Why Drones Could Save Door-To-Door Mail Delivery (vice.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Online shopping aside, people don't have as many physical items to mail as they used to, which is largely the reason why Canada Post announced it would be phasing out door-to-door mail delivery. Motherboard reports: "The corporation is exploring future use of drone technology to make deliveries, according to a report from the Canadian Press. At this point, Canada Post is engaging in a 'proper exercise,' a spokesperson told the Canadian Press, adding that the project is in its earliest, experimental stages. According to Graham Scott, the deputy editor of Canadian Business, even if mail-delivering drones remain a theoretical concept for now, it's inevitable they'll be considered as a way to drive costs down. There are many good reasons why mail delivery drones may never get off the ground. For one thing, current technology limits them to delivering one item of post at a time, which is tremendously impractical. But, as we've seen with the rolling out of community mailboxes -- a program that was put on hold earlier this year when the review was launched -- the invisible hand of the market is always looking to drive costs down. So don't count out flying robot deliveries for good. From a manager's perspective at least, drones have their advantages. They don't suffer from dog bites, and they (ideally) don't deviate from their routes. 'Drones don't twist their ankle, they don't get tired, and they don't form a union.' said Scott." In 2013, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos revealed during a CBS 60 Minutes interview that the company is working on a service called "Prime Air" to deliver packages by autonomous octocopter drones within 30 minutes of hitting the "buy" button. The Guardian reported last year that Amazon has been testing its drone delivery service at a secret site in Canada, following repeated warnings by the e-commerce giant that it would go outside the U.S. to bypass what it sees as the U.S. federal government's lethargic approach to the new technology.

Comments

What about the hidden costs?

[Nyder]

For example, the lawsuits from people who are suing because a mail deliver drone went out of control and crashed thru a huge window, or hit their 3 year old kid. What is the cost to find the drones that malfunction and crash in places that are hard to get to. They will need to recover the mail so it can still be delivered.

Sounds like a great idea, but honestly, doesn't seem like it's going to work as well as they want it to.

Re:What about the hidden costs?

[jandersen]

- not to mention the fact that they can - and therefore will - be intercepted by criminals. The risk of doing so will be much lower than robbing a postman, which to a criminal is almost the equivalent of being legal.

Re: What about the hidden costs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The anti worker and anti human sentiment around here is unbelievable. The 'invisible hand' of the market is nothing more than the media pushed wishes of a bunch of sociopaths. We're taking what was a thriving society that dared to do great things and destroying it. Not improving it--destroying it. Improving would imply that what comes next is better. We used to do that too. Now all we know how to do is drive down incomes and standards of living.

Ever ask yourselves why it is we allegedly can't afford things that earlier versions of our society with less wealth and less knowledge were able to? The answer is because back then we had less wealth concentration, we kept the rich on a leash and didn't let them do whatever they wanted and yes, that meant regulations, it meant unions, and it meant jobs with actual benefits. It's why you will never have even a fraction of what your parents and grandparents had because you willingly give it all away to the people who already have too much.

Re: What about the hidden costs?

[Nunya666]

Ever ask yourselves why it is we allegedly can't afford things that earlier versions of our society with less wealth and less knowledge were able to? The answer is because back then we had less wealth concentration, we kept the rich on a leash and didn't let them do whatever they wanted and yes, that meant regulations, it meant unions, and it meant jobs with actual benefits. It's why you will never have even a fraction of what your parents and grandparents had because you willingly give it all away to the people who already have too much.

You might want to remove your rose-colored glasses.

Most job benefits are recent enough that my parents never had them, and my grandparents sure as hell never had them.

Unions were great 50+ years ago, but now they're just another big business. My employer is a privately owned company that does not need unions because they treat their people fairly, and provide both good pay and good benefits. That didn't stop a union from trying to force their way into one of our manufacturing plants. They convinced enough workers that "the union would be great" that they had to conduct a vote. IIRC, about 40% of the workers were convinced, and the vote was scheduled for six weeks later.

For the next six weeks, management couldn't talk to the workers about the union. But the union could sure as hell talk about the management. For the next six weeks, the union made lie after lie about my employer and their management. Eventually, the employees recognized the deceit. On voting day, only one employee voted for the union.

The entire problem comes down to greed. Business owners want more money, so they do whatever they can to save (or make) a dollar. Unions need money to survive, so they threaten, coerce, and lie. Business owners want more money, so they make billions from an IPO. But then they have to satisfy the greed of their shareholders, so they save a few dollars by outsourcing, offshoring, and replacing humans with robots.

Re:Just sayin'

[Yvan256]

Well, human employees don't fall from the sky and cause property damage, injury and death.

Well, I guess you don't know my friend Steve Austin. He used to be an astronaut, you know. His last crash cost him about six million dollars, man.

Re:Hmmm

[JoeMerchant]

Build homes with mail delivery chimneys.

Re:Except for FAA regulations

[PopeRatzo]

The article is about Canada, where FAA regulations don't apply. America has dumb regulations on drones. Most other countries are far more sensible.

Maybe Canada has fewer goofballs with drones who think their hobby takes precedence over people's lives and property.

http://www.deseretnews.com/art...

Drones + Bots + Autonomous vehicles

[justcauseisjustthat]

Autonomous vehicles will bring the packages/mail into a certain range and depending on location a drone or bot will get out of the autonomous vehicles to do the final delivery. I can see moving forward where places will have drone/bot delivery slots for mail, packages and food deliveries.

Hybrid delivery methods?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the discussion on the problems with using drones seems to assume the drone will go directly to the customer. It seems several of these issues could be addressed by having a delivery or courier meet the drone half way and then performing the actual direct to customer delivery. This would reduce the number of times a delivery person visits home base while they make multiple deliveries a day where the items aren't all available at the beginning of the day. While Amazon Now would be example of such a service where an order can be placed in the middle of the day that has a 2 hour ETA, I really think the big area drones make become invaluable is with food delivery. The restaurant would have a designated location on the roof for a container designed for the drone to pick up. It would then locate the delivery truck via GPS and drop off on a roof designed to lock-in the container. If the system is done right, the drone may even be able to drop off while the delivery truck is moving at low speeds.

Drones are awesome!

[the_Bionic_lemming]

So when you have very windy days, what happens?

Also, for delivery in crime areas, how does the drone open your screen door and put the package in between your front door when you aren't home?

What about winter weather, when it's blustery, snowing hard - are they just going to sod off a delivery when there's only clear weather?

And during thunderstorms, are the packages going to be water proof? How much is the added cost to make it not only delivered whenever the weather allows it, but also to ensure that the package itself can withstand the elements) no more cardboard).

Need it overnight? Well, that's going to increase in cost cause when they fire folks so drones can do the job, the last guy left is going to be real expensive to go the last mile.

And I can see forward to a time when ..

[burni2]

We have drones deliverying drones to other drones via an autonomous vehicle and humans lethargically watching Game of Thrones s99e02.

No work anymore for the less gifted with an IQ of 110 and less.

Paradise, here we come!

Re:Smarter solution for lower-cost door-to-door

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a non-union courier, you can already use Fedex! But mysteriously, they're not 1/3 of the cost of UPS and USPS to customers. Maybe they're just pocketing all those extra savings? But wait, all those extra profits from charging market rates yet saving 2/3 of their costs also don't seem to be getting passed along to shareholders, because UPS is nearly triple Fedex's dividend yield. So what ever could some of the reasons for this? Hmmmm...

Do people just not understand physics?

[nbritton]

Do people just not understand physics? Do they honestly really think drones could take over package delivery?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Do people just not understand physics?

[swillden]

Do people just not understand physics? Do they honestly really think drones could take over package delivery?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There are more issues than just energy efficiency, because there are a lot of costs in delivery operations other than energy. Also, while rolling is much more efficient than flying, routing a package car to every house, stopping and starting the multi-ton vehicle at each one, may actually be more energy-intensive than having said multi-ton vehicle carry a swarm of small drones into the subdivision and having them fly the last few hundred yards. And it may well make better use of the delivery system capital and operational expenses, delivering more packages per dollar because, as I said, energy isn't the only cost.

Drone delivery from the central distribution office seems unlikely to make sense, except for packages that are time-sensitive. But using drones for last-leg delivery may make a lot more sense than driving a truck to every house.

In America it costs 50 cents.

[Iamthecheese]

Go ahead. Call FedEx and say you want them to swing by your house every day just in case you have outgoing mail. Tell them volume will be very low. Tell them you won't sign a contract. And tell them you're willing to pay fifty cents per one ounce parcel to be sent anywhere in America. The US parcel service isn't afraid of change, they've embraced every bit of cost saving technology possible. But there are millions of Americans that the internet still doesn't reach. People too (literally) retarded, too poor or just unwilling to buy PC's and people too poor or too disabled to walk to the nearest parcel delivery store. (hundreds of miles for a few, by the way)

Okay I wrote all that before I clicked the link: it's a bad link. Canada is actually using community boxes which require a short walk. Less ideal but it still preserves the principle of the thing. My point is the USPS is the last remaining government service that's keeping millions of Americans from being completely priced out of being able to effectively communicate with the world. It's also offering a service no one else can. Government mail delivery won't be obsolete until another company can actually match its costs (and not by cutting services)

Why a flying drone?

[AchilleTalon]

I find it utterly stupid to look at flying drones for such a task rather than looking at walking drones. Keeping in the air mail is much more energy hungry than walking, it is subject to winds and bad weather and so on. While a walking drone has its limitations too, it is much less limitative than a flying drone for the same task. It seems the Jettson's syndrome is stricking back again.

Re:Hmmm

[Idou]

Unfortunately, Santa Claus already has a patent for this. . . apparently along with elves he also employs some trolls. . .

Re:Delivering Garbage

[geekmux]

it's >95% of the mail I receive

Only deliver the real mail, say once every week.

So you'll reduce the mail delivery frequency by 83% (going from delivering six days per week to one day per week), but reduce the mail volume by 95%. The mail volume is what pays for the mail to be delivered. Do you honestly not see the problem here? You're reducing the income by 95% and the cost by (at *most*) 83%. So no, this brilliant idea won't save the post office -- it'll put the post office in even more dire straits.

Much like spam e-mail, I'd love to see the validation of revenue generated from filling my mailbox with SHIT I use to light my grill with to justify the 13% delta you've identified.

Drones?! It's a labour negotiation tactic

[YarDYar]

Canada Post mail walkers are working on a contract that expired in 2011. This is just another ploy of the management to get the workers to agree to a 30% slash in wages http://bc.ctvnews.ca/canada-po...

Re:Except for FAA regulations

[VernonNemitz]

Distance matters. What if drones were combined with automated delivery trucks? The truck carries a lot of mail for many addresses in an area, and carries it to that area; drones carries mail from the trucks to the addresses. The drones can re-charge at the trucks, and each truck might have several drones making simultaneous deliveries. None of these drones need fly especially high or far, to make its delivery.

Re:Except for FAA regulations

[Yvan256]

You see the bigger doors at the bottom? If you get a package, the key to the door is left in your mailbox so you can open the bigger door to get your package.