| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:49:54 -0500, "John N9JG"
wrote: Back in the minicomputer days, we had a disk drive for a DEC PDP11-70 on order. In those days drives were large and heavy, and a single drive might take up one-third of a rack. Well, the freight truck driver pulled up near the loading dock, opened the rear doors and backed the semi up to the loading dock. The driver got out again and looked around for unloading help. Not finding any help, he climbed inside the trailer and rolled the 120 pound crate out the back of the truck and down onto the loading dock. The height difference between the floor of the trailer and the loading dock was about four feet. The driver pulled forward, closed the trailer doors and drove off. Needless to say the drive didn't work, and the shock detector inside the packing crate indicated the drive had suffered at least one large impulse during shipment from the factory to the customer. Not as serious, but I once had a drive about 2x3x4 feet in size merely dropped off by UPS on an unattended, open loading dock -- no signature taken. That was on the shipper for not requiring a sig. But it stood on the dock, only occasionally attended, for another three days, with no notice to me -- my company's bad. When I fnally called the vendor, they chased it down (pre-tracking-website) and found it had been delivered three days earlier. Dumb vendor -- when we later replacd a line printer with a faster one, they were supposed to come and pick up the old one. They screwed around for four months and finally came around for the printer, on the third floor of a three-story building. Ha-ha -- by that time, the freight elevator was out of service for a couple of weeks for re-building. The vendor had to hire another outfit to come out with expensive equipment capable of walking a heavy printer down two wrapped flights of stairs. "Chuck Harris" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: [stuff] Sounds like bovine excrement to me. I have dealt with companies in the past... [stuff] |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Bill wrote:
case here and I know Alaska and Hawaii suffer much of the same. Both UPS and FedEX service Alaska and Hawaii with no problem. They do charge you for the extra expense of getting to these remote locations (as they should!). -Chuck |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
In article ,
"John N9JG" wrote: Back in the minicomputer days, we had a disk drive for a DEC PDP11-70 on order. In those days drives were large and heavy, and a single drive might take up one-third of a rack. Well, the freight truck driver pulled up near the loading dock, opened the rear doors and backed the semi up to the loading dock. The driver got out again and looked around for unloading help. Not finding any help, he climbed inside the trailer and rolled the 120 pound crate out the back of the truck and down onto the loading dock. The height difference between the floor of the trailer and the loading dock was about four feet. The driver pulled forward, closed the trailer doors and drove off. Needless to say the drive didn't work, and the shock detector inside the packing crate indicated the drive had suffered at least one large impulse during shipment from the factory to the customer. back in the "old days" didn't ups have a 70 lb limit on all boxes? |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
mike murphy wrote:
In article , "John N9JG" wrote: back in the "old days" didn't ups have a 70 lb limit on all boxes? Now it's 150 lbs except for Hazmat which is still 70 lbs. I deal with UPS daily and they SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hazmat non-conus is generally sent Fed Ex and I use them everyday. Given a choice I would ship DHL or Fed-Ex always! |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
mike murphy wrote:
In article , "John N9JG" wrote: Back in the minicomputer days, we had a disk drive for a DEC PDP11-70 on order. In those days drives were large and heavy, and a single drive might take up one-third of a rack. Well, the freight truck driver pulled up near the loading dock, opened the rear doors and backed the semi up to the loading dock. The driver got out again and looked around for unloading help. Not finding any help, he climbed inside the trailer and rolled the 120 pound crate out the back of the truck and down onto the loading dock. The height difference between the floor of the trailer and the loading dock was about four feet. The driver pulled forward, closed the trailer doors and drove off. Needless to say the drive didn't work, and the shock detector inside the packing crate indicated the drive had suffered at least one large impulse during shipment from the factory to the customer. back in the "old days" didn't ups have a 70 lb limit on all boxes? Yep, this was a diversion to a gripe about an unnamed freight company. -Chuck |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
|
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
In article ,
" wrote: mike murphy wrote: In article , "John N9JG" wrote: back in the "old days" didn't ups have a 70 lb limit on all boxes? Now it's 150 lbs except for Hazmat which is still 70 lbs. I deal with UPS daily and they SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hazmat non-conus is generally sent Fed Ex and I use them everyday. Given a choice I would ship DHL or Fed-Ex always! We switched to fedex 2 years+ ago, no complaints. ups drivers are nice guys ( they still bring stuff here, and pick up on ocasion) but the company ( mostly insurence issues for us) sucks. from my experience, they treat every insurence claim like fraud on the part of their customers. used ups for international shipments at the req of customers, they messed up more times than not. |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Busted by the ShockWatch !
Same thing happend to me, several Datapoint computers (1985) all had been subjected to over 5g's so we refused the shipment, shipper had to pay big $$$ to have new items reshipped via a competior ! |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Busted by the ShockWatch !
Same thing happend to me, several Datapoint computers (1985) all had been subjected to over 5g's so we refused the shipment, shipper had to pay big $$$ to have new items reshipped via a competior ! |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Busted by the ShockWatch !
Same thing happend to me, several Datapoint computers (1985) all had been subjected to over 5g's so we refused the shipment, shipper had to pay big $$$ to have new items reshipped via a competior ! |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Busted by the ShockWatch !
Same thing happend to me, several Datapoint computers (1985) all had been subjected to over 5g's so we refused the shipment, shipper had to pay big $$$ to have new items reshipped via a competior ! |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Busted by the ShockWatch !
Same thing happend to me, several Datapoint computers (1985) all had been subjected to over 5g's so we refused the shipment, shipper had to pay big $$$ to have new items reshipped via a competior ! |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
|
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
|
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Guido Sarducci from NYC wrote:
UPS uses company drivers and FedEx Home uses subcontractors/independants so they have less overhead, so lower fees. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My local FedEx contractor delivers on Saturday, too. 73, Bill W6WRT |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Guido Sarducci from NYC wrote:
Don't spend a lot of money on those self adhesive ship labels, instead use regular paper and get one of those glue sticks that the kids use at school, that turns your plain paper label into a stick on label for a few cents ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you're going to use glue sticks, test them first for water resistance. The kind I use at work come off quite easily. 73, Bill W6WRT |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Let me also say that, from my experience, UPS and FedEx Ground break things at about the same rate. But when FedEx damages something, they promptly inspect it and pay out without a fuss, while UPS will do almost anything to avoid paying insurance claims. Admittedly I have had only three UPS issues, but all were nightmares. --scott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Also... never ship anything when UPS's union is in negotiations. Things get mysteriously "damaged" in transit. Some of their drivers are incredibly stupid if they think that helps things. 73, Bill W6WRT |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. Earl KD5XB -- Earl Needham Clovis, New Mexico USA |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Earl Needham wrote:
What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the bandwidth, they decided not to use it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote: What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the bandwidth, they decided not to use it. --scott Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress. Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have realized. -Chuck |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message ... Scott Dorsey wrote: Earl Needham wrote: What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the bandwidth, they decided not to use it. --scott Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress. Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have realized. -Chuck The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. -- Clif Holland KA5IPF www.avvid.com |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Chuck Harris wrote:
Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress. This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress, though. Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have realized. Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote: Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress. This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress, though. Being easier doesn't make it more effective. Would you boycott Chevrolet because someone robbed your favorite bank and used a Chevy as a get-away car? UPS thought they needed some spectrum, and they asked for it. FCC didn't see significant usage of the 220 band, and offered it up. FCC could just as easily have offered up a small chunk of some microwave band. All votes are equal in value, but not all voters. Some just vote what the newspapers, and the parties say they should, others write letters, make phone calls, create blogs, ... They get more political power than the usual voter. If you want to get the spectrum back, start lobbying for it. Come up with a reason why hams should have it back... We probably won't get it back, on account of ham radio being among the "walking-dead". (and yes, I am a ham, so I get to make observations like that.) Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have realized. Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart. They don't violate part 15! They are perfectly in complience. The violation comes when the user doesn't prevent his device from interferring with any service. It was idiotic of the Congress, and the FCC to allow that wording, but they did...and we didn't hold them to task for it. -Chuck |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:11:33 -0700, Earl Needham wrote:
What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. "They"? UPS never applied for any 220 MHz license nor do they operate on 220 MHz, then or now. The culprit was a certain "also-ran" equipment manufacturer who had a bright idea (and whose CEO had "juice" with the FCC from whence he came) but never could produce equipment that worked on that band. They approached UPS to get them interested, but UPS got tired of waiting for working equipment and looked elsewhere (800 MHz). Gotta keep the urban legends straight!! ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote:
The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level management, all political appointees who do not understand what the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and equipment) should be expended on it. I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is not charmed by what the agency has become lately. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Not picking on the "grunts" but the upper level would be hard pressed to
find the bathroom. -- Clif Holland KA5IPF www.avvid.com "Phil Kane" wrote in message ast.net... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote: The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level management, all political appointees who do not understand what the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and equipment) should be expended on it. I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is not charmed by what the agency has become lately. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Phil Kane wrote:
I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is not charmed by what the agency has become lately. Hmmm....I probably have a notice here somewhere with your autograph :) Does the FCC still go after Novices with 40m harmonics falling out of band on 10 meters or has the freeband CB QRM covered up all of the violations? Just kidding. Well, no...not really. -Bill ex-WN4SXX |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
"-=H=-" wrote in message ... Hi all, I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used FedEx Ground. Here's why: Two packages: (1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900 (2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100 FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77 UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07 UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost 45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive. To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money. Something to think about next time you're shipping packages! 73, Dean K5DH AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear! "Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab! 73 Jerry |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
I received a roll of guy cable (almost like a block of iron) today via
UPS and would you believe they damaged it. Nothing gets shipped UPS from this person. Jerry wrote: "-=H=-" wrote in message ... Hi all, I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used FedEx Ground. Here's why: Two packages: (1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900 (2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100 FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77 UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07 UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost 45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive. To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money. Something to think about next time you're shipping packages! 73, Dean K5DH AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear! "Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab! 73 Jerry |
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
I agree. I shipped a 25 pound package to Rome Italy via USPS and the cost
was only $42.00. I was told that it would go air and be delivered within 5 days. Had confirmation from recipient in Rome in 4 days! -- Richard D. Reese http://www.wa8dbw.ifip.com "Simon" wrote in message ... Hi Can any US readers of this thread explain why Fedex or UPS is so popular compared with the much cheaper US Mail? Here in Australia Fedex and UPS offer a service, but few private individuals would consider using them due to high costs and the inconvenience when delivery is a problem if people are away at work. With normal post, we have post offices in all suburbs where undelivered mail can conveniently be picked up or items posted. I have never had loss or damage problems with ordinary mail to and from the US. Simon |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com