JC :
It would be so much easier, and FAIR, to raise the regulation of one company, than to lower the regulations of many companies. UPS isn’t the only delivery company operating at a disadvantage! UPS’s Reputation speaks for itself and would never operate at an unfair level of competition and risk tarnishing it 100+ years or excellent service to it customers!

Tell that to R.E.A. Oh, that’s right, they’ve been out of business since the 70s. Thank you, UPS!

No evidence is being presented that this is true. The propaganda continues.

Why would localized strikes by couriers be more devastating to FedEx Express’ business and its hard earned reliability than the other guys? Well, consider that flying a regular flight to a specific city is no easy task and requires a lot of commitment. Having couriers the ability to strike in any city would drastically affect FedEx’s model. Remember, 85% of FedEx Express’ packages are moved by plane.

Consider if all of the couriers in Boston chose to strike. If this occurred, at least during the period of the strike, FedEx would have great difficulty (or outright inability) in delivering all of the packages to that city and still preserve the 10:30 a.m. money-back guarantee – which is the purpose of the RLA – to protect the consumer from this happening. So it may not make sense to run a flight to Boston during this localized strike (doing so would cost money for fuel, for pilots etc. yet no packages would reach their ultimate destination).

Consequently, because of the way the air-based network works, it may not even make sense to fly a plane with overnight packages OUT of Boston in this scenario because doing so would first require either flying an empty plane to Boston, or first flying a plane full of overnight cargo that can’t be delivered to Boston. The latter would mean using jet fuel to fly a plane full of overnight packages, unload the cargo, and then let the packages pile up until the demands of a localized group of couriers are met. Of course it would be easier and not as painful to a company and its customers to just send a truck to the same city and let a trailer full of 2 and 3 Day packages sit in a warehouse until the strike ends, at least if you were a Ground based company. But Fedex Express is not a Ground based company, yet everyone wants to say that they should be playing by the same rules as one that is.

It’s interesting that everyone is criticizing FedEx for threatening to not purchase all 30 Boeing 777s but at the same time they think FedEx should be playing by the same rules as the other company. I’m not saying FedEx should or shouldn’t buy all 30 but think about this: Why would FedEx, an airline-based delivery company that may be forced to play by rules that are more applicable to a Ground based delivery company (which FedEx Express isn‘t), buy even MORE planes without evaluating what effect such legislation would have on the company?

I also find it interesting that UPS has chose to switch sides on their belief of this issue. FedEx has always had the same stance. UPS tried for years in the 90s to get their air division reclassified under the RLA but failed. Now, they’ve switched their position.

Show me the bill which puts UPS drivers under the same law as FedEx Express drivers, and I’ll support it. Please give us the bill number and the lead sponsor.

Basically, you argue that it is unfair for UPS to be under tougher restrictions and regulations than FedEx – giving FedEx an unfair competitive advantage.

Your “solution” is to impose the same regulations and restrictions on Fed Ex out of fairness.

But that is comparable to saying some people pay 50% income tax, and others only 10% – so lets be fair and raise everyone’s tax to 50%.

The true LIBERTARIAN and Free Market response is to REDUCE the regulations and restricitons on UPS to match those of FedEx.

LESS REGULATION – NOT MORE.