Amazon signs delivery deal with FedEx to fill void after UPS pulls back

New York Post - May 13th, 2025

Amazon has entered a multi-year agreement with FedEx to handle some of its large package deliveries, as announced by both companies on Monday. This development follows UPS's decision to halt less-profitable deliveries for Amazon and cut 20,000 jobs. The agreement, which was signed in February, offers Amazon cost advantages over UPS, according to internal documents reported by Business Insider. Although FedEx will join Amazon's network of third-party partners, including UPS and USPS, it will not replace UPS entirely. The deal, described as 'mutually beneficial,' is seen as a possible sign of improving relations between Amazon and FedEx, who severed residential delivery ties back in 2019.

The partnership between Amazon and FedEx comes in the context of a competitive delivery market, where FedEx and UPS have been battling for market share. UPS, facing operational restructuring, plans to significantly reduce its shipment volumes for Amazon by more than half by 2026. This strategic shift by UPS aims to focus on more profitable deliveries. The announcement of the Amazon-FedEx deal has had an immediate positive impact on FedEx's stock, which saw a 7% increase, surpassing the broader market rally. This agreement may have significant implications for the logistics industry, potentially reshaping delivery dynamics and influencing how major players vie for dominance in the e-commerce sector.

Logistics Amazon Fed Ex Ups E Commerce Delivery Services Business Agreements

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

This article provides a timely and clear overview of a significant development in the logistics and e-commerce sectors, with Amazon partnering with FedEx for large package deliveries. It accurately reports on the strategic moves by Amazon, FedEx, and UPS, though it could improve by citing more direct sources and providing additional context on the 'cost favorability' claim. The article is balanced and accessible, making it relevant to a wide audience, particularly consumers and investors. While it captures interest and has potential implications for public opinion, it could enhance engagement by including more diverse perspectives and deeper analysis of the competitive dynamics involved.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on Amazon's partnership with FedEx for handling large package deliveries, which aligns with external sources confirming the multi-year agreement. The claim about UPS reducing its shipment volumes for Amazon by 50% and cutting 20,000 jobs is also supported by external reports. However, the article mentions 'cost favorability' without providing specific evidence or details, which could benefit from further verification. Additionally, while the article states that FedEx shares surged by 7%, it does not cite a specific source for this financial data, which is a minor oversight in precision.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of the competitive dynamics between Amazon, FedEx, and UPS. It discusses the strategic moves of each company without apparent bias. However, it could include more perspectives, such as the potential impact on employees or customers, to provide a more comprehensive view. The mention of a 'thaw in relations' between Amazon and FedEx suggests a positive spin, which might be balanced by exploring potential challenges or criticisms of the deal.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively outlines the key events and their implications for Amazon, FedEx, and UPS. The language is straightforward and accessible, though some technical terms related to logistics and market dynamics could be further explained for general readers. Overall, the clarity of the article aids in reader comprehension.

Source quality

The article references statements from Amazon and FedEx, which are primary sources, enhancing credibility. However, it lacks direct citations or quotes from these companies or from financial analysts, which would strengthen the reliability of the information. The mention of Business Insider as a source for the 'cost favorability' claim adds some authority, but the absence of direct quotes or document excerpts is a gap in source quality.

Transparency

The article provides basic context about the changes in delivery partnerships and market dynamics. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the methodology behind the claims, such as how 'cost favorability' was determined. The article could benefit from greater transparency by disclosing the basis for its financial and strategic assertions, particularly regarding the internal document cited.