DHL needs to close doors in Ohio
08-17-2008, 11:08 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 747
Posts: 1,290
Jungle,
FYI, Astar is a privately held company. Closed books.
Until 2002 DHL was privately held as well. Closed books prior to that.
A couple of points to consider:
1. DPWN had a net profit of over 5.5 Billion. 40% of their freight goes into, out of, or through the US. To say that the company loses 1 Billion a year in the US is very misleading when you have a global company. The US may be an expensive arena, but the company still makes money despite the costs here. To shut down the US market would shut down 40% of their business and they will not do that because they really DO make money and while it may not be IN the US, it is BECAUSE of the US that they do.
2. The losses in the US may include the air operation, but are not BECAUSE of the air operation. Prior to the Airborne purchase, the cost of doing business in the US was entirely acceptable to DHL. After the purchase, the scope of their business increased by 3 or 400 percent as did their costs.
3. The deal with UPS will accomplish two things: 1 - They will spend over 3 Billion dollars the first year to cover the costs of transferring the freight over to UPS, and 2 - they will have established a relationship with UPS (which involves cargo pricing and tracking) that will lead to a permanent "cooperative" partnership with them.
While we are thinking that this is the dumbest thing that DHL has ever done, it very well may be the smartest. If they fool the U.S. Judicial System and they do not lose the anti-trust suit when it is brought forth, they will have, in effect, created a merger of global proportions without ever having merged.
While I know this would spell disaster for us at ABX/Astar, I leave it to you to figure out if it will ultimately be to your benefit at UPS to be forever married to DHL.
8driver
08-18-2008, 12:17 AM
#62
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
DHL contract-a good question, perhaps some of the ABX/Astar guys can tell us what their contracts say about the current situation.
08-18-2008, 12:24 AM
#63
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Jumping to his conclusions again. The accounting is relevant.
I’ve posted this on another thread, but here are US Rep. Mike Turner’s thoughts:
“Rewind to just five years ago and you will find DHL operating at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky airport, Emery Worldwide operating at the Dayton airport, and Airborne Express operating in Wilmington.….. Reportedly, Emery and Airborne operated profitably with DHL operating with minimal losses.
Five years ago, if UPS and DHL had announced the formation of a strategic alliance that would include the acquisition of Emery and Airborne and the consolidation of all four companies' U.S. operations, antitrust alarms would be blaring. Certainly, this new transaction needs to be viewed in light of the possibility that the acquisitions of Emery and Airborne were steps one and two of a stepped transaction. Perhaps, the UPS-DHL combination is step three.”
(Emery was simply bought out and shut down by UPS. Coincidence, I’m sure)
I’ve also said that watching DHL in ILN the last few years has been like watching a company trying to fail. I could cite plenty of examples. Not going to bother with it here. But if one is to make the case that, as Rep Turner suggests, this is all part of a grand plan, then they’d need to show that the US operation is a money loser for DHL, so they can rationalize shutting ILN down. That makes the accounting questions relevant to an anti-trust allegation. Remember DPWN made €6 Billion last year. Will the Congressional Inquiry delve deep enough to get into all this? Doubt it, but who knows.
And what’s the end game of this “grand plan”? I doubt this UPS/DHL relationship is fully played out. But remember we’re in the early innings of Open Skies.
Like Congress?
I’ve posted this on another thread, but here are US Rep. Mike Turner’s thoughts:
“Rewind to just five years ago and you will find DHL operating at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky airport, Emery Worldwide operating at the Dayton airport, and Airborne Express operating in Wilmington.….. Reportedly, Emery and Airborne operated profitably with DHL operating with minimal losses.
Five years ago, if UPS and DHL had announced the formation of a strategic alliance that would include the acquisition of Emery and Airborne and the consolidation of all four companies' U.S. operations, antitrust alarms would be blaring. Certainly, this new transaction needs to be viewed in light of the possibility that the acquisitions of Emery and Airborne were steps one and two of a stepped transaction. Perhaps, the UPS-DHL combination is step three.”
(Emery was simply bought out and shut down by UPS. Coincidence, I’m sure)
I’ve also said that watching DHL in ILN the last few years has been like watching a company trying to fail. I could cite plenty of examples. Not going to bother with it here. But if one is to make the case that, as Rep Turner suggests, this is all part of a grand plan, then they’d need to show that the US operation is a money loser for DHL, so they can rationalize shutting ILN down. That makes the accounting questions relevant to an anti-trust allegation. Remember DPWN made €6 Billion last year. Will the Congressional Inquiry delve deep enough to get into all this? Doubt it, but who knows.
And what’s the end game of this “grand plan”? I doubt this UPS/DHL relationship is fully played out. But remember we’re in the early innings of Open Skies.
Like Congress?
What happened five years ago and what is happening now are two entirely different games. You still haven't showed us any concern at all by Congress over accounting issues. What DPWN makes in the rest of the world markets is completely irrelevant to their loss in the US. The argument you make is that they should subsidize you, and I don't think that is valid.
If this is such a massive conspiracy, don't you find it odd that only a few politicos have stepped up to complain, mainly those who's voting base is impacted?
08-18-2008, 12:33 AM
#64
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
"
Jungle,
FYI, Astar is a privately held company. Closed books.
Until 2002 DHL was privately held as well. Closed books prior to that.
A couple of points to consider:
1. DPWN had a net profit of over 5.5 Billion. 40% of their freight goes into, out of, or through the US. To say that the company loses 1 Billion a year in the US is very misleading when you have a global company. The US may be an expensive arena, but the company still makes money despite the costs here. To shut down the US market would shut down 40% of their business and they will not do that because they really DO make money and while it may not be IN the US, it is BECAUSE of the US that they do.
2. The losses in the US may include the air operation, but are not BECAUSE of the air operation. Prior to the Airborne purchase, the cost of doing business in the US was entirely acceptable to DHL. After the purchase, the scope of their business increased by 3 or 400 percent as did their costs.
3. The deal with UPS will accomplish two things: 1 - They will spend over 3 Billion dollars the first year to cover the costs of transferring the freight over to UPS, and 2 - they will have established a relationship with UPS (which involves cargo pricing and tracking) that will lead to a permanent "cooperative" partnership with them.
While we are thinking that this is the dumbest thing that DHL has ever done, it very well may be the smartest. If they fool the U.S. Judicial System and they do not lose the anti-trust suit when it is brought forth, they will have, in effect, created a merger of global proportions without ever having merged.
While I know this would spell disaster for us at ABX/Astar, I leave it to you to figure out if it will ultimately be to your benefit at UPS to be forever married to DHL.
8driver
Jungle,
FYI, Astar is a privately held company. Closed books.
Until 2002 DHL was privately held as well. Closed books prior to that.
A couple of points to consider:
1. DPWN had a net profit of over 5.5 Billion. 40% of their freight goes into, out of, or through the US. To say that the company loses 1 Billion a year in the US is very misleading when you have a global company. The US may be an expensive arena, but the company still makes money despite the costs here. To shut down the US market would shut down 40% of their business and they will not do that because they really DO make money and while it may not be IN the US, it is BECAUSE of the US that they do.
2. The losses in the US may include the air operation, but are not BECAUSE of the air operation. Prior to the Airborne purchase, the cost of doing business in the US was entirely acceptable to DHL. After the purchase, the scope of their business increased by 3 or 400 percent as did their costs.
3. The deal with UPS will accomplish two things: 1 - They will spend over 3 Billion dollars the first year to cover the costs of transferring the freight over to UPS, and 2 - they will have established a relationship with UPS (which involves cargo pricing and tracking) that will lead to a permanent "cooperative" partnership with them.
While we are thinking that this is the dumbest thing that DHL has ever done, it very well may be the smartest. If they fool the U.S. Judicial System and they do not lose the anti-trust suit when it is brought forth, they will have, in effect, created a merger of global proportions without ever having merged.
While I know this would spell disaster for us at ABX/Astar, I leave it to you to figure out if it will ultimately be to your benefit at UPS to be forever married to DHL.
8driver
I agree that we don't know the ultimate evolution with these giants of logistics, but I think you can agree that they both plan to make money by not having to reproduce critical infrastructure on both sides of the pond.
This is probably not the best news for some of their employees, and it doesn't lead to big growth for either pilot group.
As far as closed books-DHL, UPS and ABX are indeed public and it is. as you have noted, folly to presume they are only subject to the respective company's review.
As far as fooling the Judicial system and creating a merger by deceit, I don't see that happening. What I do see is two very large companies purchasing services from a menu as it suits them to make both of them more competitive. This happens across other industries quite often and it is becoming more common with true global industry. Our US government Postal monopoly in fact follows this same method.
Last edited by jungle; 08-18-2008 at 12:45 AM.
08-18-2008, 06:23 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DC-8 756/767
Posts: 1,144
Actually, they don't have to fool anyone. The reality of the situation is that there is NO ANTI-TRUST case to bring about. I beg some of you to please look up the definition and then talk to someone such as a lawyer who know something about the matter. Don't trust the politicians with their "catch phrases" about "anti-trust" investigations. You guys are being led down a road that does not exist. Sorry......
08-18-2008, 07:20 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,874
Actually, they don't have to fool anyone. The reality of the situation is that there is NO ANTI-TRUST case to bring about. I beg some of you to please look up the definition and then talk to someone such as a lawyer who know something about the matter. Don't trust the politicians with their "catch phrases" about "anti-trust" investigations. You guys are being led down a road that does not exist. Sorry......
Last edited by nitefr8dog; 08-18-2008 at 07:21 AM. Reason: missed word
08-18-2008, 08:19 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DC-8 756/767
Posts: 1,144
You haven't met the UPS lawyers have you?? Good luck..and I do mean it.
08-18-2008, 08:24 AM
#68
Banned
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 540
Realize the lawyers perspective. They will get paid FIRST regardless of all else.
08-18-2008, 08:28 AM
#69
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 1
Jumping to his conclusions again. The accounting is relevant.
I’ve posted this on another thread, but here are US Rep. Mike Turner’s thoughts:
“Rewind to just five years ago and you will find DHL operating at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky airport, Emery Worldwide operating at the Dayton airport, and Airborne Express operating in Wilmington.….. Reportedly, Emery and Airborne operated profitably with DHL operating with minimal losses.
Five years ago, if UPS and DHL had announced the formation of a strategic alliance that would include the acquisition of Emery and Airborne and the consolidation of all four companies' U.S. operations, antitrust alarms would be blaring. Certainly, this new transaction needs to be viewed in light of the possibility that the acquisitions of Emery and Airborne were steps one and two of a stepped transaction. Perhaps, the UPS-DHL combination is step three.”
(Emery was simply bought out and shut down by UPS. Coincidence, I’m sure)
I’ve also said that watching DHL in ILN the last few years has been like watching a company trying to fail. I could cite plenty of examples. Not going to bother with it here. But if one is to make the case that, as Rep Turner suggests, this is all part of a grand plan, then they’d need to show that the US operation is a money loser for DHL, so they can rationalize shutting ILN down. That makes the accounting questions relevant to an anti-trust allegation. Remember DPWN made €6 Billion last year. Will the Congressional Inquiry delve deep enough to get into all this? Doubt it, but who knows.
And what’s the end game of this “grand plan”? I doubt this UPS/DHL relationship is fully played out. But remember we’re in the early innings of Open Skies.
Like Congress?
I’ve posted this on another thread, but here are US Rep. Mike Turner’s thoughts:
“Rewind to just five years ago and you will find DHL operating at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky airport, Emery Worldwide operating at the Dayton airport, and Airborne Express operating in Wilmington.….. Reportedly, Emery and Airborne operated profitably with DHL operating with minimal losses.
Five years ago, if UPS and DHL had announced the formation of a strategic alliance that would include the acquisition of Emery and Airborne and the consolidation of all four companies' U.S. operations, antitrust alarms would be blaring. Certainly, this new transaction needs to be viewed in light of the possibility that the acquisitions of Emery and Airborne were steps one and two of a stepped transaction. Perhaps, the UPS-DHL combination is step three.”
(Emery was simply bought out and shut down by UPS. Coincidence, I’m sure)
I’ve also said that watching DHL in ILN the last few years has been like watching a company trying to fail. I could cite plenty of examples. Not going to bother with it here. But if one is to make the case that, as Rep Turner suggests, this is all part of a grand plan, then they’d need to show that the US operation is a money loser for DHL, so they can rationalize shutting ILN down. That makes the accounting questions relevant to an anti-trust allegation. Remember DPWN made €6 Billion last year. Will the Congressional Inquiry delve deep enough to get into all this? Doubt it, but who knows.
And what’s the end game of this “grand plan”? I doubt this UPS/DHL relationship is fully played out. But remember we’re in the early innings of Open Skies.
Like Congress?
Not saying your wrong maybe it was the big plan of the CEO's to make Brown the big dog and get some nice payouts to start closing facilities.
Last edited by SaberPilot; 08-18-2008 at 08:42 AM.
08-18-2008, 08:33 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DC-8 756/767
Posts: 1,144
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
