We asked earlier this month who would deliver Christmas, given the remorseless growth of e-commerce and the dearth of drivers joining the road transport industry.

The statement seems all the more prescient now, as last week Yodel found itself once again [don’t mention poppies] on the receiving end of the wrong sort of headlines, as it struggled to keep goods moving through its extensive network in the face of unprecedented demand.

In an admirable move it came clean and opted to keep consumers updated with regular missives on its website. This was supported by a statement that quite fairly noted the imported madness of Black Friday and ever increasing online volumes meant that yes, there was a backlog and yes, it had temporally stopped processing packages in a bid to catch up (this it has now done) but essentially it had been overwhelmed.

Yodel said parcel volume as a consequence of Black Friday spiked by more than a quarter around the event, and has suggested that its overall Christmas volume is around 16% ahead of what its retail customers collectively forecast it would be.

After all, it is not as if Yodel didn’t prepare for the winter rush. It added 13 sortation centres in the run up and thousands of temporary staff.

This brings us back to the point, made over a number of years by several commentators, about delivery charges: in essence we as consumers, much like our relationship with the internet itself, have been bought up by the likes of Amazon and co. to expect fast and free delivery. We’ll pay extra for something we really desperately need but only grudgingly.

To that end, Yodel’s decision to highlight the unsustainability of the current model should be applauded. Road transport would be better served if more operators, especially within the parcel sector, did exactly that.

The best Christmas gift for the sector would be an honest conversation with retailers and the public about what an effective and fast delivery service truly costs.