Search

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Brown Bailout

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-10-2009, 08:48 PM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by highsky
Jeez Louise...Read your own article. UPS wasn't required to cease any ad. UPS voluntarily removed ads that may have been predicated on superceded surveys. This decision was not mandated by any magistrate.

Apparently in your book, two wrongs make a right. I'm sure your fine mother taught you otherwise...

Would you like me to go back and quote your idiotic rant about slander that prompted me to post the reference to the (self admitted) false advertising by UPS. It aint personal it is just business. UPS plays it and FDX plays it. You don't see anyone here ranting about UPS actions do you (brown guys accepted)? What did your mother teach you about playing nice?

And the brown bailout ad is funny.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 08:54 PM
  #32  
Part Time Employee
 
MaxKts's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Default

Originally Posted by highsky
Jeez Louise...Read your own article. UPS wasn't required to cease any ad. UPS voluntarily removed ads that may have been predicated on superceded surveys. This decision was not mandated by any magistrate.

Apparently in your book, two wrongs make a right. I'm sure your fine mother taught you otherwise...

Jeez Louise... Read what he wrote. Did he anywhere say it was required or mandated?

And if working under the NLRA is so great why did Brown initially fight so hard to get their airline side under the RLA?
MaxKts is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 05:53 AM
  #33  
Tri-tanic operator
 
CactusCrew's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Default

disregard ....

Last edited by CactusCrew; 06-11-2009 at 07:57 AM.
CactusCrew is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 07:15 AM
  #34  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 8
Default

There are cancelation clauses with severe penalties in all of these purchase contracts. When all of the airlines backed out of the Airbus contracts due to production issues, etc... they all paid millions inculeding UPS.
olshop is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 07:49 AM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 767 Cap
Posts: 1,306
Default

Originally Posted by olshop
There are cancelation clauses with severe penalties in all of these purchase contracts. When all of the airlines backed out of the Airbus contracts due to production issues, etc... they all paid millions inculeding UPS.

Uhh, catch up with the news, bud. We have a clause in the Fedex contract with Boeing for the second 15 777s and option for 15 more, allowing Fred to cancel if Fedex's status is changed from RLA to NLRA. That's the basis for this whole thread!
fdx727pilot is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 08:02 AM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Here is the part of the FEDEX position:

You may have seen reports in the media recently regarding one of the provisions that was included in the documents related to our recent exercise of our option to purchase 15 additional B777F aircraft. The clause stipulates that if FedEx Express or any of its employees is removed from the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act, the purchase of those aircraft is canceled.
This provision was included in the contract as a precaution against a major change in the circumstances of our business – the circumstances upon which we based our fleet plans. It is a reasonable contingency to put in place because a change of that magnitude could affect the structure of our network or the fundamentals of our business model.
The issue of RLA jurisdiction is one that we have discussed in detail a number of times over our 36 year history. FedEx Express has been covered by that law since the company’s first day of operation. It is an issue that will continue to receive significant media attention in the coming weeks as UPS and the Teamsters continue their combined lobbying efforts with Congress to disrupt our status under the law.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 08:41 AM
  #37  
New Hire
 
Captain Crunch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B757/767 Captain
Posts: 9
Default

Originally Posted by R1200RT
Why does it have to be a level playing field?

Life isn't fair, some folks are smarter, or luckier when they start a business. FedEx started as an airline, UPS started as a trucking company. FedEx is more of an airline than trucking company and UPS is more of a trucking company than airline. UPS being 50 years older should have done it differently when they started flying airplanes a few years ago.

Play the cards that are in your hand and don't pull any cards out of your sleeve. Sounds like a lot of executives crying "he has a better deal than I do" get over it. One thing is for sure it doesn't involve anyone on this board. I guess it could cost the FedEx guys some advancement if it cost us some 777s in the future.
UPS, not the pilot's union would be just as satisfied to have all the UPS truck drivers under the RLA. In fact they lobbied to have that done after the first IPA contract when they saw how mediation, cooling off, and the PEB worked. Unfortunately for them FedEx lobbied against it, they happen to have a former executive that was the FAA Administrator at that time, and I'm sure he was consulted and advised on the ramifications to the administration. I think all UPS would like is that we all play by the same rules, then the smarter ones would have to rely on their smarts, and the lucky ones would have to rely on their luck. The argument would hold less weight if FedEx hadn't started competing on the ground.
Captain Crunch is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 10:09 AM
  #38  
Line Holder
 
Pharo351's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 38
Default

I don't see what the fuss is all about! I go take a "Brown-bail-out" in my bathroom everyday!
Pharo351 is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 10:34 AM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Busdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 480
Default

Recieved this from Senator Corker (R Tennessee)



Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding certain labor provisions in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.



I am extremely disappointed that the provision regarding FedEx and their current labor classification was included in H.R.915, the House version of the FAA reauthorization bill. FedEx has made exceptional contributions to our state's economy and to the Memphis region, and I agree with you that this provision would have a negative impact on FedEx and on our state. H.R.915 has been moving through the committee process but has not yet reached the House floor. As we consider FAA reauthorization in the Senate, please know that I will do what I can to make sure that this provision is not included in the final version of any bill. The insight and information you have given here will certainly help my staff and me more effectively look into this issue, and I thank you for your input.



Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me as I serve you in the United States Senate.





Sincerely,

Bob Corker
United States Senator
Busdrivr is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 10:58 AM
  #40  
Living the dream!
 
R1200RT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 915
Default

Originally Posted by Captain Crunch
UPS, not the pilot's union would be just as satisfied to have all the UPS truck drivers under the RLA. In fact they lobbied to have that done after the first IPA contract when they saw how mediation, cooling off, and the PEB worked. Unfortunately for them FedEx lobbied against it, they happen to have a former executive that was the FAA Administrator at that time, and I'm sure he was consulted and advised on the ramifications to the administration. I think all UPS would like is that we all play by the same rules, then the smarter ones would have to rely on their smarts, and the lucky ones would have to rely on their luck. The argument would hold less weight if FedEx hadn't started competing on the ground.
I just don't understand why we all have to play by the same rules. We've operated under the same rules since 1972 and you guys have operated under the same rules for 100 years. I'm sure FedEx would agree to getting out of the ground service if UPS would get back out of the air service. UPS was flying airplanes long before FedEx made any serious push into the ground service arena. And, like you said UPS has been trying for years to get under the RLA, but alas UPS is a trucking company, and the best one in the world I'm sure. FedEx operates more airplanes than any other airline in the world and has the largest wide body fleet in the world, I'd say that sounds like an airline.
R1200RT is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MoonDoggie
Cargo
2
03-01-2009 03:33 AM
taylorjets
Cargo
23
02-26-2009 02:57 PM
jungle
Money Talk
3
01-12-2009 07:31 AM
Joachim
Hangar Talk
47
10-04-2008 07:16 AM
ryan1234
Hangar Talk
2
10-03-2008 03:35 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices