How did UPS get airline code 5X?
 

Just curious........ the few UPS types I've asked didn't know.

Something to do with them buying their certificate from IPX?? (Int'l Package Xpress??)...can't remember if that's the correct name of that company..but 5X was those guy's ICAO code back then.

anybody else has anything different?

That's correct - UPS was one of the two parent companies of International Parcel Express (IPX). Essentially, this small airline (2 DC-8's) was formed for the purpose of obtaining certain Asian route authority, then flying these routes. When the bid to obtain these rights failed, it was thought that UPS would shut the airline down. Instead, UPS used this airline certificate (along with the 5X code) to form their airline.

That stands for ups makes 5 times more money that other airlines and treat thier labor 5 times as bad as others and we have 5 times more managers to run this airline and they are 5 times less qualified .

The other parent company was DHL. UPS got the code. UPS leased 2 8's to IPX to get rights into Narita. Fed Ex *****ed to the government since IPX was half owned by DHL. UPS bought out DHL but it was too late and didn't get the rights. UPS used the code and cert and formed the airline. I wonder where UPS Airlines would be if Fed Ex didn't complain about it or the rights were awarded to IPX? Would there still be the contract pilots from Orion Evergreen, and Ryan flying browntails?

ah, makes sense now. Thanks everyone for answering.-

SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4X was taken

With the recent Amazon Prime Air developments, and the speculation (spoken and unspoken) swirling around, I think it might be interesting to revisit the formative history of UPS Airlines.

As seen by above post, UPS started its own airline this way. It is my understanding that the IPX crews went along with the aircraft and thus the top of the seniority list, at least in their seat position, if not absolute number. Also not mentioned was that IPX was unionized, with a IBT contract that was essentially a carbon copy of Airborne Express (ABX) 1987 CBA.

Since UPS was starting a significant size airline from the get go, Captains were hired off the street. (This was ~ 1987, mainly 1988 timeframe). Backing up a bit, there were other contractors flying UPS freight out KSDF hub since the early 1980's (most notably Orion Air). Even though pilots for those contractors may have been flying SDF hub turns for several years (and rated on the type of aircraft UPS would operate), they still had to go through the interview process along with many other "off the street" candidates.

Pilots (some if not most) who are flying for Amazon contractors may be thinking (hoping? wishing?) that Amazon buys their airline, pilots are Amazon employees, and they get to experience a "turn an urchin into a prince" event that the IPX pilots experienced in the 80's, NOT.

By all indications, Amazon embraces the DHL model of spreading the flying around several contractors, playing the whipsaw game. Recall that UPS utilized a multiple contractor model throughout much of the 80's. UPS may very well come to the conclusion via enlightened thinking that they'd be better off operating their own airline. My recollection of that era seems to indicate that some FAA impetus may have provided at least a smidgen of motivation to "go in house".

Amazon doesn't have DHL's excuse of being a foreign entity. Then again, Amazon is just doing what the legacy airlines have done for many years with the regional airline contractor business model. With the current administration being relatively "hands off" on regulation, I don't see DOT/FAA leaning on Amazon to go the in house airline route any time soon. Where Amazon goes with their Prime Air thing is open to speculation. I'll close by saying that I hope all ACMI pilots flying for Amazon take the formation of UPS Airlines to heart, sticking together with a unified front, and negotiate a strong scope/successor clause.

I think the whipsaw comment is going to be the future for Amazon carriers. They need to keep the costs low for free or almost free shipping. $99 unlimited shipping is the ULCC of shipping.

Probably the most well organized writing I've seen on here in a while.

By looking at corporate culture of Amazon I'd say they plan on sticking with the contractor route. The city which I reside, currently one of the largest markets, is full of Amazon Flex drivers. In fact after reading more about amazon they are pretty big on subs. No benefits and no payroll taxes either. When your new $1500.00 widget is delivered in an old dodge K-car you realize the extent they go to.

The Amazon ramp should be one union with one Heck of a scope clause. Unfortunately, history is short lived in people's minds over this matter and it draws intense debate.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

All interesting thoughts and definitely going to be fun to watch. I didn't want to hijack this thread but when I read where some of the talk was heading, I just wanted to throw one more idea out there.

So far a lot of people, including myself, have said that they think Amazon will follow in DHL's footsteps by having multiple carriers fly for them. By doing such they can whipsaw and keep costs down, is what keeps coming up.

I was just recently thinking of this more and started to wonder, how does not owning the airline keep costs down? These companies, ATSG and Atlas do not lose money. They make money off of DHL and Amazon. A good amount as a matter of fact. Seems to me that by contracting out the work, it's more likely that Amazon is leaving some money on the table that could be in their pocket.

If free shipping to the Amazon customer is the ultimate goal, I'm starting to think that they would have to own and operate their own iron. Who knows... Time will tell.

Back to the UPS topic. Carry on.��

In the very short term it might be "cheaper" for Amazon to have the airline in house. Except it still wouldn't be, because the start-up costs are significant.

The long term time window is where the real savings are. They can keep moving the flying around from the lowest bidder to the next lowest bidder and so on. They don't have to worry about their pilots, rampers, dispatchers, whatever, unionizing, going on strike, and crippling the company or digging too deep into their margin. They'll just move along to the next lowest bidder. There's a never ending line of pilots willing to go fly a 757/767 for ATI at $50k/year, and if ATI gets replaced, they'll just get in line to work at the next company.

That's the question regional pilots have been asking for decades. From the outside it would appear to be more expensive to contract out. Yet every legacy continues to do it and fight for bigger planes for regionals.

Brown figured this out in the late '80s.

If you purchase an already operating airline, what start up costs are you referring to?

"They can keep moving the flying around from the lowest bidder to the next lowest bidder and so on."

Except that the lowest bidder is still making money. Money that Amazon leaves on table by contracting.

"They don't have to worry about their pilots, rampers, dispatchers, whatever, unionizing, going on strike, and crippling the company or digging too deep into their margin"

No, you still have to worry about that. Contractor or not.

"They'll just move along to the next lowest bidder. There's a never ending line of pilots willing to go fly a 757/767 for ATI at $50k/year, and if ATI gets replaced, they'll just get in line to work at the next company."

Not going to be that easy to just move flying all over the place. There may be guys willing to fly for cheap. Can't argue that, but like I said if they are serious, I believe in my humble opinion that they will want complete control and absolute savings. We shall see.

I agree. As the months go on, more will come to light.

I know the vast majority of ABX and ATI pilots hope and pray that Amazon will purchase them to become the in-house Amazon Prime Air.

A simple 5 minute Google search will show you what it's really like to be an actual employee of Amazon. Be careful what you wish for... :eek:

I agree that some do want that. Myself and a few others would actually be happy with contracting for both.

I feel there is more security with DHL. They've been around a long time and don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. I personally think it would be better for us pilots doing it that way. Not to mention the charters that we do for others as well.

I don't have an ego to feed that makes me want to work for a big name company. Just pay me well and leave me alone and I'll be happy.

I see your point, but you will probably never have as much job security as a contractor as you would working for a company that carries it's own product.

I look at security as relative to what the industry is doing. Almost all the companies we discuss in this thread and others, have at one time furloughed. Right now the industry all around is moving and shaking. Get on where you can, build seniority and ride it out is the path I've chosen for better or for worse.

Unless you know something that I don't, purchasing an airline isn't free. Then you have to spend a ton of money to integrate it into your operation. So that would be your startup cost right there.

Better to have the lowest bidder making a small profit by treating their employees like crap than to buy an airline, and then have to give all the pilots a huge raise on the first round of negotiations (or risk a strike) because they now work for Amazon, one of the biggest companies in the US.

You're obviously a pilot and not a manager. If your contractor's pilots unionize and ask for a ridiculously expensive raise, you move the flying to the next contractor whose pilots are willing to work for $50k/year just to get that widebody type on their resume. It's called controlling your cost. Yes, you might have to pay the contractor enough for them to make a profit, but you're saving yourself from some very expensive exposure to actually owning an airline. If an ATI plane crashes in the middle of the night because the pilots were on their third leg and heavily fatigued, guess who's NOT getting sued? Amazon.

They will spend less and have more financial control over their labor groups by having the lowest bidder doing it, rather than bringing the flying in-house to a company that has no experience running an airline or dealing with a pilot union.

And you are completely missing how it is VERY easy to move flying all over the place? They just moved a ton of flying to ATI because ABEX went on strike, which is now why ATI is hiring. How in the world did you miss that key detail?

Amazon is ALREADY having labor dispute issues with the airline industry. Could you imagine how much worse it would be for them if they brought it in-house?

http://www.recode.net/2016/12/2/1381...abx-air-strike

You mention some good points but honestly, you and everyone else knows that it can go either way. I'm not an airline manager but my background is pretty varied.

I don't have time to address all your points and I'm not really interested in a huge back and forth, but I will address one point of yours. The "transfer" of flying from ABX to ATI. I'm very familiar with it so, no, it didn't escape me. As a matter of fact ABX has the Amazon flying back. That's not the reason ATI has been hiring. They have been hiring off and on at nearly the same pace as ABX. Just wanted to clear that up for you. And was it easy for them to do? It did take some time to get routes covered.