Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
glideslope900
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:27 am

FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed with Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:11 pm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... cript.aspx

John Smith: “...we expressed to you and the June analyst call, we began to put constraints on pilot hiring and we have not been hiring pilots for some time now. On an attrition basis, I believe, Don and Greg Hall, our Head of Air Operations told me that we will have a net reduction of several hundred pilots next year, just due to retirement and of course that corresponds to the flight hour reduction.

So, this is something that we've been thinking about for a long time if things didn't materialize. And in terms of female pilots, FedEx has been a leader in this. This has been something that's been a [Indecipherable] for a long time, female and minority pilots, we -- we, percentage wise at one point, I'm far away from the Express business, this level of details. At one time, we had the highest percentage of both, I'm sure that's different now, but we work very hard and we participate in female and minority hiring.”

Global trade issues have hit them hard as they miss their quarterly estimates. Company is currently overstaffed with pilots as hiring stops, and there is concern among the pilot group of possible furlough if this trend continues.

Are these concerns warranted or just the typical doom and gloom?

Also, how exactly does hiring minority and female pilots help their financial situation?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14425
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:18 pm

glideslope900 wrote:
Also, how exactly does hiring minority and female pilots help their financial situation?


Presumably this discussion was directed to the portion of the question about the "ability to attract pilots to the company." I don't see any claim that it has anything to do with short-term finances.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
glideslope900
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:27 am

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:30 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
glideslope900 wrote:
Also, how exactly does hiring minority and female pilots help their financial situation?


Presumably this discussion was directed to the portion of the question about the "ability to attract pilots to the company." I don't see any claim that it has anything to do with short-term finances.


I’m sure FedEx has no problems finding new pilots. They are one of the coveted pilot jobs.

I see that was an analyst that most likely does not have much knowledge of aviation pilot positions.

Now Atlas Air on the other hand is struggling to retain/attract pilots.

But still, I don’t see why the color of anyone’s skin or gender is going to help the situation. An ATP pilot that has the minimum qualifications is an ATP pilot that has the minimum qualifications. Skin color and gender should not matter.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14425
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:03 pm

glideslope900 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
glideslope900 wrote:
Also, how exactly does hiring minority and female pilots help their financial situation?


Presumably this discussion was directed to the portion of the question about the "ability to attract pilots to the company." I don't see any claim that it has anything to do with short-term finances.


I’m sure FedEx has no problems finding new pilots. They are one of the coveted pilot jobs.

I see that was an analyst that most likely does not have much knowledge of aviation pilot positions.

Now Atlas Air on the other hand is struggling to retain/attract pilots.

But still, I don’t see why the color of anyone’s skin or gender is going to help the situation. An ATP pilot that has the minimum qualifications is an ATP pilot that has the minimum qualifications. Skin color and gender should not matter.


There’s a not insignificant population of people under 40 or so who prefer diverse workplaces. Piloting is not historically the most diverse profession.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
71Zulu
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:42 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:16 pm

mikejepp wrote:
Where do they fly their remaining A310s?


Looks like only 1 left now.

N811FD is at VCV

N809FD is on the way now:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N80 ... /KBNA/KVCV

N808FD remains active:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N808FD
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:30 pm

I have never gotten any FedEx Ground/Home Delivery packages shipped from an Amazon warehouse (only directly from third party sellers), and only got Express once via a paid upgrade to One-Day shipping back in 2017.
 
asr0dzjq
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:36 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:40 pm

By 2021-2022 all FedEx's DC-10's will be retired, so the original CF6-6 will soon Rest In Peace.
R.I.P. Douglas Aircraft Company
Born 22 July 1921 | Died 23 May 2006
You will be missed, but your management will not.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4106
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:08 pm

Some company or consortium is going to learn how to compete with Amazon, it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. One possibility I see is a software company learning to intake, track, transport by truck, train, air to final distribution center and then off for the last mile delivery. After all we have Walmart, Costco, Nordstroms, Target, Macys, Safeway, Kroger, etc., and upwards of a million smaller sellers who would love to have a choice in delivery service. For them it would be especially nice to have a delivery service that was not also a retail competitor. This consortium could offer mostly 2 and 3 day delivery and work to keep their costs as low or lower than Amazon. As FedEx drops Amazon it is obviously a possible contender. USPS will by law remain neutral.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:35 pm

FedEx this peak season had absolutely horrible reliability. Not a single package arrived on-time and they lost about 50% of them with the status still “pending”. Amazon on the other hand delivered everything on-time without losing a single package. FedEx did a lot of damage to their reputation as a lot of shippers were clearly not happy with their performance.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23952
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:45 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Some company or consortium is going to learn how to compete with Amazon, it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. One possibility I see is a software company learning to intake, track, transport by truck, train, air to final distribution center and then off for the last mile delivery. After all we have Walmart, Costco, Nordstroms, Target, Macys, Safeway, Kroger, etc., and upwards of a million smaller sellers who would love to have a choice in delivery service. For them it would be especially nice to have a delivery service that was not also a retail competitor. This consortium could offer mostly 2 and 3 day delivery and work to keep their costs as low or lower than Amazon. As FedEx drops Amazon it is obviously a possible contender. USPS will by law remain neutral.

I would not underestimate Amazon's own software prowess, and their ability and desire to change to stay on top of the game.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7776
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:01 pm

glideslope900 wrote:
I see that was an analyst that most likely does not have much knowledge of aviation pilot positions.


Yeh, she's the problem here. :boggled:

Helane Becker is a managing director and senior research analyst who covers airlines, air freight, aircraft and container leasing. She has more than 30 years of experience on Wall Street, holding positions within the research, trading, and investment banking departments of several global broker/dealers. She has been ranked as the #1, 2, or 3 analyst by Institutional Investor magazine, as well as in the top 5 analysts by The Wall Street Journal.

Smith seemed to take some pride in FedEx's record of hiring female and minority pilots.
 
KFTG
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:04 pm

Does the Orbis plane have CF6-6?
 
glideslope900
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:27 am

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:16 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
glideslope900 wrote:
I see that was an analyst that most likely does not have much knowledge of aviation pilot positions.


Yeh, she's the problem here. :boggled:

Helane Becker is a managing director and senior research analyst who covers airlines, air freight, aircraft and container leasing. She has more than 30 years of experience on Wall Street, holding positions within the research, trading, and investment banking departments of several global broker/dealers. She has been ranked as the #1, 2, or 3 analyst by Institutional Investor magazine, as well as in the top 5 analysts by The Wall Street Journal.

Smith seemed to take some pride in FedEx's record of hiring female and minority pilots.


I don’t care what she covers...the notion of FedEx struggling to find pilots is ridiculous. They probably have at least 10,000 applications on file.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8778
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:42 pm

FedEx consistently downplayed the effect of the loss of Amazon. We now finally know that it was 8 percent of their domestic express volume. When I said that losing Amazon blew a hole in their domestic air volume, folks pointed to that BS 1.3 percent $$ number FedEx was floating, which includes ground and international in the denominator, and said I was wrong. Eight percent for sure affects how much lift they need.

I'm also amused by the posts 3 months ago talking about the "US recession everyone is expecting". I didn't expect one; I thought it was wishful thinking by progressives who don't want to believe how much regulation and taxation affects the economy, and how much it can grow with the boot off its neck just a little. Guess stupid naive me was correct...
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:56 pm

glideslope900 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
glideslope900 wrote:
I see that was an analyst that most likely does not have much knowledge of aviation pilot positions.


Yeh, she's the problem here. :boggled:

Helane Becker is a managing director and senior research analyst who covers airlines, air freight, aircraft and container leasing. She has more than 30 years of experience on Wall Street, holding positions within the research, trading, and investment banking departments of several global broker/dealers. She has been ranked as the #1, 2, or 3 analyst by Institutional Investor magazine, as well as in the top 5 analysts by The Wall Street Journal.

Smith seemed to take some pride in FedEx's record of hiring female and minority pilots.


I don’t care what she covers...the notion of FedEx struggling to find pilots is ridiculous. They probably have at least 10,000 applications on file.


Doubtful, nobody has 10k applications these days. And they all have the same 6k applications at AA/DL/UA/FX/5X/WN, etc...
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19736
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:14 pm

glideslope900 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
glideslope900 wrote:
I see that was an analyst that most likely does not have much knowledge of aviation pilot positions.


Yeh, she's the problem here. :boggled:

Helane Becker is a managing director and senior research analyst who covers airlines, air freight, aircraft and container leasing. She has more than 30 years of experience on Wall Street, holding positions within the research, trading, and investment banking departments of several global broker/dealers. She has been ranked as the #1, 2, or 3 analyst by Institutional Investor magazine, as well as in the top 5 analysts by The Wall Street Journal.

Smith seemed to take some pride in FedEx's record of hiring female and minority pilots.


I don’t care what she covers...the notion of FedEx struggling to find pilots is ridiculous. They probably have at least 10,000 applications on file.

FedEx is definitely a coveted pilot position. I would guess about 10,000 pilot resumes in the (digital) files is about right. If someone doesn't want to work there, they can apply at equally appealing pilot jobs and find out that while there is a pilot shortage, those that haven't given everything lack the experience for most positions.

FedEx has 284 Aircraft in the fleet per Wikipedia. 5,030 pilots per:
https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... ex_express


FedEx probably only can hire 1 out if 25 applicants. If someone doesn't want to apply to the world's largest widebody opperator, that is their perogative.

Reducing the fleet by 35 aircraft means 500 to 600 fewer pilots.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7330
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:28 pm

Not understanding the pilot progress line of thought at all, do they want to grow up in the passenger airlines and move to cargo or the other way round?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4106
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:44 pm

Rev - I don't underestimate Amazon (and am even a home team booster). But genius of capitalism/free markets is that competitors learn to compete. It may not be FedEx plus consortium, but it will be someone.

wjcandee - or captialism/free market fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge that a high tech high performing economy is expensive and requires a lot of taxation and government regulation to function and maintain infrastructure
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:57 pm

readytotaxi wrote:
Not understanding the pilot progress line of thought at all, do they want to grow up in the passenger airlines and move to cargo or the other way round?


Neither.

When it’s time to get the final job you either go to cargo or passengers. Very few switch in between once they get to the majors unless something drastic happens at their airline like furloughs and bankruptcy.

My opinion only........FedEx and UPS used to be the bottom rung u til the 2000s. Then massive furloughs bankruptcies and the economic depression made them more appealing. Why? Because they kept their pensions and their pay. They were the 2 highest paid airlines in the country. Now after the recovery the major airlines are blowing the cargo airlines out of the water in terms of work rules and pay.

Don’t get me wrong UPS and FedEx are great to work at but the passenger carriers offer a better career at this time. I know several people over the last couple years that turned down class dates at FedEx and UPS and came to United. I also know a couple that left FedEx and UPS to come to United.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4647
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:02 pm

KFTG wrote:
Does the Orbis plane have CF6-6?

No, it’s an MD-10-30 so has CF-6-50s. Only the DC-10-10 had the -6 model.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
sevenair
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:18 am

Can anyone recall if we saw a downturn in cargo before passenger flights in the run up to the last recession?
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 780
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:44 am

UPlog wrote:
Point is that removal of Amazon a low yield customer is hardly a bump in the road, instead, the real speed bump is global macro issues and resultant market softness.


Supply Chains and channels are changing, quickly.
Fedex is adjusting to both the reality of turning away Amazon volume, and the changing China situation. Supply chains are hard to move, but they CAN be moved/reorganized if needed.
And that is what is happening right now. The global economy is dependent on US trade. And the US is going domestic for many things, or in the process of it.
 
tp1040
Posts: 369
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:30 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:54 am

Federal Express is suffering from poor management decision. In the US, s number of years back they purchased Roadway Package Systems (RPS) and renamed it Fed Ex Ground. (the green trucks, now orange) That system is run by independent contractors and each territory can be bought or sold.

Ground is not EXPRESS. The independent route owners pay employees whatever they want. Express is the original company. Benefits can be greatly reduced to employees. This has caused a substantial drop quality in customer satisfaction.

After numerous excuses and mistakes, my company was forced to drop outbound use of any FedEx product..

IMHO, their system is broken.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2201
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:03 am

tp1040 wrote:
Federal Express is suffering from poor management decision. In the US, s number of years back they purchased Roadway Package Systems (RPS) and renamed it Fed Ex Ground. (the green trucks, now orange) That system is run by independent contractors and each territory can be bought or sold.

Ground is not EXPRESS. The independent route owners pay employees whatever they want. Express is the original company. Benefits can be greatly reduced to employees. This has caused a substantial drop quality in customer satisfaction.

After numerous excuses and mistakes, my company was forced to drop outbound use of any FedEx product..

IMHO, their system is broken.


I would agree that the quality of Fedex's door to door service has fallen dramatically as of recent. One of my friends works in the tech sales area and they have pulled away from Fedex this year. Too many missing/lost/unexplainable packages and goofs costing money. Even the corporate account billing/invoicing has gone awry.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2330
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:22 am

wjcandee wrote:
FedEx consistently downplayed the effect of the loss of Amazon. We now finally know that it was 8 percent of their domestic express volume. When I said that losing Amazon blew a hole in their domestic air volume, folks pointed to that BS 1.3 percent $$ number FedEx was floating, which includes ground and international in the denominator, and said I was wrong. Eight percent for sure affects how much lift they need.

I'm also amused by the posts 3 months ago talking about the "US recession everyone is expecting". I didn't expect one; I thought it was wishful thinking by progressives who don't want to believe how much regulation and taxation affects the economy, and how much it can grow with the boot off its neck just a little. Guess stupid naive me was correct...


I really respect your Amazon posts, but your political attack here is off base. I'll leave it at that. Furthermore, who says we are past the risk of a recession? We aren't.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:49 am

jbs2886 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
FedEx consistently downplayed the effect of the loss of Amazon. We now finally know that it was 8 percent of their domestic express volume. When I said that losing Amazon blew a hole in their domestic air volume, folks pointed to that BS 1.3 percent $$ number FedEx was floating, which includes ground and international in the denominator, and said I was wrong. Eight percent for sure affects how much lift they need.

I'm also amused by the posts 3 months ago talking about the "US recession everyone is expecting". I didn't expect one; I thought it was wishful thinking by progressives who don't want to believe how much regulation and taxation affects the economy, and how much it can grow with the boot off its neck just a little. Guess stupid naive me was correct...


I really respect your Amazon posts, but your political attack here is off base. I'll leave it at that. Furthermore, who says we are past the risk of a recession? We aren't.


Yeah, it's mostly been predicted for 2020. Since 2014. The economic cycle defies politics.
情報
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19736
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:27 am

Varsity1 wrote:
tp1040 wrote:
Federal Express is suffering from poor management decision. In the US, s number of years back they purchased Roadway Package Systems (RPS) and renamed it Fed Ex Ground. (the green trucks, now orange) That system is run by independent contractors and each territory can be bought or sold.

Ground is not EXPRESS. The independent route owners pay employees whatever they want. Express is the original company. Benefits can be greatly reduced to employees. This has caused a substantial drop quality in customer satisfaction.

After numerous excuses and mistakes, my company was forced to drop outbound use of any FedEx product..

IMHO, their system is broken.


I would agree that the quality of Fedex's door to door service has fallen dramatically as of recent. One of my friends works in the tech sales area and they have pulled away from Fedex this year. Too many missing/lost/unexplainable packages and goofs costing money. Even the corporate account billing/invoicing has gone awry.

If true, what a change from a decade+ ago. We used to preferentially use FedEx as the dependability was top notch.

That said, FedEx seems to have management issues.

This doesn't seem economy based, Amazon spiked. Judging by the hoard of Amazon vans, it is a shift in who delivers what.

FedEx needs to figure out how to better incorporate ground (RPS) with the air (Express). I'm sorry, but a botched synergy how many years later? Ghad, wasn't it the late 1990s when FedEx purchased RPS?

Shipping is undergoing upheaval between digital (no paper sent) and online commerce, the USPS, DHL, UPS, and FedEx are in a very quickly shifting market.

My friends who work at Amazon note the multi-year Van order Amazon placed. This transition isn't over.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8778
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:12 am

jbs2886 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
FedEx consistently downplayed the effect of the loss of Amazon. We now finally know that it was 8 percent of their domestic express volume. When I said that losing Amazon blew a hole in their domestic air volume, folks pointed to that BS 1.3 percent $$ number FedEx was floating, which includes ground and international in the denominator, and said I was wrong. Eight percent for sure affects how much lift they need.

I'm also amused by the posts 3 months ago talking about the "US recession everyone is expecting". I didn't expect one; I thought it was wishful thinking by progressives who don't want to believe how much regulation and taxation affects the economy, and how much it can grow with the boot off its neck just a little. Guess stupid naive me was correct...


I really respect your Amazon posts, but your political attack here is off base. I'll leave it at that. Furthermore, who says we are past the risk of a recession? We aren't.


Thanks! I really didn't think of it as a political attack, just a statement about economic beliefs that I've had for 30 years about regulation/taxation, both of which are totally-necessary but, in my view, underestimated in their dampening effect when applied and underestimated in their positive effect when relaxed even a small amount. It may be about politics, but it isn't about party. When Bill Clinton cut back on regulations and certain taxes after losing Congress, he had an economic turnaround so successful that we were taking in more in taxes than we were spending, paying down government debt, and economists actually started talking about what was going to happen if there wasn't any US Debt around for people to invest in. (That was grossly-overoptimistic, but Clinton had it heading in that direction for a bit. And his were the advisors who coined the phrase, "It's [about] the economy, stupid.")

We're never "past" the risk of US recession; it's always there depending on things like what the Fed does (it overreacted in 2017 and over-braked out of an inflation fear), international conflicts, etc., but when things are pulling together in the right direction for more than a minute, amazing things can occur -- like what's happening right now. Wouldn't it be amazing if swaths of the chronically-unemployed could be pulled into the workforce, as is starting to happen? More and more people could take care of themselves, and wouldn't that be something? I can't imagine any thinking person, across the entire political spectrum, who wouldn't rejoice at that.

FedEx is currently in trouble because it pitched a major US consumer customer overboard (underestimating its importance) while focusing on highly-trade-dependent international package flying. It invested enormous capital in an effort to expand in a region that is notoriously-less-stable than the US, and also focused in Europe where economic policies and employment regulations tend to dampen significantly any real growth in consumer spending, which, in contrast, is the lifeblood of the US economy. It, like many major US companies before it, heard the siren song of China growth and thought it might fairly get a piece, which isn't stupid by any means, but it may have committed too hard too fast, only to have the rug pulled out when that growth softened. Just like everybody who was building condos in New York for China money to invest in last year. Whoops. When dealing with that region, a lot of investment is guessing and herd movement, and FedEx messed up. Nothing to say they can't adjust and still come out winners a few years down the road.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4902
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:05 am

CoThG wrote:
FLALEFTY wrote:
Given the the loss of Amazon business and the US tariff wars with China (and soon, the EU), it is not a surprise that FedEx is adjusting their fleet. They had pegged the retirements of their last 3 active A310's by the end of this year and the remaining 29 of the MD-10 fleet by the end of 2021. They have also been in the process of drawing down their fleets of A306RF's and MD11F's at a slow, steady rate. Looks like they will move those retirements up a bit sooner?

I imagine we will have UPS Airlines speeding up fleet retirements coming soon, too?


No they will not. They are chronically SHORT of lift.

It should be remembered that UPS was primarily a motor freight company that got into airplanes while FEDEX was primarily an Airfreight company that got into motor Freight. Fedex is essentially an express package delivery service. while UPS does express deliveries but is a motor freight company primarily. So one does not actually equal the other (yet) Fedex would have to integrate their ground operation to support the Air operation which right now? They don't. My daughter worked for /fed /ex trade network (FTN) and they don't even integrate the two companies, Which is a lack of infrastructure to me. FTN doesn't even ship with FEDEX! Can you imagine that?
 
User avatar
flyPIT
Posts: 1884
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:31 am

Does anyone think the timing of this is a coincidence?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-blocks-sellers-from-using-fedex-ground-for-prime-shipments-11576525190

Checkmate FedEx; I wouldn't underestimate Amazon If I were anyone from Fred Smith down to the lowest consumer.
FLYi
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8778
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:03 am

Amazon will likely unblock that shortly; they were just doing it during Peak because FedEx Ground was cratering and Amazon didn't want Prime to take a reputation hit because of FedEx Ground's unfolding crappy delivery reliability during Peak. Marketplace sellers could still use Express, because it was running well (having been unburdened of all the Amazon it otherwise would have been carrying this year), and could use Ground for non-Prime shipments. Just anything that was going Prime couldn't use Ground because it wouldn't be sufficiently-likely to arrive on time, as was happening to Walmart, who used Ground extensively for holiday shipments.
 
User avatar
flyPIT
Posts: 1884
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:41 am

wjcandee wrote:
Amazon will likely unblock that shortly; they were just doing it during Peak because FedEx Ground was cratering and Amazon didn't want Prime to take a reputation hit because of FedEx Ground's........

So let us know when Amazon shortly unblocks their use of FedEx Ground. Peak is well over.
FLYi
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19736
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:44 pm

flyPIT wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Amazon will likely unblock that shortly; they were just doing it during Peak because FedEx Ground was cratering and Amazon didn't want Prime to take a reputation hit because of FedEx Ground's........

So let us know when Amazon shortly unblocks their use of FedEx Ground. Peak is well over.

It is my understanding that FedEx demanded a price below what FedEx would accept, as well as capacity concerns.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8778
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:39 pm

lightsaber wrote:
flyPIT wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Amazon will likely unblock that shortly; they were just doing it during Peak because FedEx Ground was cratering and Amazon didn't want Prime to take a reputation hit because of FedEx Ground's........

So let us know when Amazon shortly unblocks their use of FedEx Ground. Peak is well over.

It is my understanding that FedEx demanded a price below what FedEx would accept, as well as capacity concerns.
Lightsaber


There are a couple of distinct issues, and I'm sure that FlyPIT's apparent snark just arises from the fact that he/she doesn't follow what was being discussed, just like some in the media didn't. (Or I'm reading snark where none was intended. Regardless...)

First issue: Amazon and FedEx parted ways with respect to Ground and Express. That's done and it's not coming back. As Lightsaber alludes to, FedEx was substantially-more-expensive than UPS for Amazon, and FedEx didn't want to go lower than its existing pricing, and certainly not down to what UPS was offering, so the contracts ended without being renewed. Eight percent of FedEx Express US volume -- poof.

Second issue: This other issue has to do with what the WSJ was reporting. That's a little more complicated. It has to do with Marketplace sellers who participate in Prime, but self-ship. In other words, certain sellers are allowed to self-ship but still put the Prime bug on their listing if they ship in such a way so as to meet the Prime delivery standards. Kind of like drop-shipping. It's not a huge part of the business, but it's not tiny either. Amazon isn't doing the packing and shipping, but they monitor the performance of these sellers very-closely, because Prime's reputation is critical to Amazon.

These are the shipments that were affected by the block. Amazon could see that FedEx Ground wasn't meeting performance standards in Peak (as Walmart should have seen, too), and temporarily forbade the use of FedEx Ground on those self-shipped Prime shipments. There was a unexpectedly-large early tidal wave of ecommerce orders generally at the beginning of Peak that tested delivery companies' ability to flex up more and earlier than planned, and that's how this arose. Amazon did not block those same shippers' use of FedEx Express, which performed well. Amazon did not issue any instructions to sellers who weren't calling their shipments "Prime", i.e. the people who just have "sold and shipped by XXXXX Co" showing on their listings. And the reason is simple -- the reputation of Prime isn't at stake there; it's on the seller. I can tell you that unless I really don't care when a shipment is arriving, I absolutely-avoid those listings, even if shipping is free, because the process then becomes much more like Ebay -- it gets there when it gets there, and the estimates are unreliable. With Prime, you get a guaranteed arrival date that is rarely missed.

Despite the media's attempt to turn the order into something it wasn't, e.g. an attempt by Amazon to mess with Fedex, I think the poor reliability Walmart had with Ground this Peak proves the wisdom of Amazon doing that. And I am confident that the unblocking will occur as soon as the FedEx Ground network returns to normal, if it hasn't already. It's not even January. Returns Season is underway. Peak isn't over yet, although the largest volumes have passed. So if the order hasn't been lifted, I'm sure it will be soon.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3533
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:57 pm

I honestly don't get why the A310s are still flying, unless there aren't enough B752s. I would think there are enough A306s and B763s on hand (although some of the conversions are aging) to finally replace the last A310s (for some of their stations, a FedEx or UPS plane is the largest plane the airport sees). If any MD-10-10s get parked, I expect them to be scrapped as FX is the last operator of the CF6-6D engine.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23952
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:43 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I honestly don't get why the A310s are still flying, unless there aren't enough B752s. I would think there are enough A306s and B763s on hand (although some of the conversions are aging) to finally replace the last A310s (for some of their stations, a FedEx or UPS plane is the largest plane the airport sees). If any MD-10-10s get parked, I expect them to be scrapped as FX is the last operator of the CF6-6D engine.

The plan was to replace MD10 and A310 via 767F:

The cargo company announced their intention to purchase 27 Boeing 767-300Fs with the sole purpose of removing the older Airbus A300s, A310s and MD-10s from the fleet. The airline took delivery of their first Boeing 767 in 2014 and has since upgraded the order from 27 to 119 aircraft, with deliveries continuing until 2023.

While FedEx’s Airbus A300 series fleet remains mostly untouched, with 68 aircraft still in the fleet, their use of the Airbus A310 and McDonnell-Douglas MD-10 fleets have decreased. The airline’s biggest reduction has been the Airbus A310.

Ref: https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/11/17/cre ... -overhaul/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet shows the A310 as gone, I guess we're close enough to say that is so.

It also shows 28 MD10 phased out by 2021 and 50 more 767F to be delivered, no more 757F are expected.

Next to go is probably the older MD11s, replaced by 777F from above or 767F from below depending on demand.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:30 pm

musman9853 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Parking (and not necessarily scrapping) 35 MD-10-10F, A310-300F or MD11F aircraft should be seen as pretty darn sensible, no?

They're still taking 76F in significant numbers, and will still be running 50 MD11F which is a lot more than anyone else.

They're parking the oldest or less fuel efficient airplanes Since with the refinery fires in Saudi Arabia there might well be an Oil shortage in the world for a while. And? It Will affect fuel Prices!


refinery fires are a polite way to put it lol. but it likely wont' have as big of an impact as previously feared, the Kingdom is gonna tap into its strategic reserve to make up the shortfall



There is no shortage of oil, any real shortage will only trigger more fracking. The infrastructure to bring all the oil to market is coming along. Every time I hear a trope about the limit to what can be drilled has about arrived, it is proved wrong every single time. I've heard about peak oil for all my nearly 50 years on this rock. Good lord, if someone could ever get Venesuela straightened out...


FedEx and everyone one else in Memphis struggles mightly with staffing for peak season. Sure anyone worth a damn will be found a way to stay on post peak, it is getting them hired from the get go that is the problem. Some harder entitlement program reforms would go a long way. Google just picked basically a Memphis burb for it's first US based operational center, bless their hearts.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 5:02 pm

DHL was primarily an air freight company that tried to integrate a ground shipping business with its air freight express product. They used crappy independent contractors that paid their employees poorly and had no benefits.

Unsurprisingly, the door to door ground shipping for DHL went out of business.

If the independent contractor route is the way Fed Ex intends to continue as its ground shipping business that bodes very poorly for Fed Ex. Going cheap obviously hurts quality. Some people never learn.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
N212R
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:18 pm

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:23 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
There’s a not insignificant population of people under 40 or so who prefer diverse workplaces. Piloting is not historically the most diverse profession.


Once upon a time, a young(er) person starting in his/her chosen profession would be thrilled to get a good job. Today's aspirants think they can have their dream job and their preferred perfect working conditions too! I think I see a Snowflake dropping...
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14425
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: FedEx Missing Financial Targets, Overstaffed With Pilots

Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:41 pm

N212R wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
There’s a not insignificant population of people under 40 or so who prefer diverse workplaces. Piloting is not historically the most diverse profession.


Once upon a time, a young(er) person starting in his/her chosen profession would be thrilled to get a good job. Today's aspirants think they can have their dream job and their preferred perfect working conditions too! I think I see a Snowflake dropping...


Any decent applicant at FedEx will likely have multiple other opportunities. Why shouldn’t those applicants pick based on working conditions?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
mcg
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:13 pm

wjcandee wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
FedEx consistently downplayed the effect of the loss of Amazon. We now finally know that it was 8 percent of their domestic express volume. When I said that losing Amazon blew a hole in their domestic air volume, folks pointed to that BS 1.3 percent $$ number FedEx was floating, which includes ground and international in the denominator, and said I was wrong. Eight percent for sure affects how much lift they need.

I'm also amused by the posts 3 months ago talking about the "US recession everyone is expecting". I didn't expect one; I thought it was wishful thinking by progressives who don't want to believe how much regulation and taxation affects the economy, and how much it can grow with the boot off its neck just a little. Guess stupid naive me was correct...


I really respect your Amazon posts, but your political attack here is off base. I'll leave it at that. Furthermore, who says we are past the risk of a recession? We aren't.


Thanks! I really didn't think of it as a political attack, just a statement about economic beliefs that I've had for 30 years about regulation/taxation, both of which are totally-necessary but, in my view, underestimated in their dampening effect when applied and underestimated in their positive effect when relaxed even a small amount. It may be about politics, but it isn't about party. When Bill Clinton cut back on regulations and certain taxes after losing Congress, he had an economic turnaround so successful that we were taking in more in taxes than we were spending, paying down government debt, and economists actually started talking about what was going to happen if there wasn't any US Debt around for people to invest in. (That was grossly-overoptimistic, but Clinton had it heading in that direction for a bit. And his were the advisors who coined the phrase, "It's [about] the economy, stupid.")



Fair enough, but the opposite is equally true. The global financial crises was precipitated by the implosion of the mortgage industry in the United States, which was a result of a woefully under-regulated mortgage industry expanding as a result of ever-easier loans until the industry blew up like a an atomic bomb. The mortgage industry managed to avoid material regulation and the result was a near-depression. I guess the key is getting the balance right.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8778
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:30 pm

mcg wrote:
Fair enough, but the opposite is equally true. The global financial crises was precipitated by the implosion of the mortgage industry in the United States, which was a result of a woefully under-regulated mortgage industry expanding as a result of ever-easier loans until the industry blew up like a an atomic bomb. The mortgage industry managed to avoid material regulation and the result was a near-depression. I guess the key is getting the balance right.


The mortgage industry was highly-regulated. And two quasi-gov't agencies had their fingers in all the pies through mortgage insurance. One other way to look at it is that what a lot of people were saying for a long time, ignored by lawmakers, came true. And that was that for social policy purposes (i.e. promote homeownership), a lot of people were made eligible for insured loans that banks never in a million years would have been willing to lend to on their own dime. Having the gov't be the insurer of loans that are being made for social policy purposes massively distorts/distorted the market, and of course the secondary market in securitized mortgages depended on Fannie and Freddie. Securitized mortgages were a great idea, a great way to pump private capital into that market and get mortgages to "eligible" people, but when the underlying mortgages were swiss-cheese but for their insured nature, the insurance programs were for sure gonna take a hit. And they did.

A lot of people got in over their heads because the law said they should have been lent to anyway. It was well-meaning, but the result was predictable. And in the Congressional Investigation thereof, I had a good laugh watching the main perpetrators of the market distortion grilling the very people they had authorized and pressured into doing it as if their hands were Purell-clean.

I think we can agree that it's all about striking the right balance. Encouraging -- ordering, really -- banks to make loans that everyone knows are going to, for the large part, default, is probably something that should be done very, very sparingly.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:41 pm

One A310 will be given to IND to replace the 727 they use for ARFF and Deice training
 
mcg
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:08 pm

wjcandee wrote:
mcg wrote:
Fair enough, but the opposite is equally true. The global financial crises was precipitated by the implosion of the mortgage industry in the United States, which was a result of a woefully under-regulated mortgage industry expanding as a result of ever-easier loans until the industry blew up like a an atomic bomb. The mortgage industry managed to avoid material regulation and the result was a near-depression. I guess the key is getting the balance right.


The mortgage industry was highly-regulated. And two quasi-gov't agencies had their fingers in all the pies through mortgage insurance. One other way to look at it is that what a lot of people were saying for a long time, ignored by lawmakers, came true. And that was that for social policy purposes (i.e. promote homeownership), a lot of people were made eligible for insured loans that banks never in a million years would have been willing to lend to on their own dime. Having the gov't be the insurer of loans that are being made for social policy purposes massively distorts/distorted the market, and of course the secondary market in securitized mortgages depended on Fannie and Freddie. Securitized mortgages were a great idea, a great way to pump private capital into that market and get mortgages to "eligible" people, but when the underlying mortgages were swiss-cheese but for their insured nature, the insurance programs were for sure gonna take a hit. And they did.

A lot of people got in over their heads because the law said they should have been lent to anyway. It was well-meaning, but the result was predictable. And in the Congressional Investigation thereof, I had a good laugh watching the main perpetrators of the market distortion grilling the very people they had authorized and pressured into doing it as if their hands were Purell-clean.

I think we can agree that it's all about striking the right balance. Encouraging -- ordering, really -- banks to make loans that everyone knows are going to, for the large part, default, is probably something that should be done very, very sparingly.


The folks running the sub-prime machine were almost entirely unregulated, and what regulation there was not effective. They simply wanted to spin the write, refi, foreclose cycle as often and as fast as they could. Did real banks write some bad loans as a result of community investment standards? sure, but they were minor players compared to the unregulated sub-prime lenders. The investment banks (see Lehman Brothers) that bought the subprime paper and remanufactured it into mortgaged backed securities also were not effectively regulated. The theory was that the 'market' would provide regulation by refusing to fund non-economic activity, which actually happened, but so late in the process the financial crises was precipitated. And yes, regulation must be balanced, and that means understanding the costs of not enough or ineffective regulation.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4647
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:10 pm


Strangely enough, it appears they parked a 757 at VCV. Earlier this year they had 3 stored there but they were all reactivated by mid-year. Anyone know the reg, I can't zoom in close enough to read it. Perhaps it'll leave soon to backfill the A310 routes (which recently seemed to be mostly sub-hour stage lengths)
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Elementalism
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:26 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Some company or consortium is going to learn how to compete with Amazon, it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. One possibility I see is a software company learning to intake, track, transport by truck, train, air to final distribution center and then off for the last mile delivery. After all we have Walmart, Costco, Nordstroms, Target, Macys, Safeway, Kroger, etc., and upwards of a million smaller sellers who would love to have a choice in delivery service. For them it would be especially nice to have a delivery service that was not also a retail competitor. This consortium could offer mostly 2 and 3 day delivery and work to keep their costs as low or lower than Amazon. As FedEx drops Amazon it is obviously a possible contender. USPS will by law remain neutral.


Amazon is unique in how they run their business. For a company to truly compete they will need to give up profits to stake holders and instead reinvest back into the business. Imagine where you work if you were able to take the profit margin and put it back into your budget how much more you could actually get done.
 
glideslope900
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:27 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:35 am

I know Seeking Alpha is not the best source, but this is a FedEx pilot’s nightmare:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalp ... -nightmare

“ In the next 24 months, FedEx (NYSE:FDX) will either be acquired or lose an additional 40%+ in value. The likely acquirer is Walmart (NYSE:WMT). The gangster move: a merger with Shopify (NYSE:SHOP).”
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8778
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:11 am

glideslope: Don't worry -- it's complete BS. That article has so many holes in it that it's laughable. Just some random nitwit posting jibberish.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:16 am

Scarebus34 wrote:
FedEx this peak season had absolutely horrible reliability. Not a single package arrived on-time and they lost about 50% of them with the status still “pending”. Amazon on the other hand delivered everything on-time without losing a single package. FedEx did a lot of damage to their reputation as a lot of shippers were clearly not happy with their performance.

That is anecdotal, as FedEx Express had the usual solid delivery reliability systemwide. Ground probably did not. I received a package from Express on time. Doesn't mean my one experience reflects much of anything.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: FedEx to park 35 planes on weaker demand

Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:33 am

lightsaber wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
tp1040 wrote:
Federal Express is suffering from poor management decision. In the US, s number of years back they purchased Roadway Package Systems (RPS) and renamed it Fed Ex Ground. (the green trucks, now orange) That system is run by independent contractors and each territory can be bought or sold.

Ground is not EXPRESS. The independent route owners pay employees whatever they want. Express is the original company. Benefits can be greatly reduced to employees. This has caused a substantial drop quality in customer satisfaction.

After numerous excuses and mistakes, my company was forced to drop outbound use of any FedEx product..

IMHO, their system is broken.


I would agree that the quality of Fedex's door to door service has fallen dramatically as of recent. One of my friends works in the tech sales area and they have pulled away from Fedex this year. Too many missing/lost/unexplainable packages and goofs costing money. Even the corporate account billing/invoicing has gone awry.

If true, what a change from a decade+ ago. We used to preferentially use FedEx as the dependability was top notch.

That said, FedEx seems to have management issues.

This doesn't seem economy based, Amazon spiked. Judging by the hoard of Amazon vans, it is a shift in who delivers what.

FedEx needs to figure out how to better incorporate ground (RPS) with the air (Express). I'm sorry, but a botched synergy how many years later? Ghad, wasn't it the late 1990s when FedEx purchased RPS?

Shipping is undergoing upheaval between digital (no paper sent) and online commerce, the USPS, DHL, UPS, and FedEx are in a very quickly shifting market.

My friends who work at Amazon note the multi-year Van order Amazon placed. This transition isn't over.

Lightsaber


Up until now, there have been no plans to combine Ground and Express.
However, there have been a lot of moves internally to combine or simplify operations over the last few years.
FedEx LTL was absorbed into FedEx Freight.
The traditional 3-region domestic system was lowered to 2. Western and Eastern.
FedEx Custom Critical was absorbed, into Express I believe.
The big one, FedEx Express AGFS and US Ops (formerly DGO), to put simply the airport or ramp side of the company and the delivery side of the company, were combined.
FedEx can go in two directions with Ground. Kill off Ground and leave Express as the delivery arm of the company. Or, shrink Express down into primarily airport operations and have Ground take over all delivery. One of these would cost significantly more money than the other.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos