If the tables were turned UPS/ASTAR(DHL Airways INC)

[Whistlin' Dan]

How about this? Who's history is right?

That's a pretty accurate account of the events leading to the formation of UPS' airline. I'd be interested in knowing the source. What if doesn't explain, however, is why UPS employed multiple carriers to fly similar aircraft types. Any difficulties they had "managing so many contract carriers" were surely compounded by the fact that each type of aircraft was being operated by as many as 4 different contractors. Any of the contractors operating UPS' 727's, for axample, would have gladly taken over responsibility for that entire fleet. Doing so would have greatly eased the burden of managing those operations. However, "gaining control" of their 727 fleet would have left UPS reliant upon a single carrier for that fleet. I think their decision to spread responsibility for that fleet among several carriers was so they couldn't be held hostage to a single labor group, as they are now.

The same could be said for the DC-8. I believe there were 3 contractors operating them (your source doesn't mention Rosenbalm). I don't remember how many airframes they had (12? 20?) but they certainly didn't need 3 certificate holders (with 3 different management teams, 3 different ops specs, 3 different maintenance organizations and spares supplies, etc) to run them. Again, this was a matter of choice, not chance.

One thing that nobody's brought up in this discussion so far are the feeders, UPS' "mosquito fleet." If running their own airline was a way to exert door-to-door control over every aspect of their operation, why haven't they brought them in-house as well? What good does it do to fly a box to a hub in a 100 million dollar airplane, only to send it the last 100 miles in a ratty Navajo flown by a low-time pilot? If UPS can buy delivery trucks and hire drivers, I'm certain they could get a bulk discount on Cessna Caravans and find a lot of highly motivated pilots to fly them. Why haven't they?

Until I see a refutation by someone in the FAA, I'll stand by my assertion that it was them, and not UPS management, that pushed Air Carrier status upon UPS.

 

[eatme]

That's a pretty accurate account of the events leading to the formation of UPS' airline. I'd be interested in knowing the source. What if doesn't explain, however, is why UPS employed multiple carriers to fly similar aircraft types. Any difficulties they had "managing so many contract carriers" were surely compounded by the fact that each type of aircraft was being operated by as many as 4 different contractors. Any of the contractors operating UPS' 727's, for axample, would have gladly taken over responsibility for that entire fleet. Doing so would have greatly eased the burden of managing those operations. However, "gaining control" of their 727 fleet would have left UPS reliant upon a single carrier for that fleet. I think their decision to spread responsibility for that fleet among several carriers was so they couldn't be held hostage to a single labor group, as they are now.

The same could be said for the DC-8. I believe there were 3 contractors operating them (your source doesn't mention Rosenbalm). I don't remember how many airframes they had (12? 20?) but they certainly didn't need 3 certificate holders (with 3 different management teams, 3 different ops specs, 3 different maintenance organizations and spares supplies, etc) to run them. Again, this was a matter of choice, not chance.

One thing that nobody's brought up in this discussion so far are the feeders, UPS' "mosquito fleet." If running their own airline was a way to exert door-to-door control over every aspect of their operation, why haven't they brought them in-house as well? What good does it do to fly a box to a hub in a 100 million dollar airplane, only to send it the last 100 miles in a ratty Navajo flown by a low-time pilot? If UPS can buy delivery trucks and hire drivers, I'm certain they could get a bulk discount on Cessna Caravans and find a lot of highly motivated pilots to fly them. Why haven't they?

Until I see a refutation by someone in the FAA, I'll stand by my assertion that it was them, and not UPS management, that pushed Air Carrier status upon UPS.

You are still done

 

[AV80R]

... Until I see a refutation by someone in the FAA, I'll stand by my assertion that it was them, and not UPS management, that pushed Air Carrier status upon UPS.

I heard the same from several 'original' UPS guys and also from a fairly senior manager who all said that UPS fought the FAA on this and did not want an airline of their own...

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

You are still done

And you're not???


BTW...was that DB I saw hangin' 'round the other day? Lookin' pretty dapper, I'd say! 'Course, that's what a half-mil in back pay will get ya...

 

[eatme]

Dan, you're forked..get over it

 

[rotor&wing]

The deal that provoked UPS to use the IPX certificate and begin their own airline was a couple of the operators running the 727 programs were not having proper maintenance done on the aircraft. UPS owned the airplanes and as part of the ACMI they would pay to comply with SB's and AD's. Seems a couple of the operators were putting the money in their pockets and not complying. In comes the FAA and finds this out, then the FAA demands UPS get control over these operations.

 

[erichartmann]

\
Just because you suck, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Wake up and smell the roses Richard. Listen to what Allen and Mullen have said about code sharing. Take a good long look at the marine transportatin industry and how DHL (and others) use it. Then think about who crews those ships and where they are flagged.