As the July 3 extension deadline for the FAA reauthorization bill nears, the FedEx disinformation campaign against a provision in the bill closing a loophole that gives the company a “significant advantage” over its competitors has gone super-nova. In an op/ed published by The Hill on June 21, David Branczek, president and CEO of FedEx Express, laments that the FAA bill is in limbo:

“The holdup is a 230-word provision inserted into the House bill that would change the federal labor law that governs FedEx Express, one of the world’s largest airlines. The provision is extraneous to the legislation, having no broad impact on air safety or infrastructure upgrades.

“But it would help UPS and its primary union, the Teamsters. Indeed, the provision is anti-competitive and would unfairly benefit one company, UPS, while targeting only FedEx Express. Put another way, it amounts to a legislative bailout. The Senate version of the FAA bill does not contain the UPS provision, and the Senate version received bipartisan support, passing the Senate 93-0.”

A few points:

• FedEx Express is not an airline; at least not in the way most people think of airlines. It is, in reality, a package delivery company which uses both airplanes and trucks to provide its services. So is UPS. It, too, uses both airplanes and trucks to deliver its packages.

• Is the provision in question “extraneous” to the bill? For argument’s sake, let’s concede that it is; however, FedEx hasn’t spent almost $10 million over the last six months on lobbyists who don’t know that adding “extraneous” provisions to “must pass” bills is the coin of the realm in Washington.

• The provision being debated is actually an effort to remove an extraneous provision which gave FedEx this special treatment in the 1996 FAA re-authorization bill in the first place. What’s that old saying about sauce for the goose?

• This issue has nothing to do with organized labor; it has everything to do with equality under law.

• The provision isn’t “anti-competitive.” Indeed, all it does is level the playing field by taking away what amounts to letting FedEx “hit from the ladies tees.”

• This provision doesn’t “unfairly benefit one company.” This provision repeals a previous provision which has unfairly benefited one company, FedEx, for over a decade.

• This is not a legislative bailout; it’s closing a legislative loophole. Or maybe more accurately, it’s eliminating a form of corporate welfare presently enjoyed by FedEx.

• As FedEx and its lobbyists know, the only reason the Senate version of the bill didn’t include the FedEx loophole provision is because the Senate knew the issue would ultimately be resolved in reconciliation.

As every Senator knows, the 93-0 vote wasn’t a vote against the provision itself; it was simply a vote to move the issue forward. To suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous. Then again, the entire FedEx campaign against this provision has been disingenuous from the beginning.

Like how FedEx tries to excuse their special treatment under the law by referring to its so-called “integrated air-ground delivery system.” Now consider for a moment exactly what this would mean if a real airline took the same position.

Suppose Delta expanded its operations by adding a taxicab service called it Delta Express. And borrowing from the FedEx fantasy, let’s say Delta claimed its new taxicab drivers were picking up and dropping off passengers as part of an “integrated air-ground delivery system.” Would any objective person think those new Delta Express cab drivers were pilots who should be treated under federal labor law differently from every other cab driver in the nation?

Of course not.

This is not a complicated issue despite FedEx’s multi-million dollar attempt to make it so.

Very few people in this country can fly a 747. That’s why FedEx Express pilots are rightly covered under the RLA (Railway Labor Act). But even 16-year-olds can drive a delivery van. Which is why every delivery driver in the nation – other than FedEx Express drivers – is covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

This “extraneous” provision in the FAA bill rights a wrong in federal labor law. A driver is a driver. A driver is not a pilot. A driver should be treated under the law as a driver. And we urge Congress to close the FedEx loophole which treats FedEx Express drivers, and only FedEx Express drivers, like pilots.