Talk:FedEx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale
Tennessee
Portal
FedEx is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

"the first cargo airline to use jet airplanes for its services" -- this can't possibly be true. Tannin

I agree. As the company was incorporated in June 1971, it obviously can't be true. Some other cargo airline must have used jets before 1971. -- RTC 05:19 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
The following was added to the talk page by user 199.82.243.74, but a bunch of the text was blanked in the process. I've reverted and am readding the text now. kmccoy (talk) 19:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Flying Tigers (later aquired by FedEx) had been using them for years.
I think the reasoning is that since FedEx acuired Flying Tigers, they can therefore claim to be the first. I've seen UPS make similar claims, such as being the first to provide same-day service, when it was SonicAir (their 1995 acquisition) that was the first. UPSer 20:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Boeing and Douglas were selling dedicated freighter versions as early as 1961 or '62. Now I guess that many of these went to passenger airlines that also carried freight, but every single one? I doubt it. The Soviets built dedicated freighter types quite early on too, though I'd have to check to see if it was in the '60s or the '70s. Maybe FedEx were the first freight-only airline to fly jets, but I'd want to see a good source for that one.

Although incorporated in 1971 the company didn't begin to fly until 1973. It is impossible that they were the first cargo airline to use jet aircraft

Here's a web page from the Flying Tigers site showing the Canadair CL-44 jet they began flying in 1961 [1](Posted by a FedEx employee)

Trying again the CL-44 is a turboprop. Here's a page from the same site showing the Flying Tigers' 707 and DC-8 which are definitely jets [2](Same FedEx employee)

When I went through orientation with FedEx, I'm pretty sure they mentioned it was the first air freight company that exclusively used jets, i.e. no prop or turbo prop planes. I looked on their website and what little of the new-hire stuff I still have, but can't find this claim anywhere. -JT 08/09/05

Technically, a turboprop is a jet. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
a turboprop is not a jet. Although a turboprop uses a jet engine (turbine) to power it's propeller, it is not used for thrust, as a pure jet engine does. I'm not sure about the first jet-only question, but I do know there are the largest airfreight company in the world (by most airplanes).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.233.151.167 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Stock

It's stock symbol is FDX. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 16:27 August 31, 2004 (EDT)

[edit] Inconsistencies

Were there two separate companies named Viking Freight? Did FedEx sell Viking Freight and then buy it back?

  • In January 1998 Federal Express acquired Caliber System, Inc, which owned RPS, Roberts Express, Viking Freight and Caliber Logistics. When these companies combined, the new organization became known as FDX Corp.
  • In 2001, FedEx acquired American Freightways and Viking Freight, two leading less-than-truckload carriers in the U.S., and combined them to create FedEx Freight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.121.241 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


In the trivia it says Fedex lost the USPS contract to UPS in 2006, but in the history it says the contract was extended to 2012. Which is it?

[edit] Not even trivia

"The company's well-known logo has a right-pointing arrow located in the negative space between the E and x. While the arrow becomes quite obvious when pointed out, most people don't notice it otherwise. The arrow has been occasionally pointed to as a mild form of subliminal advertising, the arrow symbolizing forward movement and thinking."

  • So, um, what does the spoon at the base of the "e" signify???
It's not a spoon, it's a small personal table knife, and is the only knife allowed on US based planes anymore. =^_^= --Dennis The TIger 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"The company almost went bankrupt in its first year, but to make it through the Christmas, Fred Smith convinced his employees to work at 70% of their wage. He then took all of his money to Vegas and made enough at the tables to weather a few more months until business picked up."

  • Is there any proof of this? It seems way over the top. --Dpitkin 23:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried asking Ken May about this while I was a Fedinko's employee. I never did get a response. --Dennis The TIger 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

so, was this done on purpose?

  • Can the accusation of a drug user be listed in the "trivia" section be left to remain? Seems a bit out of order.
...huh? Please explain. --Dennis The TIger 16:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Could some clever person narrow the infobox a little, it overwhelms the page at the moment. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 16:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FedEx Corp doesn't operate in Air Courier industry, FedEx Express does.

--Feelgood 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the infobox!

Please remove the infobox. It looks awful. Really. --Mb1000 02:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The infobox looks fine on my screen (1024x768 LCD, 16.7 million colors) in Internet Explorer 6. I've seen pages with the Company infobox on several other versions of IE, at 800x600 resolution in a variety of screen sizes, and it looks fine. What is your screen resolution, color depth, and Web browser?
Also, what operating system are you using? And with what language customization? The reason I'm asking is that some non-Latin-alphabet versions of Windows render English text in a very strange way.
--Coolcaesar 02:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I partly agree with Mb1000 but not that it should be removed, that would be wrong. It just needs narrowing. Here are the widths of each part of the FedEx article on my 19 inch monitor (at 1024 by 768, on IE6 and XP, 16.7 million colours). The left hand menu is 2 inches wide, then the text channel at 6 inches wide, then the infobox at 5.5 inches wide and then a bit of blank at 0.5 inches wide. making 14 inches screen width. So you see that the infobox is nearly as big as the text width which looks horrible. Could its width be reduced. The contents of the box (font, colours etc) are fine - Adrian Pingstone 14:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Narrowing it might help a bit, but what's the point of it in the first place? All the information in the infobox is contained elsewhere in the article. --Mb1000 21:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it looks different on your computer (Adrian). On my screen it's 2 inches for the left-hand nav menus, 5 inches for the main text, and 3 inches for the infobox, which looks okay. I assume from your use of "colours" that you are probably in the UK, so it could be one of those weird IE bugs where the IE version deployed to your area of the world ended up rendering HTML tables differently than the version deployed to North America.
Also, my understanding is that the point of the infoboxes in general is to provide information at a glance, so that people totally unfamiliar with the subject of a given article can get a vague idea of what the article is about before choosing to plunge into the full text. Yeah, most adult Internet users are familiar with FedEx, but remember that the Web (and by extension Wikipedia) is used by children and teenagers who may not have worked in the business world yet and thus would not be familiar with the distinctions between the various shipping companies.
--Coolcaesar 11:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'm from Canada, but I don't think that makes a difference. Could someone please try and at least make it a bit narrower? Thanks.
--Mb1000 18:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, thanks for your comments. Yes, I am in England (in Bristol). If your infobox is 3 inches across, compared with the text channel 5 inches across, then it would look OK. So you can see why I find the infobox overwhelming - Adrian Pingstone 20:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why it is displaying strangely on your computer. You might want to raise your concerns on the Talk page for the Infobox Company template. I didn't code the template, so I don't know all its idiosyncrasies, but I'm sure whomever coded it does. Are other Infobox Company templates looking weird on your computer or is it just the FedEx page?
Also, I'm using IE 6, version 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519. Is that what you're using? The one other thing I would think is a problem is if you're using a non-standard Wikipedia stylesheet (that is, anything but the default Monobook sheet) or if your default browser text size is something other than medium. --Coolcaesar 09:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Word categorizations

I am inclined to disagree that "FedEx" is a portmanteau word. If that were the case, it would be something like "Federexpress" or "Fexpress" or "Fedpress"... you get the idea. I would say it's actually a syllabic abbreviation.
--Lazylisa 20:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of International Sites unnecessary

I removed this list; a quick check verified that FedEx provided their own index of international sites.

Moreover, half the links in it were broken (had they worked at one time, or did the person adding them just guess without checking?)

Having this single link means that

  • There is no unnecessary bloat in the article
  • FedEx keep their 30 or so links up-to-date when they alter their website. We only have to keep an eye on one.

The http://www.fedex.com 'home page' link was removed, because it simply redirects to the US home page http://www.fedex.com/us.

Fourohfour 10:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone verify this either way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FedEx_Corporation&diff=33855684&oldid=33818044
Edit desc "not all drivers or couriers are contractors"
Can someone verify this information either way as true or false? DyslexicEditor 23:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The job of courier is listed in many places on FedEx's web site, including this job position as a courier for FedEx Express. FedEx Freight East lists many positions for drivers. The independent contractors are hired for driving positions for FedEx Ground and for FedEx Custom Critical -- in fact, it seems that all drivers for these divisions are independent contractors. So, FedEx Express = FedEx employees, FedEx Ground and Custom Critical = independent contractors. kmccoy (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. It took a few minutes trying to put it up. Wikimedia errors constantly. I wonder if wikipedia shut its servers down to help its funding drive. DyslexicEditor 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight incidents/crashes?

As I understand it, there have been a couple of plane crashes within FedEx Express, but neither were attributable to pilot error. Does anyone have any information on these?

--Dennis The TIger 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On December 20, 2003, A FedEx cargo plane caught fire on landing at Memphis International Airport. All seven people aboard escaped without serious injury.
FedEx spokesman Ed Coleman says there were two crew members and five passengers on the MD-10. Coleman also says there was no evidence of an emergency prior to landing.
F-A-A spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen in Atlanta says the plane veered off a runway after landing. Sources from the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington say the right main landing gear collapsed. The right wing is resting on the ground, and there are holes burned through the right side of the plane's fuselage.
The NTSB concluded - "1) the first officer's failure to properly apply crosswind landing techniques to align the airplane with the runway centerline and to properly arrest the airplane's descent rate (flare) before the airplane touched down; and 2) the captain's failure to adequately monitor the first officer's performance and command or initiate corrective action during the final approach and landing."
Hope this helps
--Feelgood 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FedEx Commercials

Anyone up for adding a section on FedEx's advertising? I think it would be very worthwhile as the company is well-known for producing award-winning humorous commercials. It's John Moschitta commercial was one of the most famous commercials of the 1980s. co94 Oct 28, 2006

[edit] George Bush Picture

Why is this particular picture even included? There's nothing significant about Bush's picture being taken in front of FedEx vans. Does it relate to FedEx? Does it provide some information about FedEx? It should be removed. --Feelgood 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, so I have removed it - Adrian Pingstone 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

I have added a series of updated logos:

Corporate

Custom Critical

Express

Freight

Ground

Home Delivery

Kinko's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page
Talk pageServices

Trade Networks

Obtained from FedEx's logo site, and converted to SVG. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin As Thesis?

I'd heard a story that this company began as a rejected thesis project. Since then someone referred to a FedEx commercial repeating the story, and I found this site, [3], which says it was a C+ undergrad thesis. It's interesting if true, but can anyone verify this? -Kris Schnee 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The company didn't start as a rejected thesis project. Frederick Smith created the concept of Hub and Spoke model which was the basis of his rejected thesis project (See hub-spoke distribution paradigm). After Frederick left the marines, he created a cargo airline (Federal Express) in Little Rock and moved to Memphis shortly afterward which he took the hub-spoke distribution paradigm concept in his thesis and created the Federal Express as we know today. -- Feelgood 68.146.102.152 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's verifiable and citable, then it should be included in the history section. It's definitely an interesting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.46.194 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Glove details

"For example, a bacteria culture or a pizza can be delivered at the intended temperature of the shipper."

This is the second time that bacteria and pizza have been put in the article in a day. First time, in the wrong spot, and this time, while it's in the right category, why???? No other Fedex unit includes an example of what could theoretically be shipped. It sounds very awkward and given that a description of WG units is already included (albeit in a more descriptive yet still general way), absolutely unnecessary. I don't want to immediately remove this a second time in case that I'm just not getting something but at the very least, it really needs to be drastically re-worded. Ultraviolet 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're not getting is that this is an encyclopedia for readers! I can't see why the reader should not be given a concrete example of what WG will ship. I found the example helpful and I'm lost as to why you are so bothered about it. I would let it stay - Adrian Pingstone 16:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Arrow Conspiracy"

Everything about this section doesn't seem encyclopedic. It is poorly written, and makes broad assumptions (like most people didn't know about the fedex logo until recently when a blogger posted it). Most of the people I know knew about this for years before blogging became possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan124 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research and development section

I've just added a section on the anti-terrorist R&D program that FE has been involved in, and the fact that they became the first U.S. commercial airline to field an anti-missile system on its aircraft. I'm not sure if where I put the section is the best, so I leave it to the regulars around here to decide that. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZapMail

Can anyone elucidate this ill-fated venture by FedEx that started in the mid-1980s? It basically was a service that sent faxes and charged a ridiculous amount of money to do so. Any help? Iamvered (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi There. Good timing for this question. I have just uploaded a short article on Zapmail. Please have a look for review. Thanks Nelson50 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funding

Does anyone know where the funding to start the company came from? 98.203.46.85 (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fedex Home Delivery Schedule

I updated the information the main page to reflect the fact that while FedEx Home Delivery does deliver on Saturdays, in my area at least, they do not deliver on Mondays. This may be how they justify the non-standard Saturday deliveries. The customer service representatives made it sound like this is specific to the FedEx Home Delivery service, I was not able to verify if it is nationwide or only affects certain regions.

Klinky (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the Home Delivery information to reflect the standard operating hours shown on fedex.com and removed the previous information that eluded that Saturday delivery is a restriction rather than the standard.Gabriellenic (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental record section

After seeing a few anons try to remove the section, I thought I'd read it and check the references. The references given are 1) a clearly anti-FedEx site (boycottfedex.com), 2) a blog (not a reliable source), 3) an environmental group's press release (not NPOV with respect to an environmental record). Thus, I am going to remove this section unless reliable sources are found to substantiate the claim (plus it's really quite poorly written and not NPOV in any event). nneonneo talk 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There might well be some truth in the claims that were made in the section that has been deleted, but as it stood, it was not encyclopedic in style or content. Buffalo Bill talk to me 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)