Example of Fedex Intl shipping

Possibly so but I know from relative's expereince as drivers and package handlers that FedEx wages are much less (even for pilots) than UPS so the cost savings may be there thru cuts internally despite the dispatching. Don't get me wrong, I like the service I get from both UPS and FedEx and would like to see them put USPS out of the package biz, but it doesn't seem to have a logic to the plan. -> -----Original Message----- -> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org -> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Ethan Dicks -> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:19 PM -> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org -> Subject: RE: Example of Fedex Intl shipping -> -> -> -> --- Russ Blakeman <rhblake(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: -> > So if a package is shipped from NYC to Boston it has to go to -> Memphic first? -> > That doesn't seem to make sense at any rate. A central hub system makes -> > sense but not for everything unless it has to pass thru that point from -> > start to finish. -> -> But you get savings at not trying to put two-way routing intellegence at -> each major nexus. At Cleveland, let's say, all stuff that comes -> in, goes out -> on the planes to Memphis early every evening, and stuff to get -> routed within -> the Cleveland area arrives later in the evening. No sorting is -> required at -> Cleveland to figure out if it goes to Memphis or not. If you -> multiply this -> by hundreds of metro areas, the savings is clear. Now... it's -> possible to -> insert a minimal level of sorting so you don't ship a package from one -> Cleveland address to another via Memphis, but if it goes from -> one metro area -> to another, routing to a hub is more efficient, even if you pass your -> destination on the way to the hub. There is a plane from NYC to Memphis -> and back every night; there is a plane from, Boston to Memphis and back -> every night; why add a plane from NYC to Boston? You already have four -> legs that have to be there anyway that will get the package there. It -> only would become an issue if you could fill a plane, night after night -> from one place to another that you'd even want to think about bypassing -> the hub. -> -> I think these days, the original concept has been extended to allow for -> multiple hubs, permitting a much smaller route optimization than solving -> for m x n, but the concept is still valid. Economically, people will pay -> more for "absolutely, positively has to be there overnight". -> The optimization -> here is for time first, cost second. If the customer could wait, they -> could choose a lower-priority delivery technique. The Post -> Office and UPS -> optimize for cost first, delivery-time second. Different models. -> -> Given that FedEx also offers lower priority delivery, they -> probably aren't -> filling each and every plane, each and every night with stuff. If they -> were, there wouldn't be room to stuff the lower priority items -> in the corners. -> -> -ethan -> -> -> ===== -> Visit "The Seventh Continent" -> http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html -> -> __________________________________________________ -> Do You Yahoo!? -> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger -> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/