eBay

no_zero369 · ‎11-27-2019

So earlier someone posted a link to PirateShip's advice on Cubic pricing with a softpack or poly-envelop.

https://support.pirateship.com/en/articles/1068213-can-i-use-priority-mail-cubic-with-a-softpack-or-...

Looks like a slick way to play the "box in a bag" game and perhaps save some shipping costs.

Scrolling down on the information one runs across this tidbit:

You can put a box into the envelope, as long as it's still shaped like an envelope!

USPS only cares about your outer packaging, so if there is a box inside your poly mailer or envelope, that's no problem. But you can't "shrink wrap" or tightly tape a bag or envelope around a box and call it an envelope. If it clearly has 3 dimensions, it is a box and you need to enter all 3 dimensions when purchasing postage.

So what does this mean? After all if I stuff a 3-in thick book into a bubble mailer, then the bubble mailer is going to have a noticeable "thickness!" So at what point is there a 3rd dimension? How does USPS interpret or define a "3rd dimension?"

Anyone?

@lja440

richard1rst · ‎11-27-2019

This only an opinion but, frankly, what you are proposing is cheating.

The idea of a poly or padded envelope getting a cheaper price is because it is flexible. Put a box in the envelope and it is not flexible anymore. Notice that they specifically EXCLUDE pleated expandable envelopes.

I'm betting that if too many people try to cheat the system then USPS will change things. I think that is why the sudden crack down on oversized boxes, and back charges for underpaid postage.

"Laissez-faire capitalism (AKA The Great Material Continuum) is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships." ~ Ayn Rand

lja440 · ‎11-28-2019

@no_zero369 wrote:
So earlier someone posted a link to PirateShip's advice on Cubic pricing with a softpack or poly-envelop.

https://support.pirateship.com/en/articles/1068213-can-i-use-priority-mail-cubic-with-a-softpack-or-...

Looks like a slick way to play the "box in a bag" game and perhaps save some shipping costs.

Scrolling down on the information one runs across this tidbit:

You can put a box into the envelope, as long as it's still shaped like an envelope!
USPS only cares about your outer packaging, so if there is a box inside your poly mailer or envelope, that's no problem. But you can't "shrink wrap" or tightly tape a bag or envelope around a box and call it an envelope. If it clearly has 3 dimensions, it is a box and you need to enter all 3 dimensions when purchasing postage.

So what does this mean? After all if I stuff a 3-in thick book into a bubble mailer, then the bubble mailer is going to have a noticeable "thickness!" So at what point is there a 3rd dimension? How does USPS interpret or define a "3rd dimension?"

Anyone?

@lja440

No. When measuring a package it is always measured at the thickest point . Here is how. AND YES THIS APPLYS TO A BOX IN A BAG.

https://postcalc.usps.com/Calculator/LargePackageProperties?country=0&ccode=US&oz=44663&omil=False&d...

no_zero369 · ‎11-28-2019

@lja440

Thank you for the reply! Makes sense. So where are the USPS rules surrounding this PM Cubic Softpack stuff?

Trying to reconcile the info from PirateShip.com

johnrj1226 · ‎11-28-2019

Pirateship claims this: Priority Mail Cubic is the best kept secret in the shipping industry. USPS calls these “Soft Pack Cubic Rates.”

I goggled "USPS Soft Pack Cubic Rates" - came up empty handed.

Maybe you can ask Pirate Ship about this.

"I have the right to remain silent but I didn't have the ability." Ron White, Fritch, Texas
"Stay away from negative people, they have a problem for every solution." A. Einstein
"The Devil made me do it!" - Flip Wilson
"If the band can only play loud - they ain't no good - peps too!" J.R. Johnson

mangorunner · ‎11-28-2019

@no_zero369 wrote:
@lja440
Where are the USPS rules surrounding this PM Cubic Softpack stuff?

Scroll down to section 1.4.4 Determining Cubic Tier Measurement for Soft Pack and Padded Envelopes:

https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/223.htm#ep1403990

no_zero369 · ‎11-28-2019

Thanks, that looks like exactly what PirateShip has as guidance on their website - looks like PS copied those rules over to their site.

I have a 15 x 11 bubble mailer. According to those tables this would ship at a 0.2 cubic price even though I could stuff shoes in there that would make the 3rd dimension 5-inches. So 11 x 15 x 5 = 825 825 / 1728 = 0.477 so clearly greater that the 0.2 cubic rate.

So we have a trusted source on these boards saying that one needs to count the thickness when doing the cubic calc, yet it appears from what the USPS DMM 223, 1.4.4 says is one only needs to measure the flat length and with and add them, not do a cubic calculation.

In fact, I ran a spread sheet of the numbers for a 0.5 cubic soft package (various lengths & widths) and it comes out that, in order to be less than 0.5 cubic, the maximum thickness is around 2.6 to 3.5-inches. So if the thickness does not count with this shipping method then one could stuff something thicker than 3-inches in the softpack and depending on weight it could be an attractive alternative.

Not stealing or cheating but being aware of what are the rules and working with in them to one's best advantage. Why pay more than one is required to pay? Seems like a tax on ignorance that I'd like to avoid.

nobody*s_perfect · ‎11-28-2019

@no_zero369 wrote: ... where are the USPS rules surrounding this PM Cubic Softpack stuff? ...

Here's the DMM section about it (see section 1.4.4). I see no clear definition of where they draw the line on soft pack vs package/box, so I can see how it would be abused. The very little that they do say, makes it sound like it's the Priority equivalent of what's called a "flat" in First Class Mail -- flexible, but FCM has a specific maximum thickness and Priority Cubic soft pack doesn't.

https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/223.htm#ep1405178

Sorry @mangorunner , somehow I didn't see your comment on my first time through the thread.

lja440 · ‎11-29-2019

@nobody*s_perfect wrote:
@no_zero369 wrote: ... where are the USPS rules surrounding this PM Cubic Softpack stuff? ...
Here's the DMM section about it (see section 1.4.4). I see no clear definition of where they draw the line on soft pack vs package/box, so I can see how it would be abused. The very little that they do say, makes it sound like it's the Priority equivalent of what's called a "flat" in First Class Mail -- flexible, but FCM has a specific maximum thickness and Priority Cubic soft pack doesn't.

https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/223.htm#ep1405178

Sorry @mangorunner , somehow I didn't see your comment on my first time through the thread.

It doesn't say anything about soft pack because it doesn't matter if it is hard or soft It is the measurements of the package that counts.

Think of it this way. The Priority 4 box (7"x7"x6") measures at 0.17 cubic foot and ships at 0.2. Now like your poly bag this arrives at your poly bag it arrives at your home flattened and if you would measure it that way it would be under the 0.10 cu/ft mark, but unless you are shipping something thin and flat you are going to open it and create a 0.17 shipping box which will ship at 0.2 cu/ft. Wrapping this in paper or a poly bag does not change this fact. Neither does filling the poly bag to bursting. YOU MEASURE THE PACKAGE NOT THE PACKAGEING.

no_zero369 · ‎11-29-2019

@lja440

I see what you are saying about the third dimension and it seems correct. However, that said, that is not what the DMM appears to state.

Cubic tier measurements for soft pack and padded envelopes are based on the outside dimensions of length plus width, in inches, of the original packaging material.

Then the DMM goes on to tell shipper how to use the soft pack cubic tier:

Determine cubic tier measurements as follows:

Measure the length and width separately in inches.
Round down (see 604.7.0) each measurement to the nearest 1/4 inch. For example, 10-1/8 inches is rounded down to 10 inches.
Add the two measurements together. The maximum total of length plus width cannot exceed 36 inches. See Exhibit 1.4.4 for corresponding price tiers.

So my questions is - If the DMM wanted to require shippers to use a third dimension, then it seems that would have been included in the statements, no? I note that the DMM states that IF an expandable side envelop is used THEN the type of calculation, where the third dimension is used, was specifically mentioned. So when the DMM specifically calls out expandable side envelops (pleated) and says those envelops need to be shipped with cubic pricing (by referring to 1.4.3) then it appears as though the DMM writers have thought about this issue, created this narrow exception (or some might call it a loophole) and even clarified it with the entire section 1.4.4. So it would appear as though all one needs to do with soft packs is measure length plus width, add those together, and compare the sum to the table shown. After all, I assume anything that gets codified in the DMM has been reviewed and scrutinized ad nauseum by many, many knowledgeable people.

Just like any law or regulation, there is the fine print to consider and this appears to be one place where reading carefully and understanding the fine print is to the advantage of a knowledgeable shipper.

But hey, I guess there are many out there that do not interpret the rules as written and wish to pay more than they are required? Or of course it is possible that the DMM is poorly written and this section is trash, which would point a huge finger of FAIL at many people who wrote, reviewed and approved the language therein.

lja440 · ‎11-30-2019

@no_zero369 wrote:
@lja440
I see what you are saying about the third dimension and it seems correct. However, that said, that is not what the DMM appears to state.

Cubic tier measurements for soft pack and padded envelopes are based on the outside dimensions of length plus width, in inches, of the original packaging material.

Then the DMM goes on to tell shipper how to use the soft pack cubic tier:

Determine cubic tier measurements as follows:
Measure the length and width separately in inches.
Round down (see 604.7.0) each measurement to the nearest 1/4 inch. For example, 10-1/8 inches is rounded down to 10 inches.
Add the two measurements together. The maximum total of length plus width cannot exceed 36 inches. See Exhibit 1.4.4 for corresponding price tiers.

So my questions is - If the DMM wanted to require shippers to use a third dimension, then it seems that would have been included in the statements, no? I note that the DMM states that IF an expandable side envelop is used THEN the type of calculation, where the third dimension is used, was specifically mentioned. So when the DMM specifically calls out expandable side envelops (pleated) and says those envelops need to be shipped with cubic pricing (by referring to 1.4.3) then it appears as though the DMM writers have thought about this issue, created this narrow exception (or some might call it a loophole) and even clarified it with the entire section 1.4.4. So it would appear as though all one needs to do with soft packs is measure length plus width, add those together, and compare the sum to the table shown. After all, I assume anything that gets codified in the DMM has been reviewed and scrutinized ad nauseum by many, many knowledgeable people.

Just like any law or regulation, there is the fine print to consider and this appears to be one place where reading carefully and understanding the fine print is to the advantage of a knowledgeable shipper.

But hey, I guess there are many out there that do not interpret the rules as written and wish to pay more than they are required? Or of course it is possible that the DMM is poorly written and this section is trash, which would point a huge finger of FAIL at many people who wrote, reviewed and approved the language therein.

I showed the tread to my Postmaster yesterday. He said NO WAY would that fly. It is always going to go on the weight and measurements of the package or letter. In fact as to letters and flats we have a template with slots. If the item does not easily fit through it it will exceed the max allowed.

This box in a bag thing is just the latest in a long line of "work arounds" that ultimately fail. Here is the most outlandish from the early https://www.thoughtco.com/sending-children-by-parcel-post-3976124

mangorunner · ‎11-30-2019

@lja440 wrote:
I showed the thread to my Postmaster yesterday. He said NO WAY would that fly. It is always going to go on the weight and measurements of the package or letter. In fact, as to letters and flats we have a template with slots. If the item does not easily fit through it it will exceed the max allowed.

Is your Postmaster implying that they test soft pack and padded envelopes, shipped via Priority Mail Commercial Plus Cubic - a valid and legitimate shipping method, with letters and flats "slots"?!

In a similar situation, I saw where a sender affixed this bright yellow label to their packages to educate any USPS employee who might be unfamiliar with the shipping method. (This label does not pertain to Cubic and neither the photo nor the label are not mine. I just saved a copy in case I might need to do something similar some time in the future. I am just sharing the idea. )

no_zero369 · ‎11-30-2019

@lja440 wrote:
I showed the tread to my Postmaster yesterday. He said NO WAY would that fly. It is always going to go on the weight and measurements of the package or letter. In fact as to letters and flats we have a template with slots. If the item does not easily fit through it it will exceed the max allowed.

This box in a bag thing is just the latest in a long line of "work arounds" that ultimately fail. Here is the most outlandish from the early https://www.thoughtco.com/sending-children-by-parcel-post-3976124

A few thoughts on this....

First, I appreciate you elevating this to your Post Master and getting that opinion. That is likely the answer. However, no judgement on your PM, but it would not be the first time that I have run into Government personal that do not know how to read or interpret regulations and toss their own interpretation in the mix. So I am skeptical that that is the 'final answer." Like I said, for something to end up in the DMM it needs many smart people to write it and many others review such, so I find it hard to fathom that all of the smart, dedicated people in the USPS would allow such a glaring hole.

Second, the fact is that the way that section, 1.4.4, is written it excludes the third dimension when it had every opportunity to mention it, and in fact only referred to the thickness dimension when talking about pleated envelops! Therefore, I would ask what is the PM or the USPS doing to clarify the guidance in the DMM or information found online? There can not be two interpretations of the rule and when something is moot on a prohibition, it appears to be allowed.

Third, I'll ask, tongue-in-cheek: So where is the template for items shipped Cubic Soft pack? If this were a "thing" one would expect USPS to have a template and thus stated thicknesses in the DMM.

And your historical article is a prime example of just what I mean about needing clarification. Since the rules did not specifically prohibit mailing of children, the USPS did their job and transported the child as paid for and shipped. So the same thing would apply here, since the DMM rules do not specifically prohibit a box in a bag (nor mention a thickness limit), if the Cubic Soft Pack label is purchased and the correct initial L x W dimensions used, then it would seem that the USPS has to deliver the package regardless of 'opinions' that are contrary and without additional fees.

Hey, I get it! This is a narrow interpretation of what is written, but it seems to be wide open to variable thicknesses of the soft packs since it is moot on the subject. Many will default to a narrow interpretation, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

Hey, I'm just saying!

no_zero369 · ‎11-30-2019

@mangorunner

Thanks for sharing that! Looks like that might be the solution - state there is no thickness limit to a Cubic Soft Pack and add a reference to the DMM and appropriate section.

You see, the reason that that seller felt it necessary to add that yellow label is likely that they ran into un-knowledgeable personnel in the USPS. Hey, it happens! I have been told by clerks that as long as the envelop is not altered (expanded) and the flap closes as normal it does not matter the size or shape of a FRE. So apparently not every USPS work is up to speed on that or is injecting their own interpretation of what is right!

mangorunner · ‎11-30-2019

@no_zero369 wrote:
You see, the reason that that seller felt it necessary to add that yellow label is likely that they ran into un-knowledgeable personnel in the USPS.

I understand the reason the label was affixed - hence, my post.

@no_zero369 wrote:
I have been told by clerks that as long as the envelope is not altered (expanded) and the flap closes as normal it does not matter the size or shape of a FRE. So apparently not every USPS work is up to speed on that or is injecting their own interpretation of what is right!

Am I missing something/sarcasm? Or are you unaware that the postal clerks are correct?: