Please notify carriers, shippers, brokers about scam

[LOAD IT]

These companies run by Henry, Tendry, Nas, and Al (go by names of Sonic Trans and or Able Logistics) has been defrauding truckers, shippers and brokers with a double brokering scheme. Loads are being accepted by a trucking company and then given to a second brokerage which double brokers the loads. The first truck usually, but not always, attempts to collect quick pay or an advance. The truck actually hauling the freight does not discover the fraud until they attempt to seek payment and cannot reach the broker anymore. The other scam is they will book a load and string the broker, shipper along to think the freight is moving across country when it has really been placed in storage in or near greater Los Angeles, Ca. They will be trying to get advances and partial payments all along and at some point they will charge the broker, shipper for the location where his freight has been placed in storage and the full invoice must be paid plus the storage fee. This has cause many problems for the industry. It is recommended that companies doing business with truckers or brokers be especially vigilant when contracting with companies. They have been calling us for loads from a Quebec number and recently a Las Vegas number 702-628-XXXX. Please be aware of this scam and mention it to as many people as you can.

[GMAN]

Do you know of anyone who has been burned by these people?

[LOAD IT]

They took a load from one of my customers that was to go from Yuma to Cleveland and they took it to Los Angeles. He said it cost him over $20000 considering the freight claim and the ransom and paying another carrier. I talked to a broker out of Florida, they were to take his load from Florida to Las Vegas and they took it to Los Angeles. They call my brokerage for loads a few times per week, we dont expose them, we just tell them the load is covered.

[chris1]

They are listed in ITS as holding loads hostage so why would anyone use them?

[GMAN]

Not all carriers will check out a broker before taking a load. And I would think that not all brokers check out carriers before giving them a load other than the basic information. That may be a reason some brokers won't give a load to a carrier who has not been in business a minimum amount of time. I know some of the major carriers won't even take a load from a broker who is not listed in the "Gold Book." Some won't even bother to check the broker's credit if they are not listed.

[LOAD IT]

They are listed in ITS as holding loads hostage so why would anyone use them?

Not everyone uses ITS, so my point is to put the word out. This makes booking freight harder for legitimate.

[poster]

a different broker case
Avetyan_08_25_09
If convicted of all charges, the defendants face a maximum of life imprisonment.

[Bigmon]

. That may be a reason some brokers won't give a load to a carrier who has not been in business a minimum amount of time. I know some of the major carriers won't even take a load from a broker who is not listed in the "Gold Book." Some won't even bother to check the broker's credit if they are not listed.

Kind of funny that Brokers have all this criteria for the Carrier and then offer them freight for .80 cpm.

[GMAN]

Kind of funny that Brokers have all this criteria for the Carrier and then offer them freight for .80 cpm.

They ask a lot for someone to haul their freight. I suppose they do have more concerns with their cheap rates. If they paid a decent rate they could get better and more responsible carriers.

[chris1]

They ask a lot for someone to haul their freight. I suppose they do have more concerns with their cheap rates. If they paid a decent rate they could get better and more responsible carriers.

So higher price equates better quality?

[GMAN]

So higher price equates better quality?

Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. I suppose you could use a fine line between quality and price. You will need to find a balance. The better carriers are not going to haul freight for less than it costs to operate. The better carriers will expect and demand a rate that will guarantee themselves a profit. It is foolish to give your services away and go broke in the process.

[chris1]

Never have found a difference between quality and price(rate). What one calls cheap another thinks is fine.

[GMAN]

If you are talking about services, such as the freight business, then I will agree. Someone who hauls cheap freight cannot afford to provide a quality service. There simply isn't enough money.

[chris1]

If you are talking about services, such as the freight business, then I will agree. Someone who hauls cheap freight cannot afford to provide a quality service. There simply isn't enough money.

The amount of money paid doesn't provide quality service.

[GMAN]

When these shippers and/or brokers pay a cheap rate they get what they pay for. When one of these cheap freight haulers put on one of their loads, the only thing they are thinking of is how quickly they can get that load off and go to the next cheap load.

[chris1]

When these shippers and/or brokers pay a cheap rate they get what they pay for. When one of these cheap freight haulers put on one of their loads, the only thing they are thinking of is how quickly they can get that load off and go to the next cheap load.

What facts do you base this broad general statement on? As end of 3rd quarter we have 7531 loads on outside carriers. There is no correlation between the rate and the service failures. But there is a far higher rate of service failure of single O/O's versus larger carriers. Based on that someone could surmise that O/O's in general provide a lesser quality of service.
I'm not disputing that someone who hauls at too low of a rate continually will have financial problems,just that the rate of a load does not have anything to do with the level of service.
The level of service is provided by the individual's integrity not the rate. Under you definition even you yourself hauling a low rate load would not provide good service.

[GMAN]

I think that it is common sense. If a carrier continues to haul cheap freight they WILL have service failures at some point. The reason being that they cannot afford to do routine maintenance and pay for any breakdowns when they occur. If the carrier is under a load then it will be a service failure. I would need to look closer at the figures when you compare larger carriers and smaller ones. The larger carrier may be able to re-power a load when a truck breaks down whereas the smaller one may not. You would also need to compare the number of trucks each carrier has when you use your figures. If a carrier has 100 of your loads and has 1 service failure then that is only a 1% failure rate. If it is a 5 truck operation then a single failure rate would be a 20% failure rate. A single truck operation who has one of your loads and breaks down could have a 100% failure rate.

You don't have to worry about my service and cheap rates. While I have had to haul below what I want during the last few months, I won't haul a load so cheap that I cannot provide an acceptable level of service or make a profit. That is the difference. If someone constantly hauls cheap freight then they may not be able to provide quality service, regardless of his level of integrity. If he doesn't have the money it doesn't matter how much integrity he has, he simply doesn't have the money to repair his truck and get the job done. A couple of years ago I rented a truck for a week due to one of my trucks breaking down. I did it because I had committed to haul several loads. Neither the shipper or broker could believe that I would rent a truck to fulfill my obligation to them. Had the rates that I had been hauling for not be sufficient, I might not have been in the position to be able to fulfill my obligations. I really didn't make any profit that week due to the extra expense of renting the truck and paying my driver, but I did got the loads hauled. That is the level of service I provide. But I don't move my truck unless I can make a profit on what I haul. Profits are down considerably over last year, for all of us. That means that owners need to be more selective in what they haul. If I were a broker or shipper I would be hesitant to give a load to someone who would haul it cheap. If you are a broker you should be aware of what it costs for a carrier to operate. I had one broker who called me with an over sized load. He had a carrier who told him that he would haul it across the country without having to have escorts. The load was over 12' wide and required escorts in every state but one that the carrier would cross. I would have been afraid to have given it to that carrier due to his lack of experience with this type of freight. Had he had experience he would not have taken the chance of being stopped due to not having escorts. I WON'T take a load that I cannot haul legally. In this case, it was irresponsible for the broker to give this load to a carrier who obviously had no experience hauling this type of freight. It is this type of carrier who will have service failures. I would expect this to be a smaller carrier, but there is no way to know since the broker didn't give me a name.

It is easy to manipulate figures or statistics to show what you want. It would be interesting to take a closer look at your numbers and see a more complete picture.

[chris1]

All i'm pointing out is rate alone doesn't determine level of service. I'm also not knocking O/O's. I have many who do dedicated loads every week,some for many years with no problems. I just don't agree with a broad statement that rate determines service.

[GMAN]

I am not necessarily saying that a cheap rate will be the only factor that will result in a service failure. What I am saying is that chances are that if a carrier, regardless of size, has a history of hauling cheap freight, there is a greater likelihood of him having a service failure than a carrier who consistently hauls for a fair rate. I know there are probably some who will have failures no matter what the rate.

[chris1]

If they paid a decent rate they could get better and more responsible carriers.

Your statement not mine.