO said FedEx and UPS would love to purge their systems of much B2C traffic so they can reset their operations and focus more attention on B2B traffic, historically their bread and butter.
Jones, who spent 22 years with UPS before starting his own firm, said UPS generally discounts its published rates by at least 25 percent for big B2B customers. Those shippers are more likely to stay with UPS or FedEx because they demand a level of delivery sophistication they feel cannot be achieved with the post office, he said. In addition, B2B shippers are less price-sensitive than their B2C counterparts who angle for the lowest delivery cost to blunt the bottom-line hit of providing free shipping to their customers. That being said, USPS's new pricing is aimed in part at high-volume B2B accounts because it applies to parcels weighing up to 40 pounds, weight breaks that are normally associated with B2B transactions, Jones added.
CHANGES TO PACKAGE FLOW?
It remains to be seen how much business will flow USPS's way if FedEx and UPS customers feel the new dimensional pricing changes are untenable. The USPS rate cuts will have the biggest effect on parcels moving under 600 miles, which have become the ideal distance for deliveries as retailers and B2B shippers add density to their regional warehouse and distribution footprints to shorten transit times.
Those who follow the business said concerns about USPS's service issues are overblown. While some diversion may take place during peak season, it won't become a deluge, according to Jerry Hempstead, a former top parcel executive who now runs a consultancy bearing his name. Jones said USPS is unlikely to face delivery challenges from entities like parcel consolidators and big shippers like Amazon.com because those entities generally induct packages into the last node of the postal system before delivery to the customer, thus minimizing the risk of bottlenecks faced by users that tender parcels at the front end of the system. Mark S. Schoeman, president of The Colography Group Inc., a consultancy, said that USPS has demonstrated an ability to flex its system to handle surges in traffic and that it should be able to accommodate any holiday rush without dramatically adjusting its operations.
Rob Martinez, Shipware's president and CEO, said USPS will attract more packages because it offers a wide menu of reasonably priced services, and not because it isn't adopting a new form of dimensional pricing on short-haul ground shipments. Martinez added, though, that if USPS wants to sustain parcel growth, it must bring on larger vehicles and invest in advanced technologies to improve package flow, routing, and dispatch capabilities.
Joseph Corbett, USPS's CEO, said in a mid-August statement that the post office needs to spend up to $10 billion to upgrade its fleet, buy package sorting equipment, and make "necessary" infrastructure improvements.
USPS cannot afford to postpone these steps. Its "shipping and package" segment, while still accounting for a small piece of the agency's overall revenue mix, is one of the few parts of the business showing solid growth. Through the first nine months of its current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, revenue from the segment grew 9.7 percent and volumes increased 8.5 percent.
USPS reported a $2 billion net loss in the third quarter, weighed down considerably by a required $5.7 billion payment for prefunding retiree health benefits; USPS said in mid-August that it would be unable to make the payment by the Sept. 30 deadline unless Congress acts before then to eliminate the liability. At this writing, the issue remained unresolved.
"Package growth is the Postal Service's only hope to maintain solvency," said Martinez.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."