New OT Policy En Route

[zeev]

Shareholders are being told June 2024 ,managers are planning their exit.

 

[59 Dano]

So there’s nothing that could’ve been done to make it work…. Got it. Just say it dude. They want fewer planes in the air. They want fewer RTD’s trucking postal around. They want fewer Ramp Agents & material handlers balancing & loading postal flights. They simply didn’t want to keep that going, so they threw out demands they knew the post office couldn’t agree to.

A multitude of analysts (me included) worked on this for several months. We worked through every possible scenario and accounted for every possible combination of variables that we could come up with. Just about any change that made the postal volume a more viable revenue stream created an offsetting inefficiency or cost elsewhere.

Our team presented three options for the proposed contract period. One was to leave the bulk of the operation as-is, with a minimal ability to scale it down based on projected (and promised) declines in volume. It would begin losing money early in the contract and get worse as time went on. The second option was to respond to volume decreases throughout the duration of the contract with corresponding downsizing of aircraft. The main problem with that was that it shuffled an inefficiency from one air route to another, and there are costs each time that kind of deployment change is made. The final option was the non-renewal of the contract. It provided a significant impact on the bottom line from the start. It created in increase in revenue per hour flown, a major decrease in excess capacity per hour flown. One of the bigger benefits is that it frees up assets (people, time, money, equipment) to be deployed where they would be more effective.

We made our presentations and got grilled. And grilled some more. And then a little more.

Just say it dude. They want fewer planes in the air. They want fewer RTD’s trucking postal around. They want fewer Ramp Agents & material handlers balancing & loading postal flights. They simply didn’t want to keep that going, so they threw out demands they knew the post office couldn’t agree to.

They didn't care how many planes, trucks, or people were to be dedicated to postal volume, they just wanted the revenue to justify the cost of doing so.

If you don't think they looked for a way to make it work (and pushed those of us on this project to find it), again, you don't know what you're talking about. Dude.

 

[yadig]

A multitude of analysts (me included) worked on this for several months. We worked through every possible scenario and accounted for every possible combination of variables that we could come up with. Just about any change that made the postal volume a more viable revenue stream created an offsetting inefficiency or cost elsewhere.

Our team presented three options for the proposed contract period. One was to leave the bulk of the operation as-is, with a minimal ability to scale it down based on projected (and promised) declines in volume. It would begin losing money early in the contract and get worse as time went on. The second option was to respond to volume decreases throughout the duration of the contract with corresponding downsizing of aircraft. The main problem with that was that it shuffled an inefficiency from one air route to another, and there are costs each time that kind of deployment change is made. The final option was the non-renewal of the contract. It provided a significant impact on the bottom line from the start. It created in increase in revenue per hour flown, a major decrease in excess capacity per hour flown. One of the bigger benefits is that it frees up assets (people, time, money, equipment) to be deployed where they would be more effective.

We made our presentations and got grilled. And grilled some more. And then a little more.



They didn't care how many planes, trucks, or people were to be dedicated to postal volume, they just wanted the revenue to justify the cost of doing so.

If you don't think they looked for a way to make it work (and pushed those of us on this project to find it), again, you don't know what you're talking about. Dude.

It makes sense now guys!! Dano was working on making postal profitable.

 

[Aquaman]

A multitude of analysts (me included) worked on this for several months. We worked through every possible scenario and accounted for every possible combination of variables that we could come up with. Just about any change that made the postal volume a more viable revenue stream created an offsetting inefficiency or cost elsewhere.

Our team presented three options for the proposed contract period. One was to leave the bulk of the operation as-is, with a minimal ability to scale it down based on projected (and promised) declines in volume. It would begin losing money early in the contract and get worse as time went on. The second option was to respond to volume decreases throughout the duration of the contract with corresponding downsizing of aircraft. The main problem with that was that it shuffled an inefficiency from one air route to another, and there are costs each time that kind of deployment change is made. The final option was the non-renewal of the contract. It provided a significant impact on the bottom line from the start. It created in increase in revenue per hour flown, a major decrease in excess capacity per hour flown. One of the bigger benefits is that it frees up assets (people, time, money, equipment) to be deployed where they would be more effective.

We made our presentations and got grilled. And grilled some more. And then a little more.



They didn't care how many planes, trucks, or people were to be dedicated to postal volume, they just wanted the revenue to justify the cost of doing so.

If you don't think they looked for a way to make it work (and pushed those of us on this project to find it), again, you don't know what you're talking about. Dude.

You worked for months and all you came up with was
1. Leave everything alone
2. Operation is non adjustable
3. Lose the contract
Ya man I can see why you guys got grilled…. They definitely put the big thinkers on this. Great problem solving. I find it very hard to believe you guys could find zero flexibility within this operation to move lower volume. Did you even look at trucking it in the areas a smaller plane would be problematic? RTD’s are massively underutilized at this company. The company uses them for 3 deliveries, a ramp shuttle and a 4 hour nap. Load these guys up with postal across the country and move some of it that way. Just seems lazy to say “a smaller plane forces the bigger plane problem on another area.” Ya no duh, so we’re saying lower volume is essentially a eat the cost situation because we can’t logistically adapt to it. If that’s the answer… seems like we should’ve just kept the low volume. Because having a dayside operation sitting around doing nothing now, has quite a bit of cost as well.

 

[MAKAVELI]

You worked for months and all you came up with was
1. Leave everything alone
2. Operation is non adjustable
3. Lose the contract
Ya man I can see why you guys got grilled….

These incompetent Duchebags couldn't figure out how to make a taco stand in LA profitable let alone a 1+ $ billion a year contract profitable.

 

[Aquaman]

These incompetent Duchebags couldn't figure out how to make a taco stand in LA profitable let alone a 1+ $ billion a year contract profitable.

“Sir our planes too big, too empty, no deal”

Can we shift smaller planes to markets with lower postal volume, mixing in as much RTD trucking as possible?

“Too pricey. That just moves big empty plane to other low volume area”

All our areas are low volume? Don’t some areas ship more postal than others?

“Me don’t know. Our planes too big and empty for everywhere”

Okay what about our truck drivers?

“Oh we don’t use them for anything farther than 2 hours. We contract OUTSIDE truckers for that”

Seems like a redundant cost but okay you’re right. Drop the contract. Nothing can be done.

 

[yadig]

“Sir our planes too big, too empty, no deal”

Can we shift smaller planes to markets with lower postal volume, mixing in as much RTD trucking as possible?

“Too pricey. That just moves big empty plane to other low volume area”

All our areas are low volume? Don’t some areas ship more postal than others?

“Me don’t know. Our planes too big and empty for everywhere”

Okay what about our truck drivers?

“Oh we don’t use them for anything farther than 2 hours. We contract OUTSIDE truckers for that”

Seems like a redundant cost but okay you’re right. Drop the contract. Nothing can be done.

FedEx is horribly mismanaged and Dano’s the proof!

 

[FedupExpress]

Please enlighten me. As in fully transitioned no late than 2030?

The Sustainable Development Agenda - United Nations Sustainable Development

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals - Time for Global Action for People and Planet

www.un.org

Please enlighten me. As in fully transitioned no late th

 

[Fred's Myth]

So there’s nothing that could’ve been done to make it work…. Got it. Just say it dude. They want fewer planes in the air. They want fewer RTD’s trucking postal around. They want fewer Ramp Agents & material handlers balancing & loading postal flights. They simply didn’t want to keep that going, so they threw out demands they knew the post office couldn’t agree to.

“Brandon Oglenski at Barclays Bank in March estimated FedEx could cut 50% of its daytime network capacity without the Postal Service commitment, saving the company $1.5 billion per year.”

 

[Vin71]

The Sustainable Development Agenda - United Nations Sustainable Development

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals - Time for Global Action for People and Planet

www.un.org

Ah gotcha, so nothing will change. Or we will just have to bomb countries to stimulate refugee flows. And provide aid in the form of bill packages that hurt regular people. I can’t wait to see it.

 

[zeev]

You worked for months and all you came up with was
1. Leave everything alone
2. Operation is non adjustable
3. Lose the contract
Ya man I can see why you guys got grilled…. They definitely put the big thinkers on this. Great problem solving. I find it very hard to believe you guys could find zero flexibility within this operation to move lower volume. Did you even look at trucking it in the areas a smaller plane would be problematic? RTD’s are massively underutilized at this company. The company uses them for 3 deliveries, a ramp shuttle and a 4 hour nap. Load these guys up with postal across the country and move some of it that way. Just seems lazy to say “a smaller plane forces the bigger plane problem on another area.” Ya no duh, so we’re saying lower volume is essentially a eat the cost situation because we can’t logistically adapt to it. If that’s the answer… seems like we should’ve just kept the low volume. Because having a dayside operation sitting around doing nothing now, has quite a bit of cost as well.

 

[zeev]

“Sir our planes too big, too empty, no deal”

Can we shift smaller planes to markets with lower postal volume, mixing in as much RTD trucking as possible?

“Too pricey. That just moves big empty plane to other low volume area”

All our areas are low volume? Don’t some areas ship more postal than others?

“Me don’t know. Our planes too big and empty for everywhere”

Okay what about our truck drivers?

“Oh we don’t use them for anything farther than 2 hours. We contract OUTSIDE truckers for that”

Seems like a redundant cost but okay you’re right. Drop the contract. Nothing can be done.

UPS will be happy to pickup the contract FedEx is dropping the plane network will be a freight forwarder.

 

[59 Dano]

You worked for months and all you came up with was
1. Leave everything alone
2. Operation is non adjustable
3. Lose the contract

LOL, no. Like I said (perhaps you missed it), "We worked through every possible scenario and accounted for every possible combination of variables that we could come up with."

Here's the catch. This isn't Dream World where you can pick and choose any variables you want, at no cost, with no limitations, and with no adverse affects on other parts of the operation.

Ya man I can see why you guys got grilled…. They definitely put the big thinkers on this. Great problem solving. I find it very hard to believe you guys could find zero flexibility within this operation to move lower volume. Did you even look at trucking it in the areas a smaller plane would be problematic?

There is plenty of flexibility to move lower volume. Moving it and making decent money at is a different animal altogether.

You seem to have this all figured out. Any particular reason why no one bothers asking you for your input? I can think of a couple...

RTD’s are massively underutilized at this company. The company uses them for 3 deliveries, a ramp shuttle and a 4 hour nap. Load these guys up with postal across the country and move some of it that way. Just seems lazy to say “a smaller plane forces the bigger plane problem on another area.” Ya no duh, so we’re saying lower volume is essentially an eat the cost situation because we can’t logistically adapt to it. If that’s the answer… seems like we should’ve just kept the low volume. Because having a dayside operation sitting around doing nothing now, has quite a bit of cost as well.

Until they eliminate those positions and the employees find other shifts within the company or seek employment elsewhere.

 

[59 Dano]

“Brandon Oglenski at Barclays Bank in March estimated FedEx could cut 50% of its daytime network capacity without the Postal Service commitment, saving the company $1.5 billion per year.”

Let the contract lapse and see a $1.5 billion boost to the bottom line
-or-
Keep the contract, and all the expenses, and all the risk, for an imperceptible benefit to the bottom line.

Such a hard decision to make!

 

[vantexan]

“Sir our planes too big, too empty, no deal”

Can we shift smaller planes to markets with lower postal volume, mixing in as much RTD trucking as possible?

“Too pricey. That just moves big empty plane to other low volume area”

All our areas are low volume? Don’t some areas ship more postal than others?

“Me don’t know. Our planes too big and empty for everywhere”

Okay what about our truck drivers?

“Oh we don’t use them for anything farther than 2 hours. We contract OUTSIDE truckers for that”

Seems like a redundant cost but okay you’re right. Drop the contract. Nothing can be done.

If FedEx is making minimal on the USPS contract, but will net an extra $1.5 billion profit by getting rid of it, then how does it help the rank and file for them to keep the contract?

 

[MAKAVELI]

If FedEx is making minimal on the USPS contract, but will net an extra $1.5 billion profit by getting rid of it, then how does it help the rank and file for them to keep the contract?

FedEx is making minimal on the USPS contract because management is incompetent. The only way FedEx knows how to make a profit is by using contractors.

 

[vantexan]

FedEx is making minimal on the USPS contract because management is incompetent. The only way FedEx knows how to make a profit is by using contractors.

OK, you think FedEx could clear more than $1.5 billion on the USPS contract if management was competent? How would you suggest that they do that?

 

[MAKAVELI]

OK, you think FedEx could clear more than $1.5 billion on the USPS contract if management was competent? How would you suggest that they do that?

Hire competent people who actually know what they are doing. It's not that complicated. FedEx only knows how to make a profit by using contractors.

 

[vantexan]

Hire competent people who actually know what they are doing. It's not that complicated. FedEx only knows how to make a profit by using contractors.

FedEx has been flying freight for decades. They may be greedy, but they aren't incompetent. I do think they're going out on a limb relying on contractors though.

 

[MAKAVELI]

FedEx has been flying freight for decades. They may be greedy, but they aren't incompetent. I do think they're going out on a limb relying on contractors though.

You've been gone for quite a while. This isn't the same FedEx you worked for. Mckinsey is running the show. Look up how they've ed up so many companies and countries for that matter..