UPS making good progress on DHL deal
07-22-2008 | 05:33 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Looks like it's not a "deal" anymore. Finally they are calling it for what it is. Looks like the politicians see the light. There is some wierd stuff going on. Does the IPA see it? Best of luck.
Lawmakers call deal ‘de facto merger’
CLINTON COUNTY
By GARY HUFFENBERGER
[email protected]
In a letter from the Ohio congressional delegation to the nation’s two antitrust enforcement agencies, the legislators say the proposed deal between United Parcel Service (UPS) and DHL will result in a “de facto merger” of the companies.
The term “de facto” means “in practice” or “in effect.” The lawmakers’ assertion that the deal will, in effect, have the outcome of a merger between UPS and DHL for the U.S. market is the strongest public language to date made by Ohio members of Congress, according to Wilmington Mayor David Raizk.
“Yes, it is a strong statement. And I appreciate that strong statement because I think it reflects what we’ve all been thinking and working on, but this is the first time we’ve seen it in print,” Raizk said Monday.
The page-and-a-half letter, not counting the signatures of the Congress members, was sent last week to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division as well as the Federal Trade Commission.
Among other purposes, antitrust law in general supervises the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to remedies such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business, according to Wikipedia.
The DHL press office on Monday released a statement after it was asked to comment on the lawmakers’ letter. Here it is verbatim.
“The proposed agreement under negotiation with UPS is not a merger, acquisition or joint venture. It represents a pro-competitive opportunity to safeguard and enhance a competitive choice in the U.S. domestic market to the benefit of consumers. The agreement would be solely a customer-vendor arrangement whereby DHL purchases certain airlift and related services from UPS, as we do currently from other providers,” according to DHL.
“Such arrangements have been common in the transportation industry for some time and are not subject to prior regulatory approval,” DHL added.
“We expect an agreement with UPS would deliver significant cost savings from reduced air lift costs, which will help ensure the sustainability of our U.S. express operations. If DHL cannot significantly cut its cost in its air service, it could end up affecting tens of thousands of employees of DHL and of our vendors and suppliers across the country,” the DHL statement concluded.
But the Ohio congressional delegation’s letter said by having UPS provide air carrier services for DHL in North America, the proposed contract “will allow for UPS and DHL to integrate key strategic assets.”
“If a final agreement is reached, DHL will surrender control over cost and service quality to one of its chief competitors, UPS, one of the two largest package delivery companies in the U.S. market,” said the congressional delegation’s letter.
The congresspersons’ letter added, “We are very concerned that any agreement between DHL and UPS in such a concentrated market increases the likelihood of anticompetitive collusion in that market.”
The legislators asked the two enforcement agencies to “immediately open” an investigation into the proposed agreement between DHL and UPS.
Copies of the letter were sent to the president of the German Federal Cartel Office along with the European commissioner for competition.
Previously, in a June 5 letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, U.S. Rep. Mike Turner and other Ohio legislators wrote, “As a result of meetings that Ohio members have had with representatives at DHL, it is our understanding that DHL has confirmed that their proposed strategic relationship with UPS in the U.S. may extend into other markets.”
The Sherman Antitrust Act was signed into law in 1890 and was named after its author, U.S. Sen. John Sherman, an Ohio Republican, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. After passing in the Senate by a vote of 51-1, the legislation passed 242-0 in the House of Representatives.
Lawmakers call deal ‘de facto merger’
CLINTON COUNTY
By GARY HUFFENBERGER
[email protected]
In a letter from the Ohio congressional delegation to the nation’s two antitrust enforcement agencies, the legislators say the proposed deal between United Parcel Service (UPS) and DHL will result in a “de facto merger” of the companies.
The term “de facto” means “in practice” or “in effect.” The lawmakers’ assertion that the deal will, in effect, have the outcome of a merger between UPS and DHL for the U.S. market is the strongest public language to date made by Ohio members of Congress, according to Wilmington Mayor David Raizk.
“Yes, it is a strong statement. And I appreciate that strong statement because I think it reflects what we’ve all been thinking and working on, but this is the first time we’ve seen it in print,” Raizk said Monday.
The page-and-a-half letter, not counting the signatures of the Congress members, was sent last week to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division as well as the Federal Trade Commission.
Among other purposes, antitrust law in general supervises the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to remedies such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business, according to Wikipedia.
The DHL press office on Monday released a statement after it was asked to comment on the lawmakers’ letter. Here it is verbatim.
“The proposed agreement under negotiation with UPS is not a merger, acquisition or joint venture. It represents a pro-competitive opportunity to safeguard and enhance a competitive choice in the U.S. domestic market to the benefit of consumers. The agreement would be solely a customer-vendor arrangement whereby DHL purchases certain airlift and related services from UPS, as we do currently from other providers,” according to DHL.
“Such arrangements have been common in the transportation industry for some time and are not subject to prior regulatory approval,” DHL added.
“We expect an agreement with UPS would deliver significant cost savings from reduced air lift costs, which will help ensure the sustainability of our U.S. express operations. If DHL cannot significantly cut its cost in its air service, it could end up affecting tens of thousands of employees of DHL and of our vendors and suppliers across the country,” the DHL statement concluded.
But the Ohio congressional delegation’s letter said by having UPS provide air carrier services for DHL in North America, the proposed contract “will allow for UPS and DHL to integrate key strategic assets.”
“If a final agreement is reached, DHL will surrender control over cost and service quality to one of its chief competitors, UPS, one of the two largest package delivery companies in the U.S. market,” said the congressional delegation’s letter.
The congresspersons’ letter added, “We are very concerned that any agreement between DHL and UPS in such a concentrated market increases the likelihood of anticompetitive collusion in that market.”
The legislators asked the two enforcement agencies to “immediately open” an investigation into the proposed agreement between DHL and UPS.
Copies of the letter were sent to the president of the German Federal Cartel Office along with the European commissioner for competition.
Previously, in a June 5 letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, U.S. Rep. Mike Turner and other Ohio legislators wrote, “As a result of meetings that Ohio members have had with representatives at DHL, it is our understanding that DHL has confirmed that their proposed strategic relationship with UPS in the U.S. may extend into other markets.”
The Sherman Antitrust Act was signed into law in 1890 and was named after its author, U.S. Sen. John Sherman, an Ohio Republican, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. After passing in the Senate by a vote of 51-1, the legislation passed 242-0 in the House of Representatives.
07-22-2008 | 05:46 PM
#22
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Looks like it's not a "deal" anymore. Finally they are calling it for what it is. Looks like the politicians see the light. There is some wierd stuff going on. Does the IPA see it? Best of luck.
Lawmakers call deal ‘de facto merger’
CLINTON COUNTY
By GARY HUFFENBERGER
[email protected]
In a letter from the Ohio congressional delegation to the nation’s two antitrust enforcement agencies, the legislators say the proposed deal between United Parcel Service (UPS) and DHL will result in a “de facto merger” of the companies.
The term “de facto” means “in practice” or “in effect.” The lawmakers’ assertion that the deal will, in effect, have the outcome of a merger between UPS and DHL for the U.S. market is the strongest public language to date made by Ohio members of Congress, according to Wilmington Mayor David Raizk.
“Yes, it is a strong statement. And I appreciate that strong statement because I think it reflects what we’ve all been thinking and working on, but this is the first time we’ve seen it in print,” Raizk said Monday.
The page-and-a-half letter, not counting the signatures of the Congress members, was sent last week to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division as well as the Federal Trade Commission.
Among other purposes, antitrust law in general supervises the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to remedies such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business, according to Wikipedia.
The DHL press office on Monday released a statement after it was asked to comment on the lawmakers’ letter. Here it is verbatim.
“The proposed agreement under negotiation with UPS is not a merger, acquisition or joint venture. It represents a pro-competitive opportunity to safeguard and enhance a competitive choice in the U.S. domestic market to the benefit of consumers. The agreement would be solely a customer-vendor arrangement whereby DHL purchases certain airlift and related services from UPS, as we do currently from other providers,” according to DHL.
“Such arrangements have been common in the transportation industry for some time and are not subject to prior regulatory approval,” DHL added.
“We expect an agreement with UPS would deliver significant cost savings from reduced air lift costs, which will help ensure the sustainability of our U.S. express operations. If DHL cannot significantly cut its cost in its air service, it could end up affecting tens of thousands of employees of DHL and of our vendors and suppliers across the country,” the DHL statement concluded.
But the Ohio congressional delegation’s letter said by having UPS provide air carrier services for DHL in North America, the proposed contract “will allow for UPS and DHL to integrate key strategic assets.”
“If a final agreement is reached, DHL will surrender control over cost and service quality to one of its chief competitors, UPS, one of the two largest package delivery companies in the U.S. market,” said the congressional delegation’s letter.
The congresspersons’ letter added, “We are very concerned that any agreement between DHL and UPS in such a concentrated market increases the likelihood of anticompetitive collusion in that market.”
The legislators asked the two enforcement agencies to “immediately open” an investigation into the proposed agreement between DHL and UPS.
Copies of the letter were sent to the president of the German Federal Cartel Office along with the European commissioner for competition.
Previously, in a June 5 letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, U.S. Rep. Mike Turner and other Ohio legislators wrote, “As a result of meetings that Ohio members have had with representatives at DHL, it is our understanding that DHL has confirmed that their proposed strategic relationship with UPS in the U.S. may extend into other markets.”
The Sherman Antitrust Act was signed into law in 1890 and was named after its author, U.S. Sen. John Sherman, an Ohio Republican, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. After passing in the Senate by a vote of 51-1, the legislation passed 242-0 in the House of Representatives.
Lawmakers call deal ‘de facto merger’
CLINTON COUNTY
By GARY HUFFENBERGER
[email protected]
In a letter from the Ohio congressional delegation to the nation’s two antitrust enforcement agencies, the legislators say the proposed deal between United Parcel Service (UPS) and DHL will result in a “de facto merger” of the companies.
The term “de facto” means “in practice” or “in effect.” The lawmakers’ assertion that the deal will, in effect, have the outcome of a merger between UPS and DHL for the U.S. market is the strongest public language to date made by Ohio members of Congress, according to Wilmington Mayor David Raizk.
“Yes, it is a strong statement. And I appreciate that strong statement because I think it reflects what we’ve all been thinking and working on, but this is the first time we’ve seen it in print,” Raizk said Monday.
The page-and-a-half letter, not counting the signatures of the Congress members, was sent last week to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division as well as the Federal Trade Commission.
Among other purposes, antitrust law in general supervises the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to remedies such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business, according to Wikipedia.
The DHL press office on Monday released a statement after it was asked to comment on the lawmakers’ letter. Here it is verbatim.
“The proposed agreement under negotiation with UPS is not a merger, acquisition or joint venture. It represents a pro-competitive opportunity to safeguard and enhance a competitive choice in the U.S. domestic market to the benefit of consumers. The agreement would be solely a customer-vendor arrangement whereby DHL purchases certain airlift and related services from UPS, as we do currently from other providers,” according to DHL.
“Such arrangements have been common in the transportation industry for some time and are not subject to prior regulatory approval,” DHL added.
“We expect an agreement with UPS would deliver significant cost savings from reduced air lift costs, which will help ensure the sustainability of our U.S. express operations. If DHL cannot significantly cut its cost in its air service, it could end up affecting tens of thousands of employees of DHL and of our vendors and suppliers across the country,” the DHL statement concluded.
But the Ohio congressional delegation’s letter said by having UPS provide air carrier services for DHL in North America, the proposed contract “will allow for UPS and DHL to integrate key strategic assets.”
“If a final agreement is reached, DHL will surrender control over cost and service quality to one of its chief competitors, UPS, one of the two largest package delivery companies in the U.S. market,” said the congressional delegation’s letter.
The congresspersons’ letter added, “We are very concerned that any agreement between DHL and UPS in such a concentrated market increases the likelihood of anticompetitive collusion in that market.”
The legislators asked the two enforcement agencies to “immediately open” an investigation into the proposed agreement between DHL and UPS.
Copies of the letter were sent to the president of the German Federal Cartel Office along with the European commissioner for competition.
Previously, in a June 5 letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, U.S. Rep. Mike Turner and other Ohio legislators wrote, “As a result of meetings that Ohio members have had with representatives at DHL, it is our understanding that DHL has confirmed that their proposed strategic relationship with UPS in the U.S. may extend into other markets.”
The Sherman Antitrust Act was signed into law in 1890 and was named after its author, U.S. Sen. John Sherman, an Ohio Republican, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. After passing in the Senate by a vote of 51-1, the legislation passed 242-0 in the House of Representatives.
The only people not calling it a deal are the Ohio delegation. What do you expect them to call it? It's all politics on their side. Call it whatever you want, but it will go through.
07-22-2008 | 06:32 PM
#23
Line Holder
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 2
From: DC-8 756/767
What do you expect from a politician? I would only think it is wierd if they were not trying to save jobs in their district. They can call it what they want, but the deal will go through.
Also SD, I have heard from many sources, for what it is worth, that furlough was and is a possibility without the DHL deal. True or not true, that is what I have been told.
Also SD, I have heard from many sources, for what it is worth, that furlough was and is a possibility without the DHL deal. True or not true, that is what I have been told.
07-22-2008 | 06:38 PM
#24
Line Holder
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 24
I'm not sure that statement is as true as you or I would like to believe that it is. We had a briefing from the airline pres. in CGN a week or so back and he pretty much laid it on the line for us. Without this deal we were heading for some very unpleasant news. Don't forget that these guys react and their reactions don't always meet the situation. They are experts at making the square peg fit the round hole. They will cut off their nose to spite their faces. In the end it all works out for them.
07-22-2008 | 08:49 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: MD 11 FO
blah, blah, blah...."we are always looking for planes but do not have any 767s ordered...." Oh wait yea we do. Does it really matter what he said or did not say?
07-22-2008 | 11:32 PM
#27
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
From: Capt: Lav Truck
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! If youve been on UPS property for more than 6 months, you already know not to listen to a word they say in these "meetings." Or better yet, just take what they say and expect the exact opposite to happen.
dos pesos, and thats about all its worth.......
07-23-2008 | 07:00 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! If youve been on UPS property for more than 6 months, you already know not to listen to a word they say in these "meetings." Or better yet, just take what they say and expect the exact opposite to happen.
dos pesos, and thats about all its worth.......
dos pesos, and thats about all its worth.......
07-23-2008 | 08:23 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Anti-trust
Fed Ex gets a contract to haul mail and thats not considered a “de facto merger” How many pilots did that put out of work? UPS buys Menlo and gets the Emery freight and that wasn't an anti trust issue. UPS bought Challenge and that wasn't an issue. UPS bought IPX and it wasn't an issue. Fed Ex bought tigers and it wasn't an issue. DHL contracted these flights to ABX and ASTAR. They awarded the contract to UPS now. How is that anti-trust? It isn't UPS' fault that Airborne ABX sold out to DHL in the first place. ABX would still be flying if that was the case. Don't blame UPS and the pilots for this. Blame Airborne and DHL managers. Fed Ex was trying to get this volume too.
Fed Ex gets a contract to haul mail and thats not considered a “de facto merger” How many pilots did that put out of work? UPS buys Menlo and gets the Emery freight and that wasn't an anti trust issue. UPS bought Challenge and that wasn't an issue. UPS bought IPX and it wasn't an issue. Fed Ex bought tigers and it wasn't an issue. DHL contracted these flights to ABX and ASTAR. They awarded the contract to UPS now. How is that anti-trust? It isn't UPS' fault that Airborne ABX sold out to DHL in the first place. ABX would still be flying if that was the case. Don't blame UPS and the pilots for this. Blame Airborne and DHL managers. Fed Ex was trying to get this volume too.
07-23-2008 | 08:43 AM
#30
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
The USPS is not subject to anti-trust laws.
The rest of your statements include the word "bought". There is a difference.
Also, those deals(Challenge, Menlo, etc.) are all being looked at as a whole in this deal. UPS has quitely and methodically been transforming itself into a monopoly. When you put all these deals together it is huge. Imagine if Kroger bought Piggly Wiggly a few years ago, then moved and bought a portion of Publix, then a few years later bought Winn Dixie. Individually these seem harmless but put together, they are huge and harmful to the American consumer. Anti-trust/collusion laws are very complicated, most of which I don't even attempt to understand but I do understand what they are looking at here and why.
The rest of your statements include the word "bought". There is a difference.
Also, those deals(Challenge, Menlo, etc.) are all being looked at as a whole in this deal. UPS has quitely and methodically been transforming itself into a monopoly. When you put all these deals together it is huge. Imagine if Kroger bought Piggly Wiggly a few years ago, then moved and bought a portion of Publix, then a few years later bought Winn Dixie. Individually these seem harmless but put together, they are huge and harmful to the American consumer. Anti-trust/collusion laws are very complicated, most of which I don't even attempt to understand but I do understand what they are looking at here and why.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
