[Dispatch_This]

I also support transparency. But transparency the way WE would like to see it would be complicated, and has it's own pitfalls.

A good example is CHR Worldwide and the deals they have in place with manufacturers in China. CHR manages the entire supply chain. Import freight moves by ocean, then rail, then local warehouse drayage before it hits the dock where it is loaded on your truck. There's no way that CHR is going to give you a breakdown with fuel surcharge showing how much was paid for each mode of transportation.

Even at lower levels where there is only a simple shipper-broker-carrier relationship- it's not cut and dried. The deep pocket brokers would simply start functioning as freight forwarders, thus BECOMING the shipper. The buck would stop there. It would put huge pressure on small brokers, where most of us independents get the best rates.

Many think that transparency would result in higher rates because it would expose brokers who are gouging shippers and keeping the fuel surcharge for themselves. Clearly, it is not that simple.

[Dispatch_This]

Originally Posted by no_worries

Dispatch, that's interesting about the bond originally being for the purpose of settling cargo claims (I tried to read you link, but it didn't work :lol: ). As far as updating the regs to reflect how the industry now operates, that's exactly what I'm talking about. We don't need over-regulation, but the regulations we do have need to be relevant...currently, they're just not.

no_worries-
Your right. That link is dead. I think I have it stored on my HD as a .PDF file. PM your email address and I'll send it to you.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by no_worries

I don't see where this follows. Independents are not solely reliant on brokers, just as shippers aren't.

Some independents are.......

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by ironeagle_2006

GMAN that is what I want to see for the O/O and those running on their own is what did that load pay TOTAL before the broker took his cut because if a load pays 3 bucks a mile and a FSC before the broker takes their cut and afterwards all that is left is a buck a mile and no FSC guess what that Broker is NOT going to be getting to many calls very fast why their rating is going to be gettin g hammered on every Message board and Load board their is saying takes 70% for themsevles and will not come higher. Then that shipper is going to be asking why can you not cover your loads to that broker. Transparancy would eliminate those brokers bending over the O/O and companies big time very quickly. Landstarve Rev takes 27% off the top and for what the right to use the name and a few other benefits not worth it at all IMO.

The transparency will still not solve the primary problem we have in the industry. It is the carriers and owner operators who insist on hauling cheap freight. Whether you have transparency or not, it won't get rid of the cheap freight haulers. Until you get rid of them, the lower rates will continue. In reality, if you are happy with the rate you get, it should not make any difference what the broker makes. If you are not getting a decent rate, you have the option of not taking the load. By letting the cheap freight sit on the docks, you will do more to raise rates than any legislation. What is a good rate to one may not be a good rate for someone else.

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by ironeagle_2006

GMAN that is what I want to see for the O/O and those running on their own is what did that load pay TOTAL before the broker took his cut because if a load pays 3 bucks a mile and a FSC before the broker takes their cut and afterwards all that is left is a buck a mile and no FSC guess what that Broker is NOT going to be getting to many calls very fast why their rating is going to be gettin g hammered on every Message board and Load board their is saying takes 70% for themsevles and will not come higher.

So what if they don't get calls on it? Then the load sits, and the broker is forced to rethink their practices.

Then that shipper is going to be asking why can you not cover your loads to that broker.

I would certainly hope so. I would also hope the shipper would find another way to transport their goods.

Transparancy would eliminate those brokers bending over the O/O and companies big time very quickly.

That's where you are wrong. The marketplace should already be weeding out bad brokers who are pushing cheap freight. Transparency would do nothing to further this along. If they aren't being weeded out, the fault lies soley at the feet of the carrier who is allowing them to continue to peddle cheap freight.

Landstarve Rev takes 27% off the top and for what the right to use the name and a few other benefits not worth it at all IMO.

Let me ask you this: If Landstar had loads that paid $5.00 per mile gross, would you haul for them? After all, you would still be getting $3.65 per mile to haul that freight. Your "not worth it" only becomes so when you are scraping the bottom. Smart businesspeople know better than to do that. I wouldn't care if Landstar was taking 50% off the top, if the freight they offered was still profitable for my business. A smart businessperson would realize this. If you can't comprehend this, then you obviously aren't a very good businessperson.

Remember, cheap freight only becomes cheap freight when it is loaded into the trailer. Until then, it is just some crap sitting on a dock that nobody will move. Point the finger at the carrier who turns that crap into cheap freight.

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

Remember, cheap freight only becomes cheap freight when it is loaded into the trailer. Until then, it is just some crap sitting on a dock that nobody will move. Point the finger at the carrier who turns that crap into cheap freight.

Exactly !!

[allan5oh]

Originally Posted by Doghouse

I am going after the rates brokers charge us.

Brokers don't charge anything. We're the ones that charge.

If you call up a broker and say "how much does this load pay" guess what you're gonna be low balled so bad you won't know where to go.

[no_worries]

Just because an independent operates completely off broker boards doesn't mean he isn't capable of securing his own freight. It simply means that, for him, the payoff isn't worth the effort. In many cases it may be a terrible business decision, but there's no law against that, as we all know.

Personally, I don't think that more transparency will necessarily lead to better rates. It's just as likely to result in shippers paying less than carriers making more. What I have no doubt about is that it would result in many brokers keeping less.

Rev, is there a point where what LS does for you wouldn't be worth their cut?

[BanditsCousin]

I agree with the numbers Rev said. It's the final cut that you gotta be happy with. I only get 55% of my linehaul and 100% fsc. Would I like 78% of lower paying feight? Nope. A broker charging a max of 10% of $1.50/mi fright won't make you any richer. A broker taking a bigger % of higher paying freight does. Do you want more? Sure, it is human nature to always want more :wink: It's what you get that makes you happy AND profitable. One without the other isn't always the way to go, but that depends in what order your prioritize the two elements :P

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by no_worries

Rev, is there a point where what LS does for you wouldn't be worth their cut?

Absolutely. When my business fails to be profitable on the loads they offer, then they are no longer worth it. It has nothing to do with some arbitrary percentage cut that they do or do not take. It has to do with the bottom line on the load. Shoot - when I was leased to Graebel, they were taking 48% of the linehaul. I still managed to be profitable. When that changed, I left.