Express volume finally moving to Ground...

[MrFedEx]

UPS faced a class action suit (and maybe others) for charging for their air service (along with respective fuel surcharges) and using the ground service to transport and deliver. Would you like to take a guess on how that turned out?

UPS isn't an "airline". There you go, cherry picking in a typical apples vs.bananas comparison. FedEx claims to be an airline. See the difference??

 

[MrFedEx]

So what happens when Express doesn't give it to Ground and doesn't deliver it on time?

I have a vendor that sends everything to me via Priority Overnight and I rarely get them on time (12:00 noon). Many times, it takes two days to get them. I haven't seen on this board that Express gives Ground the overnight packages yet. That is all on Express.

Express is not a stellar delivery company anymore and their tracking is atrocious. There is no longer in transit scanning by Express, your lucky if it gets a pickup scan, a scan in Memphis, then out for delivery. Ground at least shows scans at every building it goes through and sometimes as it travels. Express is just horrible.

There is no fallout for late Express service failures within the Express system other than potential refunds. The issue is if you tender a package to Express (and pay big bucks), do they have the right to scam you by promising Express service and instead giving you Ground. The boilerplate in the Service Guide shouldn't legally apply to the new hybrid model because it's now a planned bait and switch as opposed to perhaps moving freight out of network in an emergency. Advertising and promoting a premier AIR service has the consequence of forcing said carrier to deliver on it's promises. That isn't happening.

When I pay $125 for my tiny envelope or box to be there by 1030 the next day and Raj decides an oxcart can do the job, I have legal recourse because I have been deceived as a customer. Raj will also happily apply a jet fuel surcharge even if my freight goes with his ox or Dano's donkey, which adds another layer of fraud and deception.The fact that the donkey and Dano are intimately involved doesn't figure into the calculus. Sorry, Dano.

Dano and the defenders get on here and say FedEx is still an airline because it's always been an airline. That is so weak as to not really be an argument at all. The business model has been fundamentally changed. Therefore, the RLA status needs legal review and should be changed to the NLRA. Break-off Express and have it include the pilots and direct air employees only, just like the real airlines.

 

[59 Dano]

UPS isn't an "airline". There you go, cherry picking in a typical apples vs.bananas comparison. FedEx claims to be an airline. See the difference??

Irrelevant. Here was your issue:

There is a basic expectation that when a customer pays a very high rate, plus fuel surcharges, ODA charges etc. that their packages move in an expedited manner BY AIRCRAFT.

UPS was sued for charging air prices and air fees for packages that never once entered the air network. Suck it up, son.

 

[59 Dano]

There is no fallout for late Express service failures within the Express system other than potential refunds. The issue is if you tender a package to Express (and pay big bucks), do they have the right to scam you by promising Express service and instead giving you Ground. The boilerplate in the Service Guide shouldn't legally apply to the new hybrid model because it's now a planned bait and switch as opposed to perhaps moving freight out of network in an emergency.

That's some mighty fine lawyerin'.

When I pay $125 for my tiny envelope or box to be there by 1030 the next day and Raj decides an oxcart can do the job, I have legal recourse because I have been deceived as a customer.

Nope. In fact, as long as a package gets there on time, you have absolutely no claim to anything. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Dano and the defenders get on here and say FedEx is still an airline because it's always been an airline. That is so weak as to not really be an argument at all. The business model has been fundamentally changed. Therefore, the RLA status needs legal review and should be changed to the NLRA. Break-off Express and have it include the pilots and direct air employees only, just like the real airlines.

I say FedEx Express is an airline because of one thing: it's an airline. Your "business model" straw man is meaningless.

You might as well be honest and simply admit that you don't want Express to be considered an airline because it gets in the way of your union wet dream.

 

[Star B]

Break-off Express and have it include the pilots and direct air employees only, just like the real airlines.

So, where do you draw the line? Ramp agents? What about FO CRRs that also are based at the ramp but don't touch the airplane? RTDs? What happens if you're in some weird-ass station that all the CRRs load up on the ramp?

 

[MAKAVELI]

Irrelevant. Here was your issue:



UPS was sued for charging air prices and air fees for packages that never once entered the air network. Suck it up, son.

You keep claiming that but provide no proof. Lol

 

[MAKAVELI]

So, where do you draw the line? Ramp agents? What about FO CRRs that also are based at the ramp but don't touch the airplane? RTDs? What happens if you're in some weird-ass station that all the CRRs load up on the ramp?

It's easy. If you have no direct position or duties directly involved with the " airline " operation, you shouldn't be under the RLA.

 

[btrlov]

express service was doomed when it thought they can replace pay progression with trinkets and bagels... lol

 

[yadig]

That's some mighty fine lawyerin'.


Nope. In fact, as long as a package gets there on time, you have absolutely no claim to anything. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.


I say FedEx Express is an airline because of one thing: it's an airline. Your "business model" straw man is meaningless.

You might as well be honest and simply admit that you don't want Express to be considered an airline because it gets in the way of your union wet dream.

It was a airline in the 70’s and 80’s. The company has changed drastically since they bought ground. They are being pressured by Wall Street, profit margins to combine the two together. It’s starting to happen and before long we will look identical to UPS. Will FedEx express still be a airline then? Raj is on the record wanting to combine the two and when that happens we will no longer be a airline.

 

[zeev]

Money is being pushed to Ground the transition with Raj to blame will happen quickly. FedEx couriers will compete with Amazon wages not UPS wages. Also as long as FedEx owns a plane it will be an airline, not that it matters in a contractor model.

 

[MrFedEx]

That's some mighty fine lawyerin'.


Nope. In fact, as long as a package gets there on time, you have absolutely no claim to anything. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.


I say FedEx Express is an airline because of one thing: it's an airline. Your "business model" straw man is meaningless.

You might as well be honest and simply admit that you don't want Express to be considered an airline because it gets in the way of your union wet dream.

Here's your argument, which is nonsensical. "FedEx is an airline because it's always been an airline". Except when it isn't an airline any longer. The business model has fundamentally changed, so how is that a straw man argument? Based on your "logic", UPS could also claim to be an airline. Why don't they do that and claim RLA status? Better yet, why don't they make the rational argument that a direct competitor has been gifted a legislative advantage which it never deserved, and certainly doesn't qualify for now.

As far as the delivery liability deal goes, wait and see, sir. Flim-flamming the consumer usually doesn't go well, and government entities move like glaciers as we've seen with your Orange Hero. The packages aren't getting there on time, and haven't for quite awhile.

When your "airline" is about 80% trucking, it stretches the bounds of credulity. Let's say Southwest Airlines decides to bus 80% of their passengers tomorrow and scrap most of their 737 fleet. Are they still an airline? According to you , they are, and they could still charge customers for service by air even though they traveled by bus. See the problem?

The whole RLA Exemption deal has stunk from Day One, and it smells worse now. Ask Raj what to say next. We'll wait.

 

[Cactus]

Dano will never understand. Fred won’t let him and neither will Raj. That kind of thinking is frowned upon at shill school.

 

[59 Dano]

You keep claiming that but provide no proof. Lol

Shot:

The complaint, filed in Denver, accuses the Atlanta-based company of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent nondisclosure, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

The "Air-In-Ground" program which UPS implemented in 1995 was designed to identify and sort "air" packages that could be transported by "ground" transport and still arrive at their destination on time.

According to the complaint, UPS's Air-In-Ground program demonstrates the premeditated actions of UPS because the company agrees and accepts payment for air shipping yet has been "systematically and deliberately" substituting the far less expensive ground shipping services.
...
Further, the complaint states that UPS charged its customers "fuel surcharges" to compensate for the rising costs of "jet fuel" knowing that those packages would never see the inside of a plane.

UPS targeted in class action suit

DENVER (Legal Newsline)- United Parcel Service Inc., one of the nation's largest private shippers, is the target of a class action lawsuit over its Air-In-Ground program.

legalnewsline.com

Chaser:

The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims that UPS breached the shipping contracts by transporting their "Air" packages by truck instead of airplane. These claims rest on the premise that the word "Air" in UPS's trademarked service names was a contractual promise by UPS to use airplane transportation.
...
From 1995 until 2001, the contracts provided that "Some air shipments may be shipped by surface transportation." In 2000 and 2001, the contracts also provided that "UPS will determine, in its sole discretion, the mode(s) of transportation for packages shipped via [Next Day and 2nd Day] Services" and that those packages "may be shipped by air or surface transportation, or both, at UPS's sole discretion." And from 2002 to the present, the contracts provided that "UPS reserves the right in its sole discretion to use any mode of transportation whatsoever to provide the services selected by the shipper."
...
Plaintiffs try to inject ambiguity into these clear contract provisions based on the word "Air" in UPS's service names, asserting that "Air" services "plainly referred to `air transport.'" This interpretation conflates UPS's "services" with modes of "transportation" despite the above-quoted contract provisions distinguishing these two concepts. Plaintiffs cannot override the clear contract terms by relying on their "subjective understanding" of the single word "Air," isolated from its context as part of a service name.
...
The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims that UPS breached the shipping contracts by imposing on their truck-transported "Air" packages a fuel surcharge derived from indexed prices of jet fuel instead of diesel fuel. Plaintiffs' interpretation finds no support in the shipping contracts, which expressly authorized UPS to apply a "fuel surcharge" to "such services and for such periods as UPS, in its sole discretion, may determine necessary." The contracts do not in any way limit UPS's "sole discretion" to use only certain fuel indexes, and the contracts plainly link the fuel surcharges to UPS's service levels, not to particular modes of transportation.
...
Arapahoe asserts that UPS affirmatively misrepresented that it would transport Arapahoe's "Air" packages by airplane and charge a diesel fuel surcharge. This claim is premised entirely on UPS's use of the word "Air" in the service name, and it fails for the same reasons as the breach-of-contract claims—the word "Air" was not an affirmative representation that UPS would use a particular mode of transportation or impose a particular fuel surcharge.
...
Arapahoe also contends that UPS's use of the word "Air" in the service name constituted a misleading "half-truth" because it led customers to believe "that they would receive something beyond Ground service in return for purchasing premium Air service, while concealing that they would receive nothing additional." This argument once again conflates UPS's service levels with modes of transportation; the fact that Arapahoe's "Next Day Air" packages were transported by truck does not mean that Arapahoe received "Ground" service.

IN RE UNITED PARCEL SERVI | No. 16-55918. | 20190423172 | Leagle.com

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs shipped packages relatively short distances via Next Day Air and 2nd Day Air...20190423172

www.leagle.com

You keep claiming that but provide no proof. Lol

Lol

 

[59 Dano]

Here's your argument, which is nonsensical. "FedEx is an airline because it's always been an airline". Except when it isn't an airline any longer. The business model has fundamentally changed, so how is that a straw man argument? Based on your "logic", UPS could also claim to be an airline. Why don't they do that and claim RLA status?

My argument is that Express is an airline that owns hundreds of planes that fly hundreds of flights every day.

As for UPS? You're not smart enough to know this, but UPS Inc. is the ground component, and United Parcel Service Company is the air component. UPS Co. is an RLA company. UPS Inc. sought to coverage under the RLA in the nineties. Guess how it turned out.

When your "airline" is about 80% trucking, it stretches the bounds of credulity.

Oh, my friend. You're so lost here. So lost. So. Very. Lost.

UPS argued essentially the same thing, minus the made up statistic, with its MrFedEx approved whataboutism logic of "But but but Express!!!" The court pointed out, correctly so, that the trucking component of Express exists almost entirely to service its RLA carriage.

Let's say Southwest Airlines decides to bus 80% of their passengers tomorrow and scrap most of their 737 fleet. Are they still an airline? According to you , they are, and they could still charge customers for service by air even though they traveled by bus. See the problem?

Yes, the problem is clear. You're talking about stupid hypotheticals, I'm talking about things that actually happened. And what happened? You just got served. Sometimes I feel like I'm playing 4-D chess (even though I can't play regular chess) while you're trying to figure out the Cracker Barrel peg game.

 

[59 Dano]

It's easy. If you have no direct position or duties directly involved with the " airline " operation, you shouldn't be under the RLA.

Says who?

 

[MrFedEx]

It's easy. If you have no direct position or duties directly involved with the " airline " operation, you shouldn't be under the RLA.

This. Exactly.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Shot:

The complaint, filed in Denver, accuses the Atlanta-based company of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent nondisclosure, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

The "Air-In-Ground" program which UPS implemented in 1995 was designed to identify and sort "air" packages that could be transported by "ground" transport and still arrive at their destination on time.

According to the complaint, UPS's Air-In-Ground program demonstrates the premeditated actions of UPS because the company agrees and accepts payment for air shipping yet has been "systematically and deliberately" substituting the far less expensive ground shipping services.
...
Further, the complaint states that UPS charged its customers "fuel surcharges" to compensate for the rising costs of "jet fuel" knowing that those packages would never see the inside of a plane.

UPS targeted in class action suit

DENVER (Legal Newsline)- United Parcel Service Inc., one of the nation's largest private shippers, is the target of a class action lawsuit over its Air-In-Ground program.

legalnewsline.com

Chaser:

The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims that UPS breached the shipping contracts by transporting their "Air" packages by truck instead of airplane. These claims rest on the premise that the word "Air" in UPS's trademarked service names was a contractual promise by UPS to use airplane transportation.
...
From 1995 until 2001, the contracts provided that "Some air shipments may be shipped by surface transportation." In 2000 and 2001, the contracts also provided that "UPS will determine, in its sole discretion, the mode(s) of transportation for packages shipped via [Next Day and 2nd Day] Services" and that those packages "may be shipped by air or surface transportation, or both, at UPS's sole discretion." And from 2002 to the present, the contracts provided that "UPS reserves the right in its sole discretion to use any mode of transportation whatsoever to provide the services selected by the shipper."
...
Plaintiffs try to inject ambiguity into these clear contract provisions based on the word "Air" in UPS's service names, asserting that "Air" services "plainly referred to `air transport.'" This interpretation conflates UPS's "services" with modes of "transportation" despite the above-quoted contract provisions distinguishing these two concepts. Plaintiffs cannot override the clear contract terms by relying on their "subjective understanding" of the single word "Air," isolated from its context as part of a service name.
...
The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims that UPS breached the shipping contracts by imposing on their truck-transported "Air" packages a fuel surcharge derived from indexed prices of jet fuel instead of diesel fuel. Plaintiffs' interpretation finds no support in the shipping contracts, which expressly authorized UPS to apply a "fuel surcharge" to "such services and for such periods as UPS, in its sole discretion, may determine necessary." The contracts do not in any way limit UPS's "sole discretion" to use only certain fuel indexes, and the contracts plainly link the fuel surcharges to UPS's service levels, not to particular modes of transportation.
...
Arapahoe asserts that UPS affirmatively misrepresented that it would transport Arapahoe's "Air" packages by airplane and charge a diesel fuel surcharge. This claim is premised entirely on UPS's use of the word "Air" in the service name, and it fails for the same reasons as the breach-of-contract claims—the word "Air" was not an affirmative representation that UPS would use a particular mode of transportation or impose a particular fuel surcharge.
...
Arapahoe also contends that UPS's use of the word "Air" in the service name constituted a misleading "half-truth" because it led customers to believe "that they would receive something beyond Ground service in return for purchasing premium Air service, while concealing that they would receive nothing additional." This argument once again conflates UPS's service levels with modes of transportation; the fact that Arapahoe's "Next Day Air" packages were transported by truck does not mean that Arapahoe received "Ground" service.

IN RE UNITED PARCEL SERVI | No. 16-55918. | 20190423172 | Leagle.com

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs shipped packages relatively short distances via Next Day Air and 2nd Day Air...20190423172

www.leagle.com

Lol

You're missing one important difference. UPS Air and Ground are combined where FedEx has separate OPCOs. Again why is Express pu these packages if they are Ground pkgs?

 

[MAKAVELI]

Says who?

Are Ground Drivers delivering " Express " packages under the RLA?

 

[floridays]

Shot:

The complaint, filed in Denver, accuses the Atlanta-based company of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent nondisclosure, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

The "Air-In-Ground" program which UPS implemented in 1995 was designed to identify and sort "air" packages that could be transported by "ground" transport and still arrive at their destination on time.

According to the complaint, UPS's Air-In-Ground program demonstrates the premeditated actions of UPS because the company agrees and accepts payment for air shipping yet has been "systematically and deliberately" substituting the far less expensive ground shipping services.
...
Further, the complaint states that UPS charged its customers "fuel surcharges" to compensate for the rising costs of "jet fuel" knowing that those packages would never see the inside of a plane.

UPS targeted in class action suit

DENVER (Legal Newsline)- United Parcel Service Inc., one of the nation's largest private shippers, is the target of a class action lawsuit over its Air-In-Ground program.

legalnewsline.com

Chaser:

The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims that UPS breached the shipping contracts by transporting their "Air" packages by truck instead of airplane. These claims rest on the premise that the word "Air" in UPS's trademarked service names was a contractual promise by UPS to use airplane transportation.
...
From 1995 until 2001, the contracts provided that "Some air shipments may be shipped by surface transportation." In 2000 and 2001, the contracts also provided that "UPS will determine, in its sole discretion, the mode(s) of transportation for packages shipped via [Next Day and 2nd Day] Services" and that those packages "may be shipped by air or surface transportation, or both, at UPS's sole discretion." And from 2002 to the present, the contracts provided that "UPS reserves the right in its sole discretion to use any mode of transportation whatsoever to provide the services selected by the shipper."
...
Plaintiffs try to inject ambiguity into these clear contract provisions based on the word "Air" in UPS's service names, asserting that "Air" services "plainly referred to `air transport.'" This interpretation conflates UPS's "services" with modes of "transportation" despite the above-quoted contract provisions distinguishing these two concepts. Plaintiffs cannot override the clear contract terms by relying on their "subjective understanding" of the single word "Air," isolated from its context as part of a service name.
...
The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims that UPS breached the shipping contracts by imposing on their truck-transported "Air" packages a fuel surcharge derived from indexed prices of jet fuel instead of diesel fuel. Plaintiffs' interpretation finds no support in the shipping contracts, which expressly authorized UPS to apply a "fuel surcharge" to "such services and for such periods as UPS, in its sole discretion, may determine necessary." The contracts do not in any way limit UPS's "sole discretion" to use only certain fuel indexes, and the contracts plainly link the fuel surcharges to UPS's service levels, not to particular modes of transportation.
...
Arapahoe asserts that UPS affirmatively misrepresented that it would transport Arapahoe's "Air" packages by airplane and charge a diesel fuel surcharge. This claim is premised entirely on UPS's use of the word "Air" in the service name, and it fails for the same reasons as the breach-of-contract claims—the word "Air" was not an affirmative representation that UPS would use a particular mode of transportation or impose a particular fuel surcharge.
...
Arapahoe also contends that UPS's use of the word "Air" in the service name constituted a misleading "half-truth" because it led customers to believe "that they would receive something beyond Ground service in return for purchasing premium Air service, while concealing that they would receive nothing additional." This argument once again conflates UPS's service levels with modes of transportation; the fact that Arapahoe's "Next Day Air" packages were transported by truck does not mean that Arapahoe received "Ground" service.

IN RE UNITED PARCEL SERVI | No. 16-55918. | 20190423172 | Leagle.com

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs shipped packages relatively short distances via Next Day Air and 2nd Day Air...20190423172

www.leagle.com

Lol

I wouldn't be so quick to lol.

As you have stated numerous times, Federal Express Corp., (currentley FedEX) was incorporated as an airline.
Under the same set of facts I doubt the Court would be as lenient or forgiving for an "airline."

Let's say a 53 footer of express freight is being trucked from Memphis to St. Louis and some jackass in a black Challenger is doing jackass things, and a massive wreck results, maybe the trailer burns.

Mem to Stl flights all land, walk in the park, everything makes the ramp, except the 53 footer strewn on I 55.
Trailer didn't burn, but time sensitive airline freight ain't makin it nonetheless

The argument or persuasiveness, of the plaintiff's counsel could dictate a different outcome, I guess the freight trucked and client could dictate his effort.

It doesn't happen often, not sure it has yet.

The Express airline trucks a lot of freight,

 

[floridays]

Says who?

Anyone with enough sense, that hasn't been lobbied, to understand what an airline is, and exactly who and why title 45 subchapter II was enacted.

The statute was not enacted to deny one particular group of employees, that did not exist when enacted, the opportunity to organize. Remember, Frederick W. Smith was the sharpest tool in the shed, no one anticipated him changing the definition of an airline.

The statute was not enacted to protect future a business idea from worker representation 45 years in the future.


Without lobbying of politicians and administrative reliance on antiquated definitions to protect a new business model from organizing it's clear.

A hybrid business as fedex is easy to recognize.

Says who?

Honest people, without being lobbied.