Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="59 Dano" data-source="post: 5917541" data-attributes="member: 23516">A multitude of analysts (me included) worked on this for several months.&nbsp; We worked through every possible scenario and accounted for every possible combination of variables that we could come up with.&nbsp; Just about any change that made the postal volume a more viable revenue stream created an offsetting inefficiency or cost elsewhere. Our team presented three options for the proposed contract period.&nbsp; One was to leave the bulk of the operation as-is, with a minimal ability to scale it down based on projected (and promised) declines in volume.&nbsp; It would begin losing money early in the contract and get worse as time went on.&nbsp; The second option was to respond to volume decreases throughout the duration of the contract with corresponding downsizing of aircraft.&nbsp; The main problem with that was that it shuffled an inefficiency from one air route to another, and there are costs each time that kind of deployment change is made.&nbsp; The final option was the non-renewal of the contract.&nbsp; It provided a significant impact on the bottom line from the start.&nbsp; It created in increase in revenue per hour flown, a major decrease in excess capacity per hour flown.&nbsp; One of the bigger benefits is that it frees up assets (people, time, money, equipment) to be deployed where they would be more effective.&nbsp; We made our presentations and got grilled.&nbsp; And grilled some more.&nbsp; And then a little more.&nbsp;They didn&#039;t care how many planes, trucks, or people were to be dedicated to postal volume, they just wanted the revenue to justify the cost of doing so.&nbsp; &nbsp;If you don&#039;t think they looked for a way to make it work (and pushed those of us on this project to find it), again, you don&#039;t know what you&#039;re talking about. Dude.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="59 Dano, post: 5917541, member: 23516"] A multitude of analysts (me included) worked on this for several months. We worked through every possible scenario and accounted for every possible combination of variables that we could come up with. Just about any change that made the postal volume a more viable revenue stream created an offsetting inefficiency or cost elsewhere. Our team presented three options for the proposed contract period. One was to leave the bulk of the operation as-is, with a minimal ability to scale it down based on projected (and promised) declines in volume. It would begin losing money early in the contract and get worse as time went on. The second option was to respond to volume decreases throughout the duration of the contract with corresponding downsizing of aircraft. The main problem with that was that it shuffled an inefficiency from one air route to another, and there are costs each time that kind of deployment change is made. The final option was the non-renewal of the contract. It provided a significant impact on the bottom line from the start. It created in increase in revenue per hour flown, a major decrease in excess capacity per hour flown. One of the bigger benefits is that it frees up assets (people, time, money, equipment) to be deployed where they would be more effective. We made our presentations and got grilled. And grilled some more. And then a little more. They didn't care how many planes, trucks, or people were to be dedicated to postal volume, they just wanted the revenue to justify the cost of doing so. If you don't think they looked for a way to make it work (and pushed those of us on this project to find it), again, you don't know what you're talking about. Dude. [/QUOTE]

Verification