You’re assuming that because you failed as a business, that any business that is reinventing itself will fail as well.
Reinventing itself and disemboweling itself are not the same thing. Twenty three years is not a failure. Age 63 and the immediate need for a double hip joint replacement a parent with terminal brain cancer and FDX's unlawful demand that I turn over the payroll and financial information regarding my little S Corp were the driving forces behind my leaving. I was simply done for physically In fact the terminal manager I know told me that I got out at a good time because settlement increases have not kept pace with contractor costs resulting in significant contractor and contractor employed driver turnover. He went on to say that managers are leaving due to lack of pay progression.
If taking a rational, objective view of an ongoing situation makes one a lap dog, then your spiteful celebration of the possibility of the failure of the company makes you a female dog.
Since you always have a far more rational and objective viewpoint than I have (or so you think) then answer the question. How much core business are they prepared to lose when the final disemboweling of the company is competed?
All of the unprofitable business, I would surmise.
I think they were trying to get out of having employees on the payroll not out of the plane business. But that ain't working out too well for them so they keep changing their plans.
That goes without saying but what about the profitable business with shippers who see the 'remade" FDX as incapable of meeting all of it's needs. How much of that are they prepared to lose?
Any business whose business model is to address every possible 'what if' situation doesn't really have a business model. A decision is made to conduct business in a certain manner, and an assessment is made after that decision has been implemented. Attempting to have a contingency plan for every possible scenario is a setup for failure.
I said they had a number they wanted and they were more than happy to walk away if they didn't get what they wanted.
" Finally, (Ground) getting paid for what they do"? Fine....Now is the contractor finally going to get paid for what he does?. Or is the contractor going to have to haul it for free?
No question Dano you can't blame them for offloading marginally profitable business. At the same time how many long term, dependable, good paying, high volume accounts are going to look at FDX and say , " we're not willing to run the risk of finding out the hard way what we already suspect....You can't get the job done with the cheap rinky dink operation you've stripped yourselves down to".
UPS, a smaller airline, has more empty space on aircrafts than a much bigger Express airline that’s currently dumping as much of its freight onto Ground as it possibly can? If UPS can turn a profit with this contract by filling their voids with postal, so could FedEx. Especially with the new Fedex obviously heading towards more voids on planes anyway. They didn’t want to fly the freight. Period. Any explanation for why UPS took the deal would’ve made sense for FedEx too. Because we’re transitioning to the exact same business model as them.
I understood that FedEx was flying Postal freight in idle airplanes, not so much in Express hauling flights. If UPS is filling their overnight under utilized capacity, that is a fundamentally different process.
if UPS has under utilized capacity so do we. We are in the same business. Planes sitting all day with zero freight on them has a cost as well…
That’s why they’re retiring them and writing off the cost.
What I’m saying is FedEx gave their biggest customer to UPS not because they couldn’t find a way to profit from the deal. But because we are run by stupid people.
