From The Chairman: Transition to Ground

[59 Dano]

Classified by who? Fred? Because he said so?

The government. If you want to participate, get up to speed.

 

[MrFedEx]

Let me ask you this, if FedEx Express is supposed to be automatically under the RLA under all the guidelines you say it is, then why did Fred have to pay off all those people on Capitol Hill with millions of dollars and woo them with being flown around all over the country and seats on the FDX board of directors when they retired from politics?

And why has this been referred to a "Special Deal?"

Brilliant point. If FedEx being RLA was unquestioned and obvious, why the expensive, secretive lobbying for an exemption? Weren't they already RLA? Why the extra layer of protection against a union?

This was literally snuck into the FAA Reauthorization Act at the very last minute, and was widely criticized as a Congressional gift to FedEx.

Again, why should there have been any controversy in the first place? Never mind that the IBT was trying to organize Express before Congress gave Fredward his Kryptonite.

 

[MrFedEx]

The government. If you want to participate, get up to speed.

You need to get up to speed, lackey. The "exemption" was an undeserved political gift to Fredward. Obviously, it's fine with a true believer like you, but, again, why the controversy in the first place and the need for a phony exemption?

 

[59 Dano]

You need to get up to speed, lackey. The "exemption" was an undeserved political gift to Fredward. Obviously, it's fine with a true believer like you, but, again, why the controversy in the first place and the need for a phony exemption?

They weren't granted an exemption. Don't know why it's so hard for you to understand this. They were already recognized as being covered by the RLA by the NMB and the court system. The express carrier wording was part of the RLA until 1995 or so, when the Interstate Commerce Commission suggested that the term was obsolete and lacked any meaning it was removed from several other pieces of legislation. For the purposes of the ICC, it was obsolete. However, for the NMB it still retained meaning as helping to determine if a company should be covered by the RLA or NLRA.

TL;DR: The wording of the act was restored to what the wording of the act was supposed to be and had been.

Seriously, why do I have to keep telling you what happened if you think you're the expert? Why is all of this so foreign to you? You keep playing these games instead of debating whether Express should be covered by the RLA as per the criteria that the government uses for this.

It's no surprise why you keep ducking and avoiding that particular discussion.

 

[Working4the1%]

Trump tells Governors to suck it on getting medical equipment for Covid 19. 01/21/2021........

 

[MrFedEx]

They weren't granted an exemption. Don't know why it's so hard for you to understand this. They were already recognized as being covered by the RLA by the NMB and the court system. The express carrier wording was part of the RLA until 1995 or so, when the Interstate Commerce Commission suggested that the term was obsolete and lacked any meaning it was removed from several other pieces of legislation. For the purposes of the ICC, it was obsolete. However, for the NMB it still retained meaning as helping to determine if a company should be covered by the RLA or NLRA.

TL;DR: The wording of the act was restored to what the wording of the act was supposed to be and had been.

Seriously, why do I have to keep telling you what happened if you think you're the expert? Why is all of this so foreign to you? You keep playing these games instead of debating whether Express should be covered by the RLA as per the criteria that the government uses for this.

It's no surprise why you keep ducking and avoiding that particular discussion.

Section 1223 of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act, sir.

 

[MrFedEx]

They weren't granted an exemption. Don't know why it's so hard for you to understand this. They were already recognized as being covered by the RLA by the NMB and the court system. The express carrier wording was part of the RLA until 1995 or so, when the Interstate Commerce Commission suggested that the term was obsolete and lacked any meaning it was removed from several other pieces of legislation. For the purposes of the ICC, it was obsolete. However, for the NMB it still retained meaning as helping to determine if a company should be covered by the RLA or NLRA.

TL;DR: The wording of the act was restored to what the wording of the act was supposed to be and had been.

Seriously, why do I have to keep telling you what happened if you think you're the expert? Why is all of this so foreign to you? You keep playing these games instead of debating whether Express should be covered by the RLA as per the criteria that the government uses for this.

It's no surprise why you keep ducking and avoiding that particular discussion.

The core issue is whether or not Express employees work for an "airline". While it's true that pilots and mechanics are properly classified as airline employees, beyond that, it's an elaborate ruse designed to make it always appear that FredEx is an airline.

I know you're a shill, but you pretend to be a manager. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true. You are a "station manager", not a "terminal" or "location manager". That's important, because "stations" are airline talk, "terminals" are truck talk. If you work for United Airlines in Los Angeles, for example, you work out of the LAX station. At John Wayne Airport, it's SNA station. There are actual aircraft operating out of that station. FedEx runs planes out of both LAX and SNA, BTW.

OK, let's say you work for Express at some remote location, as the vast majority of employees do. The nearest airport is 100 miles away, and you get your freight via a shuttle or CTV. FedEx still calls it a "station", with a "station manager", even though the nearest airport might be able to handle only a Cessna 172. FedEx frequently relies on general aviation airports with tiny runways or even seaplane bases in order to stretch the truth and call the location a "station".

The reality is that the vast majority of Express employees are simply truck drivers or clerks, not "Express Couriers" or CSA's. There we go again, because CSA is an airline term. More lies and obfuscation.

You're not a semi driver, you're a Ramp Transport Driver who drives a Container Transport Vehicle, even if there are no cans on the truck, just bulk loaded, 100% TRUCKED freight. And make no mistake, FedEx trucks everything it can. If you've ever been to MEM, OAK, or another hub, there are lots of CTVs going to remote stations that have never, ever seen a FedEx aircraft, and never will. The closest thing to a plane are the models on the desks. A lot of those trucks are bulk loaded with freight that was trucked or utilized bypass cans, and may not even have any aircraft containers on board. Most of the P2 on board probably came into the hub on a TRUCK to be sorted, and then left the hub in a TRUCK, never touching a plane.

So, it's like a 90/10 split between employees who are really just truck drivers vs. employees that actually deal with aircraft.

It's no surprise why you keep ducking and avoiding that particular discussion. Did you find Section 1223 of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act yet? It was huge news back then, with Gingrich and the GOP fighting for Fred while most of the Democrats were fighting for labor. And, as is well documented, the language was snuck-in at the last possible moment as a favor for Smith.

 

[MrFedEx]

Trump tells Governors to suck it on getting medical equipment for Covid 19. 01/21/2021........

Yeah, I saw that. Isn't he the greatest EVER? I think people are finally seeing that this Emperor has no clothes.

We're on our own, just the way the GOP wants it.

 

[MrFedEx]

They weren't granted an exemption. Don't know why it's so hard for you to understand this. They were already recognized as being covered by the RLA by the NMB and the court system. The express carrier wording was part of the RLA until 1995 or so, when the Interstate Commerce Commission suggested that the term was obsolete and lacked any meaning it was removed from several other pieces of legislation. For the purposes of the ICC, it was obsolete. However, for the NMB it still retained meaning as helping to determine if a company should be covered by the RLA or NLRA.

TL;DR: The wording of the act was restored to what the wording of the act was supposed to be and had been.

Seriously, why do I have to keep telling you what happened if you think you're the expert? Why is all of this so foreign to you? You keep playing these games instead of debating whether Express should be covered by the RLA as per the criteria that the government uses for this.

It's no surprise why you keep ducking and avoiding that particular discussion.

You mention 1995, not 1996. Why is that? The criteria to be met is whether FedEx is really an airline or a hybrid, which is 90% trucking, and, therefore, not a true airline. More of a trucking company with an airline component. Weren't you feebly arguing earlier that UPS Co. was an airline and RLA, and UPS Inc. was a trucking company? How is the hybrid FedEx Express any different? With the incorporation of Ground as a direct means of Express delivery, the "airline" argument gets even thinner. The trucking component of FedEx Express just vastly increased.

Let's go with a strict interpretation of airline, OK? That would mean that the pilots and mechanics would be split-off into FedEx "the airline", and everyone else would be FedEx, the trucking company. Just following the guidelines, Dano.

Let's do that. Make the pilots and mechanics RLA, and everyone else NLRA. I'm sure Fred would be fine with such a fair solution to the issue.

Pretending that any and all locations are "stations" with an airport identifier doesn't make it true that FedEx ops are "airline" ops. The vast majority of FedEx "stations" are simply truck terminals that have vans instead of semis. Calling it the Lubbock Terminal instead of LBB is far more accurate. Does LBB have a feeder aircraft or a truck? IDK. Are they going to start giving 3 and 4 letter airport identifiers to Ground facilities soon?

Keep trying.

 

[bacha29]

Yeah, I saw that. Isn't he the greatest EVER? I think people are finally seeing that this Emperor has no clothes.

We're on our own, just the way the GOP wants it.

COVID 19 has served to exasperate a recession that had been lingering in the shadows for the past couple of months. Orange Hair was obviously trying to downplay and minimize the impact the virus would have on recessionary conditions until after the election. But, this was one Jeanne he couldn't keep in the bottle.

 

[Fred's Myth]

COVID 19 has served to exasperate a recession that had been lingering in the shadows for the past couple of months. Orange Hair was obviously trying to downplay and minimize the impact the virus would have on recessionary conditions until after the election. But, this was one Jeanne he couldn't keep in the bottle.

Exasperate or exacerbate?

Jeanne was a Genie In ‘I Dream of Jeanne’.

And please don’t blame autocorrect.

BTW, what color is YOUR hair? AFF

 

[MrFedEx]

Exasperate or exacerbate?

Jeanne was a Genie In ‘I Dream of Jeanne’.

And please don’t blame autocorrect.

BTW, what color is YOUR hair? AFF

How about addressing the point at-hand? You can't, because you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so.

 

[bacha29]

How about addressing the point at-hand? You can't, because you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so.

They was no question that Orange Hair could have responded sooner. I talked this PM with a couple of my state's legislators and they made no attempt to hide the fact that COVID 19 has the potential to wreck the finances of state governments not just my own. The impact of the virus plus proposed reductions in federal support for key public services and social programs left the gentlemen I spoke to, one being a Democrat and the other a Republican in agreement that state taxes make have to be raised significantly not just in my state but in other states as well.
The states are the ones who may end up suffering to a greater extent than what they may have otherwise experienced.

 

[59 Dano]

The core issue is whether or not Express employees work for an "airline". While it's true that pilots and mechanics are properly classified as airline employees, beyond that, it's an elaborate ruse designed to make it always appear that FredEx is an airline.

It's an airline and has been under the RLA for decades.

The reality is that the vast majority of Express employees are simply truck drivers or clerks, not "Express Couriers" or CSA's. There we go again, because CSA is an airline term. More lies and obfuscation.

Here we go again. You don't know what you're talking about. A truck driver who primarily serves an airline is to be covered by the RLA.

Once again, I'm arguing from the position of knowing what the RLA is and how coverage is determined; you're making all sorts of station lawyer arguments. The NMB has a test to determine whether NLRA or RLA coverage is appropriate. A truck driver who primarily serves an airline is to be covered by the RLA.

It's no surprise why you keep ducking and avoiding that particular discussion. Did you find Section 1223 of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act yet? It was huge news back then, with Gingrich and the GOP fighting for Fred while most of the Democrats were fighting for labor. And, as is well documented, the language was snuck-in at the last possible moment as a favor for Smith.

Let me know when you're willing to debate the issue based on something other than your idea of how the RLA should be applied. I'm going by the rules, regulations, laws, and court decisions. I don't know what standards you're applying, but I accept your concession.

 

[59 Dano]

You mention 1995, not 1996. Why is that? The criteria to be met is whether FedEx is really an airline or a hybrid, which is 90% trucking, and, therefore, not a true airline. More of a trucking company with an airline component.

The criteria is set by the NMB, not some washed-up courier, and they don't recognize a hybrid.

Weren't you feebly arguing earlier that UPS Co. was an airline and RLA, and UPS Inc. was a trucking company? How is the hybrid FedEx Express any different?

No, I was stating a fact about two companies. Express is not two companies.

With the incorporation of Ground as a direct means of Express delivery, the "airline" argument gets even thinner. The trucking component of FedEx Express just vastly increased.

Let's go with a strict interpretation of airline, OK? That would mean that the pilots and mechanics would be split-off into FedEx "the airline", and everyone else would be FedEx, the trucking company. Just following the guidelines, Dano.

LOL, those aren't the guidelines. In fact, they are in direct conflict with the guidelines in letter, spirit, and application.

Pretending that any and all locations are "stations" with an airport identifier doesn't make it true that FedEx ops are "airline" ops. The vast majority of FedEx "stations" are simply truck terminals that have vans instead of semis. Calling it the Lubbock Terminal instead of LBB is far more accurate. Does LBB have a feeder aircraft or a truck? IDK. Are they going to start giving 3 and 4 letter airport identifiers to Ground facilities soon?

Keep trying.

You're so out of your league and the issue is so far above your head and beyond your comprehension that it's sad.

I appreciate your mental gymnastics in trying to explain why Express employees aren't airline employees because LBBA doesn't have airplanes, but a company doesn't even have to own, rent, or lease a single airplane to be covered by the RLA's airline provision.

You'd think the board's self-professed blowhard expert would know that.

 

[59 Dano]

Exasperate or exacerbate?

Jeanne was a Genie In ‘I Dream of Jeanne’.

And please don’t blame autocorrect.

BTW, what color is YOUR hair? AFF

Don't you like how he says that a recession was hiding? Must be a new economic concept.

 

[59 Dano]

Section 1223 of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act, sir.

Yes, that was re-inserted back into the act - which is what I said.

 

[MrFedEx]

Yes, that was re-inserted back into the act - which is what I said.

No, it isn't what you said. The 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act gave Fred his exemption. You obfuscate, as usual, and ignore the basic question and line of reasoning I outlined.

The vast majority of FedEx Express employees are mis-classified as airline employees, when, in fact, they are basically truck drivers and various personnel associated with trucking.

 

[MrFedEx]

Yes, that was re-inserted back into the act - which is what I said.

Inserted back into the Bill as Fred's gift? As usual, you take the company line all the way and ignore the real legal test, which is that of serving an "airline". The pilots and mechanics serve the airline. The drivers serve the trucking end of the company, which is, by far, the dominant portion of Express.

Read some of the papers written by the opposing side, sir. You'll see that the above question was that which was decided upon...in error, because revealing the true nature of FedEx operations meant it should not have been classified RLA. Therein lies the gift of mis-classification.

Who do the Ground drivers serve, Dano? Two masters? The previous Ground model, which was almost pure truck and rail, or the new model, which is a mix of Express packages and traditional FedEx Ground freight?

Therefore, it is not a valid legal test and is open to legal challenge as a result. Like I said, a gift, and not the intent of the parameters describing the duties of a driver serving an airline.

 

[Fred's Myth]

How about addressing the point at-hand? You can't, because you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so.

Unlike you, I prefer arguing from a point of knowledge on a rational base, not hurling invectives from a world that only exists in my mind.