Attention Couriers: The End is Nigh!

[dezguy]

Did you ever consider the same suggestion was made by someone else earlier than you.

Why not say it's been suggested, rather than it can't be done?

Obviously it could be done because they did it.

 

[Oldfart]

Why not say it's been suggested, rather than it can't be done?

Obviously it could be done because they did it.

Did you ever consider the person you suggested it to might not be the ONLY person feedback was given to. I imagine the powerpad group is a large one and are scattered all over the company. I am sure each hears many of the same suggestions.
When we 1st got powerpad. The delivery locations had the mailroom on the 2nd page and "In Bond" on the 1st page. That meant an extra action was needed to select you left the package in the mailroom and a very small % of people use "In Bond" that was on the 1st page. I kept telling the powerpad fella mailroom needed to be on the 1st page, along with receptionist, ship/rec and security. One day it was changed. Many other couriers had the same suggestion as I did and it was implemented. I didn't get recognition because with 50k or so people using the pad, I am sure many had the same thought that I did.

 

[MrFedEx]

FredEx has a long string of bad investments and poor business models. Not listening to his frontline employees has hurt him and the company more than anything.

This. My point has consistently been that FedEx (and Fred) have pulled some real boners in both vehicle and aircraft fleet decisions. The MD10 conversions were really expensive, and FedEx never realized returns on that investment because the aircraft didn't have a full service life....simple fact. All an MD10 is in essence is a DC10 with an MD11 cockpit, which eliminated the flight engineer position. It didn't hold any more freight, and it burned just as much fuel as a DC10.

Twin-engine freighters have been the way to go for a long time, but Fred went cheap. And when he did finally buy twin-engine Airbus models (A300 and A310), they were not very reliable aircraft. Neither had a full service life with FedEx.

I wish Airbus had built an A380F, because it would have been a huge white elephant. Please note that UPS is still buying 747-8 freighters, and presumably filling them, because they might buy more. Although it has 4 engines, there is nothing else out there that duplicates what the 747-8 can do.

Yes, maybe they should have asked around a bit and consulted front-line employees, but that isn't the FedEx way, is it?

 

[Oldfart]

This. My point has consistently been that FedEx (and Fred) have pulled some real boners in both vehicle and aircraft fleet decisions. The MD10 conversions were really expensive, and FedEx never realized returns on that investment because the aircraft didn't have a full service life....simple fact. All an MD10 is in essence is a DC10 with an MD11 cockpit, which eliminated the flight engineer position. It didn't hold any more freight, and it burned just as much fuel as a DC10.

Twin-engine freighters have been the way to go for a long time, but Fred went cheap. And when he did finally buy twin-engine Airbus models (A300 and A310), they were not very reliable aircraft. Neither had a full service life with FedEx.

I wish Airbus had built an A380F, because it would have been a huge white elephant. Please note that UPS is still buying 747-8 freighters, and presumably filling them, because they might buy more. Although it has 4 engines, there is nothing else out there that duplicates what the 747-8 can do.

Yes, maybe they should have asked around a bit and consulted front-line employees, but that isn't the FedEx way, is it?

It was foolish for the company to not have a poll at each hub and ask what plane we should base our fleet on.
We had 47's at one time and still use a couple for ad hoc flights at times. They are not ours but carry our freight as needed. I would imagine the GSE requirements make it difficult to have a small fleet of one plane. The 737 was done away with because to fully utilize the width, a different size container was needed and it was not smart to buy new cans for small segment of planes. Plus it was shorter than the 27 and held fewer cans.

 

[MrFedEx]

It was foolish for the company to not have a poll at each hub and ask what plane we should base our fleet on.
We had 47's at one time and still use a couple for ad hoc flights at times. They are not ours but carry our freight as needed. I would imagine the GSE requirements make it difficult to have a small fleet of one plane. The 737 was done away with because to fully utilize the width, a different size container was needed and it was not smart to buy new cans for small segment of planes. Plus it was shorter than the 27 and held fewer cans.

The 737 holds SAA cans. Fuselage is the same diameter as 727, 707, and 757.

 

[Cactus]

Yes, maybe they should have asked around a bit and consulted front-line employees, but that isn't the FedEx way, is it?

Nope. Too many egos in the way. I'm sure @59 Dano will spin it some other way.

 

[Cactus]

Strangely enough, most of the business suggestions that come from frontline employees are incredibly self-serving.

Might as well be something in it for us too, however you act like we're asking for a king's ransom along the way. After all, that's upper management's way of thinking.

 

[Oldfart]

The 737 holds SAA cans. Fuselage is the same diameter as 727, 707, and 757.

Might have same diameter but there was more dead space. Can't remember if it was an interior design difference or what. It has only been about 38 years ago that we got rid of the 737. Plus it was 1 can short of a 727-100 and 3 less than a 727-200 if memory serves me right. Either way, it wasn't smart to only have 3 or 4 737 when the 27 fleet was growing.

 

[59 Dano]

Key word being most...
Sure, I would like for a freightliner argosy, rather then a merc, but, we already have a number of merc trucks, and arnt going to get more till the lease is up on them all.. or, if we down under may start doing interstate line-haul (I hope we do)
I say hope, but not only for myself, but even as a business plan, it would save money in the long run as well, rather paying $3000 a night to outside companies, its just the cost of running the trucks, and the wage $27AUD an hour... cost on a guess using company drivers, would be around $2500 a night... so a $500 saving, per b-double... per night...

Noted.

 

[59 Dano]

Just so you know where I’m coming from, one of my SM’s asked for cost saving suggestions after 9-11 and dot.com.

I made several to management.

I was laughed at by same, told that couldn’t be done.

Until it was.

And credit was given to guess who?

I'll bet!

 

[59 Dano]

So you have seen some of the suggestions that the executives get from frontline employees? Can you give some examples?

These are some of the "business" suggestions...

*Topped out employees should get the least OT (made by mid-range employee who wanted OT).
*We should hire PT couriers to show up and provide P1 help if needed. If not needed, they would be sent home.
*Unneeded PT couriers shouldn't be sent home because we have to pay them anyway and they can take stops that certain couriers don't want to bother with.
*We shouldn't have to deliver freight from Amazon/Walmart/whoever.
*Should reopen a ramp location that gets its freight via CTV from a ramp an hour away.
*Shouldn't have to perform REX on bad addresses.
*Shouldn't have to make service on FOs/shouldn't have a money-back guarantee on them.
*FOs should have a much later commit time.

Those were common. There were also lots of others that weren't bad, as they showed a legitimate thought and logic, but weren't practical for reasons that weren't always obvious (increased liability, had been tried in the past but never worked, regulatory issues, etc.).

 

[59 Dano]

Save the smug comments for your conference calls. The people actually doing the job should know more than anyone.

Why don't they?

 

[59 Dano]

I suppose none of them involved getting your hands dirty.

Just out of curiosity, how dirty do your hands have to be in order to perform a regression analysis?

I may not have ALL the answers but I do know that May 4th falls on a Saturday this year. Ha, ha! Are you returning as some p/t cargo handler or something?

My bad. March 4th.

 

[59 Dano]

Same here. Was told it couldn't be done. A year later, the exact thing I suggested was programmed into the ppad, nationwide.

When I asked my manager if I was going to receive and recognition for it, I was told they would get back to me and never heard about it again.

It's the last suggestion I've given.

Why would you deserve recognition?

 

[59 Dano]

Corporate focus is centered on the courier and minimizing that expense, ignoring many elephants frolicking in the boardroom. I would dare say self-serving isn’t restricted to frontline employees.

It's hard to be self-serving when you're held accountable for your decisions and your work.

 

[59 Dano]

Nope. Too many egos in the way. I'm sure @59 Dano will spin it some other way.

"Hey frontline employee, loading cans at the ramp! Hey! We can choose from several planes. Which one do you think we should use? We're concerned about fuel efficiency, route distance, and maintenance costs. Tell us! We figure you should know because you scoot them around on a caster deck!"

 

[59 Dano]

Might as well be something in it for us too, however you act like we're asking for a king's ransom along the way. After all, that's upper management's way of thinking.

LOL, whatever.

 

[dezguy]

Why would you deserve recognition?

Why not?

Seen plenty a manager get a pat on the back for just doing their job, in my time.

 

[Fred's Myth]

It's hard to be self-serving when you're held accountable for your decisions and your work.

Ironic when you hear couriers should be held accountable for following a managers directions, by that manager.

Throw them under the bus to save your own skin. No big loss.

 

[Cactus]

Just out of curiosity, how dirty do your hands have to be in order to perform a regression analysis

That position seems as necessary as a lifeguard at a carwash.