Literature review of concepts and theories of Motivation

Literature review of concepts and theories of Motivation In the fierce era of competition, organizations nowadays are more emphasizing on the management of Human Resources (Robert. L, 2008). Motivation; a key strategy in Human Resource Management has helped practitioners largely enough to subject the term Motivation for a discussion. Steers et al. (2004), asserted that employee motivation plays a vital role in the management field; both theoretically and practically. It is said that one of the important functions of human resource manager is to ensure job commitment at the workplace, which can only be achieved through motivation (Petcharak, 2002). Based on these reasoning, this paper shall include analytical and empirical studies to reveal the discrepancies and feasibility aspect of the domain, as Rai (2004) put forward; motivation is crucial for good performance and therefore it is increasingly important to study what motivates employees for better performance. This section offers a review of literature, which explores the concepts, types and theoretical aspects including content and process theories, theories of motivation developed in other psychological areas as well as empirical evidences in organizational contexts. 2.1 Motivation Motivation is defined as a human psychological characteristic that add to a persons degree of commitment. It is the management process of in ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å¡uencing employees behavior. (Badu, 2005) Conversely, Bartol and Martin (1998) relate motivation to the force that stimulates behavior, provide direction to behavior, and underlies the tendency to prevail. In other words individuals must be sufficiently stimulated and energetic, must have a clear focus on what is to be achieved, and must be willing to commit their energy for a long period of time to realize their aim in order to achieve goals. However, other than motivation being a force that stimulates behavior, Vroom (1964) emphasized on the voluntary actions. Supported by Steers et al. (2004), Vroom (1964) defined motivation as a process governing choice made by personsamong alternative forms of voluntary activity. Similarly Kreitner and Kinicki (2004) assumed that motivation incorporate those psychological processes that create the arousal, direction and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal oriented. Quite differently from the other definitions, Locke and Latham (2004) identified that motivation influence peoples acquisition of skills and the extent to which they use their ability. According to the authors the concept of motivation refers to internal factors that impel action and to external factors that can act as inducements to action. The three aspects of action that motivation can affect are direction (choice), intensity (effort), and duration (persistence). Motivation can affect both the acquisition of peoples skills and abilities; and also the extent to which they utilize their skills and abilities (Locke and Latham, 2004). In a nut shell, different authors have put forward the concept of motivation differently. Nonetheless, these definitions have three common aspects, that is, they are all principally concerned with factors or events that stimulate, channel, and prolong human behavior over time (Steers et al. 2004). 2.2 Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation Following Lakhani and Wolf (2005), Lakhani and Von Hippel (2003) and Lemer and Tirole (2004), the current scholarly thinking favors a framework that considers two components of motivation given by intrinsic and extrinsic components. Accordingly, Lawler (1969) intrinsic motivation is the degree to which feelings of esteem, growth, and competence are expected to result from successful task performance. This view bounds intrinsic motivation to an expectancy approach and expectancy theory which clearly indicates that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations summate (Porter Lawler, 1968). Moreover, as per to Amabile et al. (1993) Individuals are said to be intrinsically motivated when they seek, interest, satisfaction of curiosity, self expression, or personal challenge in the work. On the other hand individuals are said to be extrinsically motivated when they engaged in the work to gain some goal that is part of the work itself. As per to the author this definition of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is based on the individual perception of the individual perception of task and his or her reasons for engaging in it. Moreover, Amabile et al. further argued that intrinsic motivators arise from an individuals feelings with regards to the activity and they are necessary to adhere to the work itself. Conversely, extrinsic motivators although they may be dependent on the work, they are not logically an inherent part of the work. Furthermore, in line with the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, De Charms (1968) suggest that external rewards might undermine intrinsic motivation. He further proposed that individuals seek for personal causation and because of the desire to be the origin of his behavior; man keeps struggling against the constraint of external forces. Thus, De Charms hypothesized that when a man perceives his behavior as originating from his own choice, he will value that behavior and its results but when he perceives his behavior as originating from external forces, that behavior and its results, even though identical in other respects to behavior of his own choosing, will be devalued. De Charms (1968) further argued that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation may interact, rather than summate that is the introduction of extrinsic rewards for the behaviors that was intrinsically rewarding may decrease rather than enhance the overall motivation. The author argued that the introduction of an extrinsic reward put the individual in a dependent position relative to the source of the reward. The locus of causality for his behavior changes from self to the external reward and thus the individuals perception of self-control, free choice, and commitment deteriorate and hence do his motivation. In addition Frey (1997) note that high intrinsic work motivation evolving from work which is interesting involves the trust and loyalty of personal relationships and is participatory. However, under certain circumstances, intrinsic motivation can be diminished, or crowded-out by external interventions like monitoring or pay-for-performance incentive schemes. This was also supported by Frey and Jegen (2001) who reviewed the literature on intrinsic motivations and found that the evidence does suggest that incentives sometimes do crowd-out intrinsic motivations. Besides, Frey (1997) suggests that the important matter is whether the external intervention is in the form of a command or a reward. Commands are most controlling in the sense that they seize self-determination from the agent, while rewards might still allow autonomy of action. The maximization of employees motivation to attain the organizations goals can only be obtained through a complete understanding of motivation theories (Reid 2002). There is a wide variety of theoretical frameworks that have been developed in the attempts to explain the issues related to motivation. Stoner, Edward and Daniel (1995) has described two different views on motivation theory, given by the earliest views and the contemporary approach which can further be subdivided into content and process theories. 2.3 Theories of Motivation 2.3.1 The earliest views of motivation One of the earliest views of motivation is Frederick W Taylor et al. (1911) scientific management theory. Taylor (1911) with regards to employee motivation proposed a paternalistic approach to managing workers and argued that workers are economic men and in order to motivate them, workers should be paid higher wages. The author also argued that the higher is the wage rate, the higher will be the level motivation and productivity. Furthermore, Taylor points out that many payment methods were ineffective, as they did not reward efficiency and he believed that a differential piece-work incentive system should be replaced with a piece rate incentive system (Wren, 2005). In other words workers should be paid according to the number of units produced in order to motivate them to work. On the other hand in line with building on the concept of motivation Elton Mayo (1953) came up with the Human Relations approach whereby the emphasis is laid on non-economic motivators. According to Elton Mayo (1953), if objectives of organizations are to be met, it must attempt to understand, respect and consider the emotions, sense of recognition and satisfaction that is the non-monetary needs of workers. He believed that employees are not just concern with money but also they need to have their social needs to be met in order to be motivated to work. He is of view that workers enjoy interactions and managers should treat them as people who have worthwhile opinions. Furthermore, McGregor (1960) postulates Theory X and Theory Y which is based on assumptions about people and work. According to this theory, there are two types of assumption made with regards to employees whereby theory X assumes that employees are lazy and therefore theory X suggests that in order to motivate employees a more autocratic style of management is required. On the other hand theory Y assumes that workers enjoy work, committed to objectives of the organization and will apply self control and self directed in the pursuit of organizational objectives and therefore does not require external control. 2.3.2 Content theories of motivation Content theories tend to focus on individual needs and attempt to explain the factors within a person that stimulate and stop behavior (Reid, 2002). According to Bassett-Jones and Lloyd (2005), content theory assume a more complex interaction between both internal and external factors, and explored the circumstances in which individuals react to different types of internal and external stimuli. The most well known content theory of motivation is the hierarchy of needs which has been put forward by Abraham Maslow (1943). According to Maslow, people are motivated by five types of needs and in order to motivate people to work more productively there is a need to offer them opportunity to satisfy those needs. He proposed that basic needs are organized in a hierarchy of prepotency and probability of appearance (Wahba and Bridwell, 1973). These needs include physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem and self-actualization. Maslow argued that once a lower order need is fulfilled, the next level of needs in the hierarchy comes into play that is once employees satisfy the lower order needs they will next consider the next level of needs. The author further argued that unfulfilled lower needs dominate ones thinking and behavior until they are satisfied (Berl et al. 1984). However this theory has also been criticized to a large extent, for example Wahba and Bridwell (1973) argued that based on the ten factor analytic studies that have attempted to test Malows theory; there is no clear evidence that human needs are classified into five different categories, or that these categories are organized in a special hierarchy. The authors contradict Malows proposition and points out that, none of the studies has shown all of Maslows five need categories as independent factors, for example some studies have showed that the self-actualization needs may emerge as an independent category. They also argued that studies have also proved the issue of need deprivation and the domination of behavior to be different from that suggested by Maslow. Moreover results have also proved that either self-actualization or security are the least satisfied needs and social needs are the most satisfied. Therefore it is difficult to determine the general pattern of the degree of sati sfaction and these trends are not the same as proposed by Maslow (Wahba and Bridwell, 1973). Conversely, Alderfer (1972) in the attempt to address the short comings of Malows theory proposed an alternative to Maslows theory which he termed as the ERG theory and postulate a three level hierarchy. Alderfer grouped Maslows five categories of needs into three categories given by Existence, Relatedness and Growth. According to the author, people are motivated by these three groups of core needs and he asserted that as one level of need is satisfied another takes over but if a need is not satisfied on a continuous basis, the individual may decide to give such a need a low priority. Nonetheless, while Maslow and Alderfer presented the concept of motivation in a hierarchy, McClelland (1961, 1971), ignored the concept of hierarchy and put forward a theory known as the acquired need theory that emphasize on three types of needs namely, need for affiliation, need for achievement and need for power. McClelland is of view that individuals experiences are acquired through life experiences that is they are learned. According to this theory individuals possess several needs, and when these needs are activated they serve to motivate behavior and this is to the contrary of Maslows proposition of a continuous progression throughout the hierarchy of needs (Steers et al. 2004). Moreover, also put differently Herzberg et al. (1959) sought to understand how work activities and the nature of an employees job influence motivation and performance. They proposed a theory that involves what they termed as motivators and hygiene factors. According to Herzberg the most crucial difference between the motivators and the hygiene factors is that the motivator factors involve psychological growth while the hygiene factors involve physical and psychological pain avoidance. The authors examined motivators and hygiene factors in the workplace and proposed that where job satisfaction was high there would be corresponding high motivation. Herzberg (1959) further argued that work motivation is influenced to a large extent by the degree to which a job is intrinsically challenging and provides opportunities for recognition and reinforcement. However despite that Herbergs theory has been widely accepted by managers (e.g Latham 2007, Miner 2005, Steers and Porter 1983), this theory has been criticized by many authors. For example Reid (2002) argued that the work of Herzberg is an examination of job satisfaction rather than motivation of employees. Reid also argued that no matter how much emphasis is laid on factors that are intrinsically rewarding, if hygiene factors such as low pay is not addressed, their full effect cannot be felt. Moreover, also Brenner et al. (1971) contradict Herzberg proposition that motivation factors increase job satisfaction and hygiene factors leads to job dissatisfaction and points out that his study and others indicated that the employees received job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction from both the motivating and the hygiene factors. Similarly Locke (1976) assessed Herzberg two factor theory and argued that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction result from different causes. 2.3.3 Emperical studies of content theories Zakeri et al. (1997) carried out research in the Iranian construction industry to find out level of Maslows hierarchy of needs are the most motivating factors and whether these factors are motivating factors or just hygiene factors as proposed by Herzberg. A list of 20 factors was chosen according to Maslows classification of needs and the lists were presented to the construction crafts- men and operatives whereby Zakeri et al. (1997) found five most motivating factors in descending order namely; fairness of pay, Incentive and financial rewards, on-time payment, good working facilities and safety. The authors argued that despite Herzbergs proposition that money is not a satisfier, this survey along with others proved that money is the most motivating factor. In addition Arnolds and Boshoff (2002) conducted research in a number of firms in South Africa to investigate the impact of need satisfaction on self-esteem and of self-esteem on performance intention as suggested by Alderfer (1972). According to the empirical results, self-esteem was found as a significant determinant of employee job performance and results showed that providing frontline employees opportunities to perform challenging work, allow participation and teaching them new things on the job will enhance their self-esteem as well as their performance intentions (Arnolds and Boshoff, 2002). The authors argued that the experiment also showed that the satisfaction of fringe benefits does not have a significant impact on performance intentions via self-esteem as an intervening variable and this support Herzbergs et al. (1959) theory. 2.3.4 Process theories of motivation Along with the content theories, there are also different process theories. According to Viorel et al. (2009) the content theories emphasize on specific factors that motivate workers with regards to certain necessities and aspirations, while the process theories emphasize on the processes and the psychological forces that have an impact on motivation. They start from the premise that motivation starts with the desire to do something. The process theories provide more realistic principles with regards to motivation techniques and therefore they are more useful to managers compared to content theories (Viorel et al. 2009). Vroom (1964), in the interest to study motivation developed an alternative to the content theories which is known as the expectancy theory. Vroom suggest that there are three mental components that are considered as instigating and directing behavior and these are referred to as Valence, Instrumentality, and Expectancy. He argued that employees rationally analyze different on-the-job work behaviors and then choose those behaviors which they believe will lead to their most valued work-related rewards and outcomes. Moreover, Porter and Lawler (1968) expanded Vrooms work to identify the role of individual differences for example employee abilities and skills and the role clarity in relating job effort to actual job performance. Porter and Lawler also explained the relationship between performance and satisfaction and argued that this relationship is mediated by the extent and quality of the rewards that employees receive in return for their job performance. In addition to expectancy theory Adams (1963), developed the equity theory to clarify how employees respond cognitively and behaviorally with regards to unfairness in the workplace. Adams suggested that employees develop beliefs about what constitutes a fair and equitable return for their job performance and contributions therefore employees always compare their efforts and the associated rewards with that of other employees and in case there is a situation whereby there is an element of injustice or unfairness there is an imbalance that is a perception of inequity will result. The author is therefore of view that when perception of inequity occurs the employee will get engaged in activities and do effort in order to reduce the inequity. On the other hand, quite differently Latham and Locke (1979) came up with the goal setting theory. According to Latham (2004), the underlying premise of the goal setting theory is that ones conscious goals affect what one achieves. The author argued that this is because a goal is said to be the objective or aim of an action and having a specific goal result to improved performance. Employees with specific hard goals tend to perform better compared to those with vague goals and that a goal is a standard for assessing an individuals performance. Moreover, Latham also suggested that to the extent that the goal is met or exceeded, satisfaction increases; and conversely, to the extent that performance falls short of the goal, ones satisfaction decreases. While content theories have tended to focus on needs of people and process theories have focused on factors motivating people, Adair (2006) have brought some new issues in the field of employee motivation and developed a new theory of motivation known as the Fifty-Fifty rule. Unlike the authors of content and process theories, Adair is of view that motivation lies both within an individual as well as external to the individual. According to the author, 50 percent of motivation lies within a person and fifty percent lies outside the person however Adair points out that this theory does not assert for the exactly fifty-fifty proportion in the equation but it only emphasized on the idea that a considerable part of motivation lies within a person while a considerable part lies outside and beyond its control. 2.3.5 Emperical studies of process theories With regards to Adams Equity theory, Levine (1993) calculated wage residuals for more than 8,000 manufacturing employees. Wage residuals re ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ect employees wages relative to employees with similar demographics and human capital in terms of education and training (Ambrose and Kulik, 1999). Levine found that employees with higher wage residuals reported that they were less likely to leave, were more satis ¬Ã‚ ed with their pay, were willing to work harder than they had to, and were more committed to the organization. Therefore in line with this argument, the author pointed out that employees with low wage residuals might be expected to experience inequity or unfairness relative to similar others and exhibit negative responses. Moreover Arnolds and Boshoff (2002) conducted research in a number of South African firms whereby they analyzed the application of the expectancy theory put forward by Vroom (1964) and they argued that the satisfaction with pay and fringe benefits does not impact on the performance intentions of frontline employees because these need satisfactions do not have any esteem valence for these employees. In other words, frontline employees do not have a higher regard of themselves if they are getting enough pay to fulfill basic necessities (Arnolds and Boshoff, 2002). Besides based on the Goal Setting theory, Stans ¬Ã‚ eld and Longenecker (2006) performed a study in a traditional manufacturing plant in the Midwestern USA to develop a model of efficient and effective goal setting and feedback practices for manufacturing. According to the authors the study showed that an information system, facilitating goal setting and feedback can play a vital role in improving individual performance levels. Stansfield and Longenecker also found that employee motivation and performance were both improved in the study, which lead to better organizational performance and pro ¬Ã‚ tability. The authors also argued that goal setting and feedback can create competitive advantage for manufacturers with a minimum investment of time and capital if they implement these practices with proper coordination. 2.3.6 Reinforcement Theory B.F. Skinner (1953) compared to need and process theories, came up with a different theory known as the reinforcement theory in which he proposed that peoples behavior is dependent upon its consequences. He suggested that if consequences of behavior is positive then such behavior will be repeated and vice-versa. Skinner (1953) argued that behavior can thus be reinforced through different forms of reinforcement or rewards. According to him individuals can be influenced in four different ways given by positive reinforcement (a reward such as praise so that the person repeat the behavior), negative reinforcement (rewarding employees by removing unwanted consequences), extinction (deliberately withheld positive reinforcement to discourage unwanted behavior) and punishment (applying undesirable consequences for unwanted behaviors). Through these theories, it can be said that work motivation has been characterized by dimensions such as interesting job, ability to perform, recognition, adequate pay, and feedback on performance (Dwivedula and Bredillet, 2010). However according to Meyer et al. (2004) it is also very important to consider differences in the psychological states, or mindsets that can accompany motivation. Therefore, Meyer et al. (2004) argued that motivation theories developed in other areas of psychology render a convincing case that motivation is multidimensional. 2.3.7 Adaptation-Level Theory Bowling et al. (2005) argued that the adaptation-level theory (Helson, 1948, 1964a, 1964b), offers one potential explanation for the temporal stability of job satisfaction. Bowling explained that the theory postulates that someones evaluation of an outcome is said to be a function of previous experiences outcomes. For example, an employee who has worked for years without a pay raise would be expected to respond positively to even a small pay increase because this change in pay would be different from that individuals adaptation level, however the positive response would be temporary as the individuals adaptation level would eventually change as the experience of the pay increase is integrated into the employees adaptation level (Bowling et al. 2005). 2.3.8 Self-Regulatory Theory Moreover quite differently, Higgins (1997, 1998) proposed the regulatory focus theory that draw important differences in the processes through which individuals approach pleasure and avoid pain. Huggins proposed that individuals have two types of motivational systems given by a system that regulates rewards (promotion focus) and one that regulates punishments (prevention focus). According to the author people who operate primarily within the promotion focus are concerned with accomplishments, are sensible towards the existence or absence of rewards, adopt a goal attainment strategy, are more creative and are more willing to take risks. However, people who operate within the prevention focus tend to be more concerned with duties and responsibilities and are more sensitive to the existence or absence of punishments. Moreover the regulatory focus is ascertained both by situational and chronic factors (Higgins, 1997, 1998). 2.3.9 Activation theory On the other hand Anderson (1976, 1983) came up with the activation theory whereby he argued that the strongest motivating factor is the work itself however over time as the worker get used with the environment and learns the responses required in the repetitive task there may be a fall in the activation level or job stimulation. It is important to highlight that over time all work tends to become repetitive after the job has been practiced and therefore a wide range of dysfunctional and non-task activities must be pursued to offset the fall in the job stimulation level (Milbourn 1984). Moreover according to Milbourn (1984), if dysfunctional activities are addressed, managers can consider enriching jobs through job redesign to reduce monotony at work in order to maintain job stimulation. 2.4 Motivational practices in Organizational environment According to Islam and Ismail (2008) the theories mentioned continue to offer the foundation for organization and managerial development practices to a large extent. Along with the above theories, during the last decade, based on employees motivation many empirical studies have been carried out (Islam and Ismail, 2008). For example, Bent et al. (1999) carried out research in small food manufacturing businesses whereby respondents were asked to complete, using a five-point Likert scale about how they felt motivated and then how satisfied they were with their jobs and the authors found that the degree of positive motivation was high. According to Bent et al. (1999) the employees were either very or moderately motivated with their jobs, however it was important to note that no respondents stated that they were either very motivated or very dissatisfied with their job. The authors also argued that issues which are associated with individual management style include lack of appreciation f rom management to feel for the work of employees and that there was also poor communication contributing to low job satisfaction and this contrasts with the identification by employees, of the motivating or satisfying qualities of a good management style. Moreover VaitkuvienÄ- (2010) conducted research in two Swedish manufacturing companies given by, the company Frilight AB and Enitor Plast AB and reported that the workers were found satisfied with the working conditions, training of staffs and career opportunities. The author argued that the Swedish employees were motivated and that the employees do not avoid responsibilities and follow directions. VaitkuvienÄ- (2010) also found that almost all employees are stimulated with the organizing of recreational tours, holidays and events. According to the author more than half of employees in the Sweden manufacturing companies are stimulated through gifts on various occasions (birthdays, holidays), free meals at work, health insurance coverage, work, clothes, equipment, travels for the company employees, days off, recognition and good working conditions and therefore the author pointed out that the employees of the manufacturing companies consider non-financial motivation tools to b e more important. Eventually, Dwivedula and Bredillet (2010), in line with the authors Cummings and Blumberg (1987) pointed out that studies from the manufacturing sector emphasize on the importance of providing autonomy, and skill variety to the employees which are otherwise absent. On the other hand Adler (1991) observed and concluded that manufacturing firms rely on job rotation, and voluntary job switching to motivate the employees. Moreover, Galia (2008) supported by Dwivedula and Bredillet (2010) reported that more recently it has been observed that, in a survey of 5000 manufacturing  ¬Ã‚ rms by SESSI (Industrial Statistics Department of the French Ministry of Economics, Finance, and Industry), practices such as autonomy at work, incentives to promote creativity have been widely adopted in order to motivate the workers.

Strengths And Weaknesses Of Lo Essay -- essays research papers

Louis XIV and Peter the Great   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were famous rulers of the late 17th- early 18th Centuries. Both took the throne at a young age and both had many strengths and weaknesses. Louis XIV had many strengths during his reign as ruler of France. Appointing Jean Baptiste Colbert as his minister of finance made some of his greatest strengths and accomplishments. One strength was that of mercantilism, which is an economic theory under which a country increases its wealth by exporting more goods than it imports. By accomplishing this, Louis XIV made himself and France very wealthy. More wealth was made when a balance of trade brought more gold and silver into France. A high tax was placed on imports and that also earned money. Soon, Fran...

Fedex Annual Report 2012

to stay ahead, we go beyond FedEx Annual Report 2012 â€Å"I wIll make every Fedex experIence outstandIng. † — The Purple Promise When the going gets tough, FedEx shows the spirit and determination that have always set us apart. FY12 was a year of challenges marked by economic and political disruptions and lagging growth around the globe. To stay ahead, we go beyond — in the way we manage our business, deliver the quality service our customers expect and create solutions for a more sustainable world. A good or acceptable experience doesn’t cut it for us.We share a goal to deliver outstanding FedEx experiences, a commitment we call the Purple Promise. Our team members around the world add up to a powerful advantage for FedEx. One that goes beyond the ordinary to achieve the extraordinary. When We go beyond, our customers and communities thrive. each year we honor the best of the best of our team members with the Purple Promise Chairman’s Award. Meet three of the recipients, from left: Joe Reedy, supervisor, Fedex Custom Critical; Megan hershberger, supervisor, Fedex Custom Critical; William davis, customer advocate representative, Fedex TechConnect. o to fedex. com/annualreport2012 to read their stories. 1 to stay ahead, we lead the way Three things that differentiate FedEx — our people, our strategy and our focused networks — will allow us to achieve this goal. STRATegiC diSCiPline How a business responds during difficult times is a true measure of its resilience and a test of its strategy. In a volatile marketplace, dedicated FedEx team members turned in a world-class performance last fiscal year. Their dynamic, disciplined approach to some pretty stiff headwinds defines FedEx at its best.Our long-term strategies are working, and we believe we will improve our competitive position and our financial performance over the next several years, as a result. To do so, we must take advantage of our scale to improve our efficiency. And second, we must remain nimble and responsive to our customers. We try to manage the critical balance between the two every day. In this regard, our flexibility kept FedEx profitable during the 2008-2009 recession, and we emerged stronger. In the same vein, we recognize many residual challenges are ongoing and require us to run a lean and flexible organization.All companies, including FedEx, face many rising costs they cannot directly control, be it health care or energy. This, in turn, requires relentless focus on quality, which has been embedded in our culture since our first day of operations. Utilizing our Quality Driven Management system, we are confident we can reduce costs while simultaneously improving service levels. To Our Shareowners, FedEx showed real grit in FY12. We committed to a strong performance, and we delivered — no small feat, given the year’s challenges.Our earnings per share increased 40 percent, and annual revenues exceeded $42 bi llion, a 9 percent increase, despite political gridlock in the United States, financial turmoil in Europe, a slowing Asian economy and volatile fuel prices. Despite these issues, we managed and improved yields across all of our transportation businesses, allowing us to continue enhancing the services and technology that make our customers more successful and more productive. FedEx Ground had a stellar year, delivering 18. 4 percent operating margins and accounting for more than half of FedEx operating profit.Online shipments spurred record volumes. More than one quarter of our FedEx Ground lanes are now faster in terms of transit times than the competition, boosting service and customer satisfaction to unprecedented levels. As a result, including FedEx SmartPost, our overall U. S. ground parcel-market share has increased to nearly 30 percent, doubling over the last decade. The rapid transformation of FedEx Freight, which basically reinvented the LTL freight industry a little more th an a year ago, is paying off with a strong eturn to profitability. Revenues grew 8 percent year over year. Offering both priority and economy service options and industry-leading transit times have made FedEx Freight a market share leader, and customers are delighted by our LTL value proposition. Global uncertainty, a slowdown of Asia exports and weakness in the technology sector challenged FedEx Express in FY12. Although U. S. domestic and international priority package volumes were down, yield improvements helped FedEx Express maintain profitability.We’re taking advantage of the flexibility we’ve built into our system to match our capacity to the demand; we’ve accelerated the retirement of older, less efficient aircraft and are replacing them with more fuel-efficient planes; and we are taking other actions to increase FedEx Express margins in the future, despite the low-growth environment. 2 FoCuSed neTWoRkS Our customers’ expectations and needs evolve constantly, and so must we. The Roman statesman Marcus Aurelius summed it up best: â€Å"Nothing happens without change. † That’s why our operating companies relentlessly adjust their networks to meet traffic flows and levels.Each network is discrete so it can optimize its business without compromise. Hence our competitive advantage of speed and flexibility: FedEx Express, FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight are superior networks with industry-leading service levels. Superior networks translate into superior solutions for customers. That’s real value. Take as an example the global rise of online buying, now growing at three to four times the rate of retail sales growth overall. For FedEx, that means more deliveries, whether a product is purchased or returned. It’s the perfect fuel for growth, internationally and in the United States.Retailers want a range of shipping options that satisfies their customers’ various expectations for cost and service. In t he U. S. we offer express service, customized ground home delivery, and FedEx SmartPost, our most inexpensive shipping option. The low cost of FedEx SmartPost allows retailers to offer free shipping as a marketing tactic. In fact, consumers â€Å"We’re keeping our eye on the ball — loWering costs and improving our efficiency for continued success. † chose the free-shipping option for half of holiday ecommerce transactions last November and December, according to omScore, a firm that analyzes online commerce. As noted earlier, our QDM philosophy and methods are built on the proven premise that higher quality lowers costs, improves service levels, and enhances the customer experience. It’s a three-legged stool that supports our long-term growth strategies. We apply QDM principles to our sustainability decisions, just as we do to our business decisions, because it’s good business and good for the planet. The FedEx Express vehicle fleet is ahead of pla n to be 20 percent more fuel efficient by 2020 than it was in 2005.To support our air fleet modernization program, we have recently agreed to purchase additional Boeing 767 aircraft that are substantially more fuel efficient than the aircraft they will replace. In FY12, we invested about $4 billion in capital expenditures, about half related to modernizing our air fleet. We think such initiatives are an integral part of this year’s No. 6 ranking on fortune’s World’s Most Admired Companies list and No. 7 on the Reputation Institute’s list of the most socially responsible companies in the United States.FedEx provides the efficient access that businesses of all sizes need to succeed, build prosperous communities and raise living standards worldwide. Just ask a British mother who redesigned a simple handbag. In just three years this FedEx customer turned her product into a $3. 3 million global business called Cambridge Satchel Company. Or talk to the founder of OtterBox, a company that makes protective cases for mobile devices. Thanks to the mastery of global supply chains, he grew his business from $5 million to almost $169 million in just three years, while creating more than 500 jobs in his hometown of Fort Collins, Colo.We believe we can continue to improve FedEx’s financial performance in fiscal year 2013 and beyond based on the strategy and initiatives discussed above. But we understand our achievements rely on the trust of our customers, shareowners, and team members and we will continue to earn their confidence by conducting our business with integrity, dependability, and commitment every day, every transaction. That’s our Purple Promise. Sincerely, WoRld-ClASS SoluTionS Growth in the U. S. and Europe is moderate, but there are positive signs worldwide because of the strength of emerging markets.Countries such as China, India, Mexico and Brazil are quickly becoming consumers as well as producers, driving increased demand. The long-term future for global trade remains solid, and we are committed to providing solutions for businesses — large and small — to effectively compete in this important market. Air express will continue to grow long term as the integration of the world’s economies generate more small shipments moving directly from the point of production to the end user. That’s why the unique capabilities of our Boeing 777Fs are a distinct advantage for us.Their long range and nonstop capabilities provide shippers more time to process shipments each day. Concurrently, air freight shipping is becoming more episodic. High-value technology products make up a large portion of this market these days, and more of these goods are being shipped as part of large new product launches. As a consequence, it often takes a large fleet of wide-body aircraft like ours to quickly flex capacity up and down. If a customer asks us to add extra flights, FedEx can do it better than our competitors because we have the largest all-cargo fleet in the world.These trends are reinforced by improved production scheduling, reliability, and logistics information systems. Better visibility into supply chains allows greater use of ocean transportation to ship customers’ commodity freight, a distinct advantage given higher fuel prices. As a result, we’ve been expanding our FedEx Trade Networks capabilities. Since 2008, we’ve opened 47 freight-forwarding offices worldwide to help businesses reach their markets via ocean or air. It’s a key part of our strategy to provide customers with the world-class solutions they need to compete.Despite the slowdown in Europe last year, our business there continues to grow. To better serve customers, FedEx Express is opening stations across Europe. We’ve also recently completed acquisitions of transportation companies in Poland, France, and Brazil to provide customers in those markets with better domes tic service and improved access to global markets. innovATion AT WoRk As we grow, we know we must continue to connect the world responsibly. It starts with the Purple Promise, which FedEx team members deliver millions of times a day worldwide: â€Å"I will make every FedEx experience outstanding. If the Purple Promise is our heart, Quality Driven Management (QDM) represents our hands — it’s how we do things at FedEx. Frederick W. Smith Chairman, President and CEO MORE > fedex. com/annualreport2012 3 to stay ahead, we change the game As the speed of global change accelerates, the difference between leaders and followers is defined by one word — agility. We not only have the ability to quickly react to changing economic conditions and customer needs, but also the agility to anticipate and effect change. FedEx is redefining our industry as we continually reshape and refine our focused networks to gain speed and efficiency.When we change the game, our customers win . ACCeleRATing ACCeSS gAining SPeed FedEx Express is the largest all-cargo airline in the world and the largest express transportation company. Our long-range Boeing 777F aircraft directly link global markets, speeding customers’ shipments door-to-door. In the last two years, we’ve improved global access by completing acquisitions in India, Mexico, Poland, France and Brazil. To accommodate evolving customer needs, the global offices of FedEx Trade Networks offer end-to-end shipping services, including air and ocean freight forwarding supported by customs brokerage.FedEx Ground continues to delight customers by shortening transit times throughout the U. S. and Canada. Businesses can reach more locations faster than with any other ground carrier. Convenient FedEx Ground home delivery and FedEx SmartPost services support the growing consumer trend to buy online, which grew by double digits in each of the last two years. In the United States, Cyber Monday online sales rose 22 percent, to $1. 25 billion last year — the largest online shopping day ever, boosting holiday shipping volumes to record levels.CuSToMeRS ARe in The FAST lAne thanks to a dedicated Fedex ground team that continually fine-tunes the ground network, much like a race car, to enhance speed, safety and reliability. From left: kimberly Whigham, managing director, vehicle Maintenance; Jeff grimm, managing director, linehaul Planning; brian neal, manager, Safety Process Management; Steve griffin, vice president, linehaul; Rich Sturges, senior manager, linehaul engineering. go to fedex. com/annualreport2012 to read their story. 4 ShiFTing geARS innovATing SoluTionSFedEx Freight is the first carrier to offer less-than-truckload (LTL) shipping customers two choices: priority and economy. In an industry where most shipments are processed manually, we’re automating much of the shipping process, improving customers’ productivity and earning their loyalty. We’ve also made it much easier and faster for shippers to classify freight with Freight Central, our convenient online resource for LTL shippers. Combined with industry-leading transit times, these changes have made FedEx Freight a market leader in the U. S. LTL industry, a $31 billion market in 2011.FedEx Services transforms our superior technology and delivery services into shipping and business solutions for customers. Their choices are based on what’s most important to them today. That’s why our portfolio includes air and ocean freight forwarding solutions to complement our express and air cargo services. Meanwhile, at FedEx Office locations, we installed 8,000 pieces of printing equipment in the last two years. The technology can deliver a variety of signage and over-sized prints for customers ranging from big-box retailers with multiple locations to large corporations to small businesses. uperior netWorks deliver game-changing customer solutions. MORE > fedex. com/annualre port2012 5 to stay ahead, we do what’s right A passion for quality drives FedEx team members worldwide. Our culture of continuous improvement embraces change and drives innovation. In turn, we enhance the lives of our customers and their communities so that our customers remain among the most satisfied and loyal in the industry. Whether it’s the transportation services we provide, the information technology we support or the sustainable solutions we implement, when we do the right thing, we earn their trust.QuAliTy dRiven MAnAgeMenT is how we successfully respond to the pressures of today’s business environment. In a recent improvement effort, we’ve reduced lost and damaged shipments, demonstrating our commitment to service excellence and saving millions of dollars. Global teams also worked on behalf of customers to continue improving the customs clearance process. More accurate clearance documentation, technology improvements and better collaboration amo ng global regulatory authorities give FedEx customers an edge in the marketplace. inFoRMATion about a shipment is as important as the shipment itself.Whether it’s an overnight holiday gift or a supply chain that stretches across the globe, our customers stay in-the-know thanks to our superior technology. The new Colorado Springs Enterprise Data Center is the heart of a cutting-edge IT transformation to hybrid cloud architecture. This innovative technology enables FedEx to be more productive and efficient by accessing computer resources even as data expands at 40 percent per year. The size and scope of the implementation is one of the largest within a commercial real-time system. iF knoWledge iS PoWeR, Fedex customers have a competitive advantage thanks to he Fedex Trade networks team that manages My global Trade data. They’re dedicated to providing the quality tracking and reporting that are essential to managing international freight forwarding shipments. From left: R enee brown, product specialist; Paul kirkeby, senior programmer analyst; Chauntisse Foster, senior product advisor; Alan hunt, iT manager. go to fedex. com/annualreport2012 to read their story. 6 SuSTAinAbiliTy and innovation go hand in hand at FedEx. We call it EarthSmart — FedEx solutions for a more sustainable world.Our customers can now neutralize their carbon emissions when they ship their documents by taking advantage of our new FedEx carbon-neutral envelope shipping. FedEx Express is the first global express transportation company to offer the program to customers at no charge. We’re modernizing our aircraft fleet with Boeing 757s, 767s and 777s, which are delivering significant increases in fuel efficiency and reduced operating costs and emissions. After only six years into our 15-year plan, we have completed 69 percent of our goal to reduce aircraft emissions intensity 20 percent by 2020.Because we’re ahead of plan, our goal is to now reduce aircraft em issions intensity 30 percent by 2020. At FedEx Office, more than 5 million pounds of paper were recycled in 2011, saving tens of thousands of trees. FedEx Office built independent paper-recycling systems into all of its North America locations, because many communities have inadequate recycling or none at all. FedEx is closing in on our vehicle fleet fuel-efficiency goal — making our vehicle fleet 20 percent more fuel efficient by 2020 — years ahead of schedule.Our strategy has been to reduce the number of vehicles that we need by continually making our routes more efficient and then selecting the most efficient vehicle for the job. We’re adding 87 all-electric trucks to the fleet to bring the total to 130 in the United States, Asia and Europe. About 11,000 Sprinter vans will also be added. Each is 70 to 100 percent more fuel efficient than the truck it replaces. MORE > fedex. com/annualreport2012 7 OPERATING MARGIN 2008(4) 2009(3) 2010 2011(2) 2012(1) 5. 5% 2. 1% 5. 8% 6. 1% 7. 5% financial highlights 2008(4) DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE $3. 60 $0. 1 $3. 76 (in millions, except earnings per share) 2012(1) Percent 2011(2) Change 9 34 140bp 40 40 – 17 22 9 (1) (3) 2009(3) 2010 2011(2) REVENUE 2012(1) Operating Results Revenues $ 42,680 $ 39,304 Operating income 3,186 2,378 Operating margin 7. 5% 6. 1% Net income 2,032 1,452 Diluted earnings per common share 6. 41 4. 57 Average common and common equivalent shares 317 317 Capital expenditures 4,007 3,434 Financial Position Cash and cash equivalents Total assets Long-term debt, including current portion Common stockholders’ investment $ 2,843 29,903 1,667 14,727 $ 2,328 27,385 1,685 15,220 in billions) $4. 57 $6. 41 2008 2009 2010 $38. 0 $35. 5 $34. 7 RETURN ON AVERAGE EQUITY 2011 (4) 2008 2009 2012 (3) 2010 2011(2) 2012(1) 8. 3% $39. 3 0. 7% $42. 7 8. 6% 10. 0% 13. 6% OPERATING MARGIN DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION 2008(4) 2009(3) 2008 2010 5. 5% 2. 1% 12. 1% 5. 8% 15. 9% 12. 3% 10. 0% 10. 2% 2011(2) 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 (1) 6. 1% 7. 5% DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE 2008(4) 2009 2010 STOCK PRICE (May 31 close) $91. 71 $55. 43 $83. 49 2008 (3) 2009 2010 $3. 60 $0. 31 $3. 76 COMPARISON OF FIVE-YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN* 120 $110 $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 5/07 5/08 5/09 5/10 5/11 5/12 2011(2) 2011 2012(1) 2012 $93. 64 $4. 57 $89. 14 $6. 41 RETURN ON AVERAGE EQUITY 2008(4) 2009(3) 2010 2011(2) 2012(1) 8. 3% 0. 7% 8. 6% 10. 0% 13. 6% DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 12. 1% 15. 9% 12. 3% 10. 0% 10. 2% FedEx Corporation S&P 500 Dow Jones Transportation Average *$100 invested on 5/31/07 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends. fiscal year ending may 31. (1) results for 2012 include a $134 million ($84 million, net of tax or $0. 6 per diluted share) impairment charge resulting from the decision to retire 24 aircraft and related engines at fedex express and the reversal of a $66 million legal reserve initially recorded in 2011. (2) results for 2011 include charges of approximately $199 million ($104 million, net of tax and applicable variable incentive compensation impacts, or $0. 33 per diluted share) for the combination of our fedex freight and fedex national ltl operations and a $66 million reserve associated with a legal matter at fedex express. (3) results for 2009 include a charge of $1. billion ($1. 1 billion, net of tax, or $3. 45 per diluted share) primarily for impairment charges associated with goodwill and aircraft. (4) results for 2008 include a charge of $891 million ($696 million, net of tax, or $2. 23 per diluted share) recorded during the fourth quarter, predominantly for impairment charges associated with intangible assets from the fedex office acquisition. STOCK PRICE (May 31 close) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $91. 71 $55. 43 $83. 49 $93. 64 $89. 14 COMPARISON OF FIVE-YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN* 8ManageMent’s discussion and analysis of results of operations and financial condition OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL SECTION The financial section of the FedEx Corporation (â€Å"FedEx†) Annual Report (â€Å"Annual Report†) consists of the following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition (â€Å"MD&A†), the Consolidated Financial Statements and the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, and Other Financial Information, all of which include information about our significant accounting policies, practices and the transactions that underlie our financial results.The following MD&A describes the principal factors affecting the results of operations, liquidity, capital resources, contractual cash obligations and the critical accounting estimates of FedEx. The discussion in the financial section should be read in conjunction with the other sections of this Annual Report and our detailed discussion of risk factors included in this MD&A. our reportable segments.Our FedEx Services segment provides sale s, marketing, information technology, communications and back-office support to our transportation segments. In addition, the FedEx Services segment provides customers with retail access to FedEx Express and FedEx Ground shipping services through FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. (â€Å"FedEx Office†) and provides customer service, technical support and billing and collection services through FedEx TechConnect, Inc. â€Å"FedEx TechConnect†). See â€Å"Reportable Segments† for further discussion. The key indicators necessary to understand our operating results include: > the overall customer demand for our various services based on macroeconomic factors and the global economy; > the volumes of transportation services provided through our networks, primarily measured by our average daily volume and hipment weight; > the mix of services purchased by our customers; > the prices we obtain for our services, primarily measured by yield (revenue per package or poun d or revenue per hundredweight for LTL freight shipments); > our ability to manage our cost structure (capital expenditures and operating expenses) to match shifting volume levels; and > the timing and amount of fluctuations in fuel prices and our ability to recover incremental fuel costs through our fuel surcharges. ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATIONOur MD&A is composed of three major sections: Results of Operations, Financial Condition and Critical Accounting Estimates. These sections include the following information: > Results of Operations includes an overview of our consolidated 2012 results compared to 2011, and 2011 results compared to 2010. This section also includes a discussion of key actions and events that impacted our results, as well as our outlook for 2013. > The overview is followed by a financial summary and analysis (including a discussion of both historical operating results and our outlook for 2013) for each of our reportable transportation segments. gt; Our financial condition is reviewed through an analysis of key elements of our liquidity, capital resources and contractual cash obligations, including a discussion of our cash flows and our financial commitments. > Critical accounting estimates discusses those financial statement elements that we believe are important to understanding certain of the material judgments and assumptions incorporated in our financial results. > We conclude with a discussion of risks and uncertainties that may impact our financial and operating results. The majority of our operating expenses are directly impacted by revenue and volume levels.Accordingly, we expect these operating expenses to fluctuate on a year-over-year basis consistent with the change in revenues and volumes. Therefore, the discussion of operating expense captions focuses on the key drivers and trends impacting expenses other than changes in revenues and volume. Except as otherwise specified, references to years indicate our fiscal year ended May 3 1, 2012 or ended May 31 of the year referenced and comparisons are to the prior year. References to our transportation segments include, collectively, our FedEx Express, FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight segments. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESSWe provide a broad portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies competing collectively, operating independently and managed collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. Our primary operating companies are Federal Express Corporation (â€Å"FedEx Express†), the world’s largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (â€Å"FedEx Ground†), a leading North American provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc. (â€Å"FedEx Freight†), a leading North American provider of less-than-truckload (â€Å"LTL†) freight services.These companies represent our major service lines and, along with FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. (â€Å"FedEx Services†), form the core of 9 management’s discussion and analysis RESULTS OF OPERATIONS CONSOLIDATED RESULTS The following table compares summary operating results (dollars in millions, except per share amounts) for the years ended May 31: Percent Change 2011(2) 2010 2012/2011 2011/2010 2012(1) Revenues $ 42,680 $ 39,304 $ 34,734 9 13 Operating income 3,186 2,378 1,998 34 19 Operating margin 7. 5% 6. 1% 5. 8% 140bp 30bp Net income $ 2,032 $ 1,452 $ 1,184 40 23 Diluted earnings per share $ 6. 1 $ 4. 57 $ 3. 76 40 22 (1) Operating expenses include an impairment charge of $134 million resulting from the decision to retire 24 aircraft and related engines at FedEx Express and the reversal of a $66 million legal reserve associated with the ATA Airlines lawsuit which was initially recorded in 2011. (2) Operating expenses include $133 million in costs associated with the combination of our FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations, effective January 30, 2011, and a $66 million legal reserve associated with the ATA Airlines lawsuit against FedEx Express.The following table shows changes in revenues and operating income by reportable segment for 2012 compared to 2011, and 2011 compared to 2010 (dollars in millions): Revenues Dollar Change Percent Change 2012/2011 2011/2010 2012/2011 2011/2010 $ 1,934 $ 3,026 8 14 1,088 1,046 13 14 371 590 8 14 (13) (86) (1) (5) (4) (6) NM NM $ 3,376 $ 4,570 9 13 Operating Income Dollar Change Percent Change 2012/2011 2011/2010 2012/2011 2011/2010 $ 32 $ 101 3 9 439 301 33 29 337 (22) 193 (14) – – – – – – – – $ 808 $ 380 34 19FedEx Express segment(1) FedEx Ground segment FedEx Freight segment(2) FedEx Services segment Other and eliminations (1) FedEx Express segment 2012 operating expenses include an impairment charge of $134 million resulting from the decision to retire 24 aircraft and related engines at FedEx Express and the reversal of a $66 million legal re serve associated with the ATA Airlines lawsuit which was initially recorded in 2011. (2) FedEx Freight segment 2011 operating expenses include $133 million in costs associated with the combination of our FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations, effective January 30, 2011. 0 management’s discussion and analysis Overview Revenues, operating income and operating margins increased in 2012 due to the exceptional performance of our FedEx Ground segment, improved profitability at FedEx Freight and increased yields across all our operating segments, despite moderating global economic conditions. Our results for 2012 include the impact of certain charges and credits as described below, which favorably impacted our year-overyear results by $0. 15 per diluted share, after considering the effect of variable incentive compensation accruals.In addition, our results significantly benefited in 2012 from the timing lag that exists between when fuel prices change and when indexed fuel surcharges automatically adjust. We also benefited from a milder winter, as our 2011 results were negatively impacted by unusually severe winter weather. 26 related engines, as well as six Boeing MD10-10 aircraft and 17 related engines. The decision to retire these aircraft will better align the U. S. domestic air network capacity of FedEx Express to match current and anticipated shipment volumes.Our 2011 results include one-time costs associated with the combination of our FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations of $133 million, including $89 million of impairment and other charges. Our results for 2011 reflected the momentum of improved global economic conditions and strong demand for our services, which drove yield growth and volume increases across all our transportation segments, particularly in International Priority (â€Å"IP†) package shipments at FedEx Express. Our FedEx Ground segment delivered strong results through increasing volume, yield and operating ma rgins.The FedEx Freight segment returned to profitability in the fourth quarter of 2011, primarily due to higher LTL yield. All of our transportation segments benefited from our yield management initiatives in 2011. The combination of our FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations was completed in 2011. Our combined LTL network increases efficiencies, reduces operational costs and provides customers both Priority and Economy LTL freight services across all lengths of haul from one integrated company.Our 2012 results include the reversal of a $66 million reserve associated with the ATA Airlines lawsuit at FedEx Express. This reserve was initially recorded in 2011 when a loss was deemed probable as a result of an adverse decision in the lawsuit. We reversed this reserve during 2012 when FedEx Express won the appeal of this case and the appeals court overturned the prior ruling (See Note 17 of the accompanying consolidated financial statements).Additionally, our 2012 results inclu de a noncash impairment charge of $134 million due to our decision to retire from service 18 Airbus A310-200 aircraft and 11 management’s discussion and analysis 3,000 3,000 2,603 2,603 2,638 2,638 2,684 (1) (1) FedEx FedEx Express(1) Express(1) Average Daily Package Volume Average Daily Package Volume 2,684 3,000 2,577 FedEx Express(1) Average Daily Package Volume 2,638 2,684 4,100 FedEx FedEx Ground(2) Ground(2) Average Daily Package Volume Average Daily Package Volume 4,100 (2) (2) FedEx Ground( Average Daily ,907 3,907 FedEx FedEx Ground Ground FedEx FedEx Express Express 2,500 2,500 2,500 The following graphs for FedEx Express, FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight show selected 3,900 3,900 (in thousands) for the years ended May 31: volume trends Average Daily Package Volume 3,900 Average Daily Package Volume Average Daily Package Volume 2,000 Average Daily Package Volume 2,000 2,000 3,000 1,500 2,500 1,000 3,000 2,000 500 2,500 1,500 0 2,000 1,000 1,500 500 1,000 0 500 0 3,000 2,603 1,500 2,500 1,000 3,000 2,000 2,603 475 500 2,500 1,500 0 2,000 2009 1,000 2,577 2,603 ,100 2,577 FedEx2,603 2,638 Express(1) 2,684 2,577 1,500 2,577 Express(1)2,638 2,684 FedEx Average Daily Package Volume Average Daily Package Volume 523 2,603 2,638 475 575 523 2,638 2,684 575 2,684 559 2,577 1,000 500 559 2,577 475 523 575 4,100 4,100 3,700 3,700 3,900 3,900 4,100 559 4,100 3,500 3,500 3,404 3,700 3,900 3,300 FedEx Ground(2) FedEx Ground(2) 3,700 Average Daily Package Volume Average Daily Package3,907 3,907 Volume 3,523 3,523 3,404 2009 3,523 2010 3,404 3,523 2009 2010 3,404 3,523 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 3,746 3,746 3,500 3,907 3,300 3,907 3,404 ,746 3,746 3,523 0 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2009 575 575 559 559 523 523 U. S. domestic package 475 475 U. S. domestic 1,500 U. S. domestic package package IP package IP package 500 2009 2010 1,000 0 2009 475 500 0 2009 575 559 575 559 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 523 523 475 U. S. domestic package package IP package IP package U. S. domestic 3,700 3,900 3,300 2011 2012 2009 3,500 3,500 IP package 3,404 3,700 3,700 3,300 3,500 3,300 2009 3,500 3,404 3,300 3,523 2011 2010 3,746 2011 3,746 2012 2012 2009 2010 2) 2011 2012 2011 2012 FedEx2009 2010 Freight2011 FedEx 2010 Freight FedEx2009 2010 Express and FedEx Ground(2)FedEx Express and FedEx Ground2009 FedEx and FedEx Ground(2) 2012 Express 2010 2011 U. S. domestic package package IP package IP package Volume U. S. domestic Total Average Daily Package Volume AverageLTL Shipments Total Average Daily Package Volume Total Average Daily Package Average Daily Daily LTL Shipments 3,300 2012 FedEx Freight Average Daily 7,800 7,600 7,400 7,800 7,200 7,600 7,000 7,800 7,400 6,800 7,600 7,200 6,600 7,400 7,000 7,200 6,800 7,000 6,600 6,800 7,800 7,600 7,800 (2) (2) 7,538 7,6007,538 90. 0 7,538 0. 0 86. 0 86. 0 90. 0 FedEx FedEx Express and FedEx Ground Express and FedEx Ground Total Average Daily7,353 7,353 Volume Total AveragePackage Daily Package Volume 7,4 00 7,400 (2) FedEx Express and FedEx Ground(2) FedEx Express and FedEx Ground7,200 7,200 7,600 Total Average Daily Package 7,538 7,538 Total Average Daily Package Volume Volume 7,002 7,002 7,800 7,353 85. 0 90. 0 80. 0 85. 0 FedEx FedEx Freight Freight 84. 9 84. 9 85. 0 Average Daily LTL Shipments Average Daily LTL Shipments 82. 3 82. 3 90. 0 80. 0 7,000 7,800 7,400 6,780 6,800 7,600 7,200 6,600 7,400 2009 7,000 6,780 7,002 2009 2010 6,780 7,002 2009 2010 6,780 7,002 ,353 7,353 7,000 7,002 6,800 7,538 7,538 7,002 2010 7,353 2011 7,353 2012 2011 6,600 6,780 85. 0 90. 0 75. 0 80. 0 85. 0 70. 0 85. 0 74. 4 90. 0 75. 0 FedEx FreightFreight86. 0 FedEx 80. 0 86. 0 Average Daily LTL Shipments 84. 9 Average Daily LTL Shipments 84. 9 74. 4 82. 3 82. 3 86. 0 86. 0 84. 9 2009 2010 82. 3 74. 4 2010 2011 82. 3 2011 2012 70. 0 75. 0 84. 9 2012 2009 74. 4 82. 3 2012 2009 2010 2011 7,200 6,780 6,800 7,000 6,600 2009 6,780 6,800 80. 0 85. 0 70. 0 2012 2009 74. 4 75. 0 75. 0 80. 0 80. 0 70. 0 75. 0 7 0. 0 74. 4 2009 75. 0 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 74. 4 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 012 70. 0 70. 0 6,600 6,600 The following graphs 2010 FedEx Express, FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight show selected yield trends for the years ended 2011 31: for May 2011 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2012 2012 FedEx FedEx Express Express Revenue per Package – Yield– Yield Revenue per Package (1) (1) FedEx Express Revenue per Package – Yield (1) FedEx FedEx Ground Ground Revenue per Package – Yield– Yield Revenue per Package $9. 25 (2) (2) (2) (2) FedEx Ground ( Revenue per P $70. 00 $60. 00 $50. 00 $70. 00 $40. 00 $60. 00 $30. 00 $70. 00 $50. 00 $20. 00 $60. 00 $40. 00 $10. 00 $50. 0 $30. 00 $40. 00 $20. 00 $30. 00 $10. 00 $20. 00 $21. 00 $10. 00 $20. 00 $19. 00 $21. 00 $18. 00 $20. 00 $21. 00 $17. 00 $19. 00 $20. 00 $16. 00 $18. 00 $19. 00 $17. 00 $70. 00 $57. 81 $60. 00 $70. 00 $57. 81 $53. 10 (1) (1) $56. 08 $53. 10 FedEx FedEx Express Express Revenue per Package – Yield– Yield Revenue per Package $50. 00 $50. 00 $40. 00 $57. 81 $60. 00 $30. 00 $70. 00 $50. 00 $30. 00 $70. 00 $60. 83 $60. 83 $57. 81 $60. 00 $56. 08 $9. 25 $53. 10 $56. 08 $8. 75 $9. 25 $8. 25 $8. 75 $9. 25 $7. 75 $14. 61 2010 $15. 59 $8. 25 $8. 75 $7. 25 $9. 25 $60. 83 $8. 75 FedEx FedEx Ground Ground $8. 77 $8. 77 $8. 5 Revenue per Package – Yield– Yield Revenue per Package FedEx Express(1) FedEx Express(1) $60. 83 $40. 00$60. 83 $57. 81 Revenue$53. 10 Package – Yield– Yield Revenue$53. 10$56. 08 $56. 08 per per Package $16. 21 $57. 81$14. 61 $53. 10 2009 2010 $15. 59 $14. 61$56. 08 $53. 10 2010 2011 $60. 83 $17. 12 $17. 12 $20. 00$60. 83 $16. 21 $15. 59 $56. 08 $10. 00 2011 2012 2012 2009 $9. 25 $8. 25 $20. 00 $16. 21 $57. 81 $60. 00 $40. 00 $10. 00 $50. 00 2009 $30. 00 $8. 75 $9. 25 $7. 70 $7. 75 $17. 12 FedEx Ground (2) FedEx Ground (2) $8. 25 $8. 17 $8. 17 Revenue per Package – Yield– Yi eld $8. 77 Revenue per Package $8. 7 $7. 70 $7. 73 $7. 73 $8. 17 2009 2010 $7. 70 $7. 73 2010 2011 $7. 73 $8. 17 $8. 17 $8. 77 2011 2012 $8. 17 $7. 75 $8. 77 $7. 25 2012 2009 2010 $7. 70 $7. 73 U. S. domestic $17. 12 $40. 00 U. S. domestic package package IP package IP package $17. 12 $20. 00 $16. 21 $16. 21 $15. 59 $14. 61 $15. 59 $14. 61 U. S. domestic package $8. 25 $8. 75 $7. 25 2011 2012 2009 $7. 70 $7. 75 $7. 75 IP package $8. 25 $8. 25 $30. 00 $10. 00 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2009 $17. 12 $17. 12 $20. 00 $16. 21 $16. 21 $15. 59 $14. 61 U. S. domestic package U. S. domestic package $14. 61$15. 59IP package IP package $21. 00 $21. 0 $10. 00 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2009 $20. 00$19. 57 $20. 00 $19. 57 U. S. domestic package package IP package IP package U. S. domestic $19. 07 $19. 07 $19. 07 $19. 00 $21. 00 $19. 00 FedEx Freight FedEx FedEx Freight Freight Average Fuel Cost per Gallon Gallon Average Fuel Cost per $7. 25 $7. 25 $7. 73 $7. 70 $7. 70 $7. 73 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 $7. 75 $7. 75 LTL Revenue per Hundredweight – Yield– LTL Revenue per Hundredweight – Yield LTL Revenue per Hundredweight Yield FedEx FedEx Freight Freight LTL Revenue per Hundredweight – Yield– Yield LTL Revenue per Hundredweight $18. 24 $17. 7 $4. 50 $7. 25 $4. 00 $4. 50 $7. 25 2009 $4. 00 $19. 57 $4. 50 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 $3. 80 2012 2012 Average Fuel C 2012 $4. 00 Average Fuel Cost per Gallon Gallon $3. 80 Average Fuel Cost per $3. 04 $3. 25 $2. 69 $2. 66 $3. 25 $3. 31 $3. 50$3. 31 $2. 66 $3. 80 $3. 04 $2. 69 $2. 15 FedEx FreightFreight FedEx $18. 24 $18. 24 LTL Revenue per Hundredweight – Yield– Yield LTL Revenue per Hundredweight $18. 00$19. 57 $18. 00 $20. 00 $19. 57 $19. 07 $21. 00 $17. 00 $19. 00 $20. 00 $19. 07 $16. 00 $18. 00 2009 $19. 00 $17. 00 $19. 07 $17. 07 $17. 07 $18. 24 $19. 07 2009 2010 $17. 07 2010 2011 $17. 07 $18. 4 $18. 24 $17. 00 $19. 57 $19. 57 $16. 00 2011 2012 2012 2009 2 010 2011 $3. 50 $3. 50 $3. 04 $4. 50 $4. 50 $3. 00 $3. 00 $2. 62 $4. 00 $4. 00 $2. 50 $2. 50 $4. 50 $4. 50 $3. 50 $3. 50 $3. 04 $2. 00 $2. 00 $4. 00 $4. 00 $3. 00 $3. 00 $2. 62 $1. 50 $1. 50 $3. 50 2012 $3. 50 2009 $2. 50 $2. 50 $3. 04 $3. 00 $2. 00 $2. 50 $1. 50 $2. 00 $1. 50 Average Fuel Cost per Gallon Gallon Average Fuel Cost per $3. 00 $2. 62 $2. 69 $3. 04 $2. 15 $2. 15 $3. 25 $2. 69 $2. 66 2010 $3. 25 2011 $2. 15 $2. 69 $2. 66 $2. 15 2010 2011 Jet 2010 2011 Jet $3. 25 $3. 31 $2. 50 $3. 80 $2. 62 $3. 31 $3. 80 $2. 00$3. 80 $2. 66 $1. 50$3. 1 $3. 25 $3. 31 2011 2012 2012 2009 Jet $2. 66 Jet Vehicle 2010 $2. 62 $2. 69 $18. 00 $18. 00 (2) Package statistics do not include the operations of FedEx SmartPost. $17. 07 $17. 07 $16. 00 $16. 00 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 $17. 00 $17. 00 (1) Excludes international domestic operations. $18. 24 2009 2010 $3. 04 $2. 15 Vehicle $3. 00 Vehicle $2. 00 $2. 62 $2. 69 $2. 62 $2. 15 2009 2010 Vehicle Vehicle $2. 50 $1. 50 2009 $2. 00 $ 1. 50 2009 2011 2012 Jet 2011 2012 Jet 2012 12 $16. 00 $16. 00 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2009 2010 Vehicle Vehicle 2012 management’s discussion and analysis evenue During 2012, revenues increased 9% due to yield growth across all our transportation segments. At FedEx Express, revenues increased 8% in 2012 led by higher U. S. domestic and IP package yields. However, U. S. domestic package and IP package volumes declined due to weakening global economic conditions. Revenues increased 13% during 2012 at our FedEx Ground segment due to higher yields and strong demand for all our major services. At FedEx Freight, revenues increased 8% during 2012 due to higher LTL yield as a result of higher fuel surcharges and yield management programs, despite a decrease in volume.Revenues increased 13% during 2011 due to yield increases and volume growth across all our transportation segments. Yields improved due to higher fuel surcharges and increased base rates under our yield i mprovement programs. At FedEx Express, revenues increased 14% in 2011 led by IP volume growth in Asia, as well as U. S. domestic and IP package yield increases. At the FedEx Ground segment, revenues increased 14% in 2011 due to continued volume growth driven by market share gains and yield growth at both FedEx Ground and FedEx SmartPost.At FedEx Freight, yield increases due to our yield management programs and higher LTL fuel surcharges, and higher average daily LTL volumes led to a 14% increase in revenues in 2011. impairment and Other Charges In May 2012, we made the decision to retire from service 18 Airbus A310-200 aircraft and 26 related engines, as well as six Boeing MD10-10 aircraft and 17 related engines. As a consequence of this decision, a noncash impairment charge of $134 million ($84 million, net of tax, or $0. 26 per diluted share) was recorded in the fourth quarter.The decision to retire these aircraft, the majority of which were temporarily idled and not in revenue se rvice, will better align the U. S. domestic air network capacity of FedEx Express to match current and anticipated shipment volumes. Operating inCOme The following tables compare operating expenses expressed as dollar amounts (in millions) and as a percent of revenue for the years ended May 31: 2012 2011 2010 Operating expenses: Salaries and employee benefits $ 16,099 $ 15,276 $ 14,027 Purchased transportation 6,335 5,674 4,728 Rentals nd landing fees 2,487 2,462 2,359 Depreciation and amortization 2,113 1,973 1,958 Fuel 4,956 4,151 3,106 Maintenance and repairs 1,980 1,979 1,715 (1) (2) Impairment and other charges 134 89 18 Other (3) 5,390 5,322 4,825 Total operating expenses $ 39,494 $ 36,926 $ 32,736 (1) Represents charges resulting from the decision to retire 24 aircraft and related engines at FedEx Express. (2) Represents charges associated with the combination of our FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations, effective January 30, 2011. 3) Includes the 2012 reversal of a $66 million legal reserve associated with the ATA Airlines lawsuit which was initially recorded in 2011 (See Note 17 of the accompanying consolidated financial statements). Percent of Revenue 2012 2011 2010 Operating expenses: Salaries and employee benefits Purchased transportation Rentals and landing fees Depreciation and amortization Fuel Maintenance and repairs Impairment and other charges Other (3) Total operating expenses Operating margin 37. 7% 14. 9 5. 8 5. 0 11. 6 4. 6 0. 3(1) 12. 6 92. 5 7. 5% 38. % 14. 4 6. 3 5. 0 10. 6 5. 0 0. 2(2) 13. 5 93. 9 6. 1% 40. 4% 13. 6 6. 8 5. 6 8. 9 4. 9 0. 1 13. 9 94. 2 5. 8% In 2011, we incurred impairment and other charges of $89 million related to the combination of our LTL operations at FedEx Freight. In 2010, we recorded a charge of $18 million for the impairment of goodwill related to the FedEx National LTL acquisition, eliminating the remaining goodwill attributable to this reporting unit. (1) Represents charges resulting from the dec ision to retire 24 aircraft and related engines at FedEx Express. 2) Represents charges associated with the combination of our FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations effective January 30, 2011. (3) Includes the 2012 reversal of a $66 million legal reserve associated with the ATA Airlines lawsuit which was initially recorded in 2011 (See Note 17 of the accompanying consolidated financial statements. ) Our 2012 operating income increased 34% and operating margin increased 140 basis points driven by higher yields across all our transportation segments due to higher fuel surcharges and our yield management programs. Our results lso significantly benefited in 2012 from the timing lag that exists between when fuel prices change and when indexed fuel surcharges automatically adjust. FedEx Ground segment operating income increased $439 million in 2012 driven by higher yields and strong demand for all our major services. At our FedEx Freight segment, operating income increased $337 million due to higher LTL yield and efficiencies gained from the combination of our LTL operations in 2011. Additionally, our year-over-year comparisons were favorably impacted by several items as described above in the â€Å"Overview† section. 13 anagement’s discussion and analysis FedEx Ground (2) Revenue per Package – Yield Salaries and benefits increased 5% in 2012 primarily due to higher $9. 25 incentive compensation costs and the full reinstatement of 401(k) $8. 77 company-matching contributions effective January 1, 2011. Purchased $8. 75 transportation costs increased 12% in 2012 due to volume growth and higher fuel surcharges at FedEx Ground, costs associated with the $8. 25 $8. 17 expansion of our freight forwarding business at FedEx Trade Networks $7. 73 and higher utilization of third-party transportation providers in interna$7. 0 $7. 75 tional locations primarily due to business acquisitions at FedEx Express. $7. 25 The following graph for our transp ortation segments shows our average 2009 2010 2011 2012 cost of jet and vehicle fuel per gallon for the years ended May 31: Salaries and employee benefits increased 9% in 2011 due to the reinstatement of merit salary increases, increases in pension and medical Average Fuel Cost per Gallon costs and the reinstatement of full 401(k) company-matching contributions effective January 1, 2011. Purchased transportation increased $4. 0 20% in 2011 due to volume growth, higher fuel surcharges and higher $3. 80 $4. 00 rates paid to our independent contractors at FedEx Ground, as well as costs associated with the expansion of our freight forwarding business $3. 31 $3. 25 $3. 50 $3. 04 at FedEx Trade Networks. Maintenance and repairs expense increased $3. 00 $2. 69 $2. 66 $2. 62 15% in 2011 primarily due to an increase in maintenance events, as a $2. 50 result of timing, and higher utilization of our fleet driven by increased $2. 15 volumes. Other operating expense increased 10% primarily due t o $2. 0 volume- and weather-related expenses. $1. 50 2009 2010 2011 2012 Vehicle Jet costs, and increased maintenance and repairs expenses had a negative impact on our performance for 2011. Costs related to the combination of our FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations also negatively impacted our 2011 results by $133 million. Unusually severe weather in the second half of 2011 caused widespread disruptions to our networks, which led to lost revenues and drove higher purchased transportation, salaries and wages and other operational costs.Additionally, a $66 million reserve associated with an adverse jury decision in the ATA Airlines lawsuit against FedEx Express was recognized in 2011. Fuel expense increased 19% during 2012 primarily due to price increases. Our fuel surcharges, which are more fully described in the â€Å"Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk† section of this MD&A, have a timing lag and are designed to pass through the price of fu el not included in our base shipping rates to our customers.Based on a static analysis of the impact to operating income of year-over-year changes in fuel prices compared to changes in fuel surcharges, fuel surcharges significantly exceeded incremental fuel costs in 2012. If fuel prices remain at current levels, that effect is expected to reverse in 2013. Our analysis considers the estimated impact of the reduction in fuel surcharges included in the base rates charged for FedEx Express and FedEx Ground services.However, this analysis does not consider the negative effects that fuel surcharge levels may have on our business, including reduced demand and shifts by our customers to lower-yielding services. While fluctuations in fuel surcharge rates can be significant from period to period, fuel surcharges represent one of the many individual components of our pricing structure that impact our overall revenue and yield. Additional components include the mix of services sold, the base pr ice and extra service charges we obtain for these services and the level of pricing discounts offered.In order to provide information about the impact of fuel surcharges on the trend in revenue and yield growth, we have included the comparative fuel surcharge rates in effect for 2012, 2011 and 2010 in the accompanying discussions of each of our transportation segments. In 2011, operating income increased 19% primarily due to yield and volume increases across all our transportation segments. Higher compensation and benefits, including retirement plans and medical Fuel expense increased 34% during 2011 primarily due to increases in the average price per gallon of fuel and fuel consumption driven by volume increases.Based on a static analysis of the net impact of yearover-year changes in fuel prices compared to year-over-year changes in fuel surcharges, fuel had a positive impact on operating income in 2011, predominantly at FedEx Express. Other inCOme and expense Interest expense decr eased $34 million in 2012 due to debt maturities, an increase in capitalized interest related to the timing of progress payments on aircraft purchases and lower financing fees. Interest expense increased $7 million in 2011 due to a decrease in capitalized interest related to timing of construction projects and progress payments on aircraft purchases. nCOme taxes Our effective tax rate was 35. 3% in 2012, 35. 9% in 2011 and 37. 5% in 2010. Our 2012 rate was lower than our 2011 rate primarily due to favorable audit developments. The 2011 rate was lower than our 2010 rate primarily due to increased permanently reinvested foreign earnings and a lower state rate driven by favorable audit and legislative developments. Our permanent reinvestment strategy with respect to unremitted earnings of our foreign subsidiaries provided a 1. 3% benefit to our 2012 effective tax rate.Our total permanently reinvested foreign earnings were $1. 0 billion at the end of 2012 and $640 million at the end of 2011. Our current federal income tax expenses in 2012, 2011 and 2010 were significantly reduced by accelerated depreciation deductions we claimed under provisions of the Tax Relief and the Small Business Jobs Acts of 2010, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009, and the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Those Acts, designed 14 management’s discussion and analysis to stimulate new business investment in the U. S. accelerated our depreciation deductions for new qualifying investments, such as our new Boeing 777 Freighter (â€Å"B777F†) aircraft. These are timing benefits only, in that the depreciation would have otherwise been recognized in later years. The components of the provision for federal income taxes for the years ended May 31 were as follows (in millions): Current Deferred Total Federal Provision 2012 $ (120) 947 $ 827 2011 $ 79 485 $ 564 2010 $ 36 408 $ 444 OutlOOk We anticipate revenue and earnings growth in 2013 despite only modest growth in the global economy. We believe U.S. domestic and global economic conditions will be impacted by the European debt crisis, slowing growth in Asia, and the uncertainty these issues create on the global economy and the demand for our services. These weaker global economic conditions have driven a shift by our customers from premium services to our deferred services, and we expect that trend to continue in 2013. For 2013, we expect our effective tax rate to be between 37. 0% and 38. 0%. The actual rate, however, will depend on a number of factors, including the amount and source of operating income.We also expect our current federal income tax expense will increase in 2013, possibly significantly, due to lower accelerated depreciation benefits than in prior years. Additional information on income taxes, including our effective tax rate reconciliation and liabilities for uncertain tax positions, can be found in Note 11 of the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Business aCquisit iOns During 2012, we continued to expand our FedEx Express international network. On July 25, 2011, we completed our acquisition of Servicios Nacionales Mupa, S. A. de C.V. (MultiPack), a Mexican domestic express package delivery company, for $128 million in cash from operations. Last year, FedEx Express completed the acquisition of the Indian logistics, distribution and express businesses of AFL Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliate Unifreight India Pvt. Ltd. for $96 million in cash on February 22, 2011. The financial results of these acquired businesses are included in the FedEx Express segment from the date of acquisition and were not material, individually or in the aggregate, to our results of operations or financial condition.Substantially all of the purchase price was allocated to goodwill, which was entirely attributed to our FedEx Express reporting unit. Our anticipated earnings growth in 2013 is predicated on continued improvement in profitability at our FedEx Freight segment from y ield growth and efficiency improvements and the sustained strong performance of our FedEx Ground segment. International revenue growth and network efficiency improvements at FedEx Express should also contribute to our earnings growth in 2013.However, significant cost headwinds in pension expense will hamper earnings growth in 2013 as a historically low discount rate at our May 31, 2012 measurement date will increase these costs by approximately $150 million. During 2013, we will continue to evaluate actions and opportunities to reduce costs, improve efficiencies and adjust our networks to match anticipated demand. Initial actions were taken in 2012, as we made the decision to retire 24 aircraft and related engines at FedEx Express to better align the U. S. omestic air network capacity to match current and anticipated shipment volumes. In addition, we remain focused on modernizing our aircraft fleet at FedEx Express by adding newer aircraft that are more reliable, fuel efficient and technologically advanced, and retiring older, less-efficient aircraft. As a result of these efforts, FedEx Express is shortening the depreciable lives of the following aircraft and related engines: 31 additional Boeing MD10-10s, 18 additional Airbus A310s, four Boeing 727s (â€Å"B727†) and one Boeing MD10-30.This will accelerate the retirement of these aircraft to align with the delivery schedule for replacement Boeing 767-300 Freighter (â€Å"B767F†) and Boeing 757-200 (â€Å"B757†) aircraft. The accelerated depreciation on these aircraft is expected to total $69 million in 2013, with a partial offset from the avoidance of depreciation related to the aircraft retirements (described in the â€Å"Impairment and Other Charges† section above).FedEx Express is also developing an operating and cost structure plan during 2013 to further improve its operational efficiency. Our capital expenditures for 2013 are expected to decrease to approximately $3. 9 billion , with fewer aircraft deliveries in 2013. We will continue to evaluate our investments in critical long-term strategic projects to ensure our capital expenditures generate high returns on investments and are balanced with our outlook for global economic conditions. On June 29, 2012, FedEx Express entered into a upplemental agreement to purchase nine additional B767F aircraft, exercised ten B767F options available under the December 2011 agreement and purchased the right to 15 additional options. In conjunction with the supplemental agreement to purchase B767F aircraft, FedEx Express converted four B777F aircraft deliveries to equivalent purchase value for B767F aircraft purchased under the supplemental agreement. For additional details on key 2013 capital projects, refer to the â€Å"Capital Resources† and â€Å"Liquidity Outlook† sections of this MD&A.Subsequent to year-end, we completed the following acquisitions: > Opek Sp. z o. o. , a Polish domestic express packag e delivery company, for $54 million in cash from operations on June 13, 2012 > TATEX, a French express transportation company, for $55 million in cash from operations on July 3, 2012 > Rapidao Cometa Logistica e Transportes S. A. , a Brazilian transportation and logistics company, for $398 million in cash from operations on July 4, 2012Based on the timing of the completion of these acquisitions in relation to the date of issuance of the financial statements, the initial purchase price accounting was not completed for these acquisitions. The financial results of these acquired businesses will be included in the FedEx Express segment from the date of acquisition and will be immaterial to our 2013 results. These acquisitions will give us more robust transportation networks within these countries and added capabilities in these important global markets. 5 management’s discussion and analysis Our outlook is dependent upon a stable pricing environment for fuel, as volatility in fue l prices impacts our fuel surcharge levels, fuel expense and demand for our services. Historically, our fuel surcharges have largely offset incremental fuel costs; however, volatility in fuel costs may impact earnings because adjustments to our fuel surcharges lag changes in actual fuel prices paid. Therefore, the trailing impact of adjustments to our fuel urcharges can significantly affect our earnings either positively or negatively in the short-term. NEW ACCOUNTING GUIDANCE New accounting rules and disclosure requirements can significantly impact our reported results and the comparability of our financial statements. During our fiscal year, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued new guidance to make the presentation of items within other comprehensive income (â€Å"OCI†) more prominent.The new standard will require companies to present items of net income, items of OCI and total As described in Note 17 of the accompanying consolidated financial comprehensive incom e in one continuous statement or two separate statements and the â€Å"Independent Contractor Matters† section of our consecutive statements, and companies will no longer be allowed to FedEx Ground segment MD&A, we are involved in a number of lawsuits present items of OCI in the statement of stockholders’ equity. This new and other proceedings that challenge the status of FedEx Ground’s standard is effective for our fiscal year ending May 31, 2013. wner-operators as independent contractors. FedEx Ground anticipates continuing changes to its relationships with its contractors. The nature, We believe there is no additional new accounting guidance adopted but not yet effective that is relevant to the readers of our financial timing and amount of any changes are dependent on the outcome of statements. However, there are numerous new proposals under develnumerous future events. We cannot reasonably estimate the potenopment which, if and when enacted, may have a signi ficant impact on tial impact of any such changes or a meaningful range of potential outcomes, although they could be material.However, we do not believe our financial reporting. that any such changes will impair our ability to operate and profitably REPORTABLE SEGMENTS grow our FedEx Ground business. See â€Å"Risk Factors† for a discussion of these and other potential risks and uncertainties that could materially affect our future performance. seasOnality Of Business Our businesses are cyclical in nature, as seasonal fluctuations affect volumes, revenues and earnings. Historically, the U. S. express package business experiences an increase in volumes in late November and December.International business, particularly in the Asia-to-U. S. market, peaks in October and November in advance of the U. S. holiday sales season. Our first and third fiscal quarters, because they are summer vacation and post winter-holiday seasons, have historically experienced lower volumes relative to other periods. Normally, the fall is the busiest shipping period for FedEx Ground, while late December, June and July are the slowest periods. For FedEx Freight, the spring and fall are the busiest periods and the latter part of December, January and February are the slowest periods.For FedEx Office, the summer months are normally the slowest periods. Shipment levels, operating costs and earnings for each of our companies can also be adversely affected by inclement weather, particularly the impact of severe winter weather in our third fiscal quarter. FedEx Express, FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight represent our major service lines and, along with FedEx Services, form the core of our reportable segments. Our reportable segments include the following businesses: FedEx Express Segment FedEx Ground Segment FedEx Freight Segment FedEx Services Segment gt; FedEx Express (express transportation) > FedEx Trade Networks (air and ocean freight forwarding and customs brokerage) > FedEx SupplyCh ain Systems (logistics services) > FedEx Ground (small-package ground delivery) > FedEx SmartPost (small-parcel consolidator) > FedEx Freight (LTL freight transportation) > FedEx Custom Critical (time-critical transportation) > FedEx Services (sales, marketing, information technology, communications and back-office functions) > FedEx TechConnect (customer service, technical support, billings and collections) > FedEx Office (document and business services and package acceptance) 6 management’s discussion and analysis FEDEX SERVICES SEGMENT The FedEx Services segment operates combined sales, marketing, administrative and information technology functions in shared services operations that support our transportation businesses and allow us to obtain synergies from the combination of these functions. For the international regions of FedEx Express, some of these functions are performed on a regional basis by FedEx Express and reported in the FedEx Express segment in expense line i

Greek Mythology Then and Now Essays - 1575 Words

A myth is a collective term denoting a symbolic narrative in religion, as distinguished from symbolic behavior (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). (The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. 24)Mythology is a collection of myths meant to explain the universe. Mythological stories were told in many different cultures and civilizations. The existence of myths is known in every society. Many different myths were conceived to explain occurrences that happened in nature. One of these natural occurrences is the solar eclipse. The word eclipse originates from a Greek word meaning abandonment. Ana Ruiz states in â€Å"The Spirit of Ancient Egypt†, that the ancient Egyptians believed that Apep, a spirit†¦show more content†¦In Norse mythology, Thor is known as the God of Thunder. The Vikings believed that the sound of thunder was caused by Thor. In the Norse myth, Thor and his mighty hammer, Miolnir, take on the destructive giants. It is said that every crack of thunder is Thor dropping his hammer down. (The Encyclopedia of Ancient Myths and Culture 449-455) Many cultures created different myths that try to explain the reality of volcanoes. The English word volcano is derived from the Roman god of fire, Vulcan. The Greeks later defined Vulcan as the Greek God, Hephaestus. The myth states that Hephaestus was skilled in the art of blacksmithing and metalwork. The Greeks believed his workshop was beneath volcanoes such as Etna in Sicily. The sparks and flames that arose from the volcanoes were thought to be Hephaestus forging weapons for the Olympians. (Daly 122) In the Chinese culture dragons are worshiped and feared. According to Chinese mythology, Fucanglong, the dragon of hidden treasures, lives in the underground and guards the treasures of the earth. It is said that a volcano would erupt when Fucanglong sprung from the earth to the heavens to report on the status of his treasures. (Rosen 63) The Greeks believed the god of the winds, Aeolus, was the culprit behind tornadoes. Aeolus is the ruler of the floating island of Aeolia. At the command of the gods he would release his tremendous winds and cause chaos. The story ofShow MoreRelatedThe Influence of Ancient Greek Mythology on Modern Society Essay1055 Words   |  5 PagesAncient Greek society fell over 2000 years ago but despite this, its mythology still continues to influence our western society. References to Greek mythology can be found all through time and in our western culture. The influence of Greek mythology can be found in our science, arts and literature and our language. When Ancient Greece fell to the Roman Empire, Rome adapted its mythologies which still influence us today as they have through history. That is not to say that Greek mythology wasn’t influencedRead MoreThe Importance Of Greek Mythology1605 Words   |  7 Pagespopular everyday items that we use in our life sometimes, are inspired by Greek mythology. Sports brands, movies and T.V shows, the most complicated technology, books and many more, are all examples of Greek Mythology. If you take modern day items that we use and compare it to Greek mythology, believe it or not there is a big connection. But how come people today are inspired by Greek mythology? Also, why is Greek mythology important to us if they were just myths? It was such a while ago, so why doRead MoreWhy Greek Mythology Is Still Relevant Today And Why We Still Use It1585 Words   |  7 Pagesinspired by Greek mythology. Sports brands, movies and T.V shows, the most complicated technology, books and many more, are all examples of Greek Mythology. If you take modern day items that we use and compare it to Greek mythology, believe it or not there is a big connection. This essay will explain about why Greek mythology is still relevant today and why we still use it. Literature Review- Summary #1 In â€Å"The Greek Gods† from The Romans Anne Millard and Susan Peach describes that the Greeks hadRead MoreWhy Greek Mythology Is Still Relevant Today And Why We Still Use It1588 Words   |  7 Pagesby Greek mythology. Sports brands, movies and T.V shows, the most complicated technology, books and many more, are all examples of Greek Mythology. If you take modern day items that we use and compare it to Greek mythology, believe it or not there is a big connection. This essay will explain about why Greek mythology is still relevant today and why we still use it. Literature Review- Summary #1 In â€Å"The Greek Gods† from The Romans Anne Millard and Susan Peach describes that the Greeks hadRead MoreGreek Mythology Throughout The Ages916 Words   |  4 PagesGreek Mythology throughout the Ages Greek mythology is the culmination of myths and teaching that began in Ancient Greek. These myths are diverse in the stories that they tell ranging from their gods, their heroes and the nature of the world. They also reveal much about their religious beliefs and practices during Ancient Greece. Today modern scholars study these myths in an attempt to better understand the religious and political practices of Ancient Greece and its civilization of way back whenRead MoreGreek Mythology and Its Effects on Civilization803 Words   |  4 PagesGreek religion encompasses the collection of beliefs and rituals practiced in ancient Greece in the form of both popular public religion and cult practices. Many Greeks recognized the major gods and goddesses, such as Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and many others through philosophies such as Stoicism. The religious practices of the Greeks extended beyond mainland Greece to the islands and costs of Ionia in Asia Minor to Sicily and southern Italy, and s cattered Greek colonies in the Western MediterraneanRead MoreWomen Of Ancient Greek Mythology Essay1535 Words   |  7 Pagessubservient gender, an idea that was no different in Ancient Greece. Throughout Greek mythology, women were considered inferior and troublesome symbols, while men were known for courage, leadership, and strength. While there is no argument of the flagrant sexism that is illustrated in Greek mythology, it can also be claimed that women were given a situated position of freedom, necessity, and power as well. Many popular Greek plays and myths contain several complexes and well described female charactersRead MoreGreek and Roman Culture Essay examples1240 Words   |  5 PagesGreek and Roman culture, although similar, are very different and interesting. Since the Romans adopted culture from the Greeks, many traditions are the same. When the Romans conquered the Hellenistic cities, they became fascinated with the idea of a Greek style of doing things. All thi ngs Greek were now considered popular. This is how much of the Greek way of life made its way into the Roman society. The first part of culture that the Romans adopted was the Greek art. Scores of Greek paintingsRead MoreMythology and How It Affects Society Essay1218 Words   |  5 PagesMythology has been used in a multitude of ways since the beginnings of civilization as it provided mankind explanation for natural occurrences: harvest time and the changing of the seasons, natural disasters: earthquakes and storms, and life events: birth and death, but was also used to simply provide entertainment. Another huge role that mythology played a part in was the explanation of how the earth and all its people were created and why. This formed the structure for many societies as they couldRead MoreEssay on Family Relationships in Greek Mythology 1632 Words   |  7 PagesGreek Mythology originated around 775 B.C.E. It all started with Homer’s Iliad and continued on with Hesiod’s Theogany. These were the first two myths to be recorded in Greek Mythology. Both of these myths reveal to us ab out their understanding of the universe, and about their culture. Not only do they talk about their various gods, and heroes, but they also talk about how they viewed the universe in general (Rosenberg 79). Greek Mythology evolved from two early civilizations, the Mycenaean’s and