[no_worries]

All I'm saying is that what you guys see as leased operators isn't giving you a clear picture of what goes on at other levels in the process. For O/O's dealing in the spot market, what you say is pretty much true. I don't break down a quote on a load from the boards. But those transactions make up a very small percentage of the freight that gets moved everyday. If you're quoting a year's worth of freight, you're going to include a FSC if you expect to secure rates that adjust for costs. And most times, shippers want to see quotes broken down like that. It makes it much easier for them to compare and decide which quote is really giving them the most value. Shippers understand that the volatility of diesel prices makes for a tough operating environment. They don't mind seeing that incorporated in their costs. For the most part though, if they found out that half of what they thought they were paying due to the diesel market wasn't going for that purpose, they would expect an explanation. This happened last year when it became known that many carriers, including the LTL's were increasing their profitability due to the FSC's. Many shippers demanded that contracts be renegotiated. Fedex and UPS, in response to the outcry, lowered their FSC but were able to increase their rates. The TL carriers didn't have that kind of pricing power.

Just one final thought. Those of you that are paid % probably get 100% pass-through, and does that FSC vary depending on the load? Very few carriers charge a set FSC to all customers. Often, they don't even use the same criteria for all customers. Some customers may pay a FSC that on a per mile basis, others may pay a percentage. This is because different shippers prefer to deal with their costs in a certain manner. You can bet that if a carrier is bidding on 500 loads a month and the customer wants a FSC expressed as a percentage, that carrier is going to quote the customer in whatever form he wants. Additionally, carriers often give discounts or even waive FSC's altogether for some customers. So, if you're getting a FSC of $.50/mile this week, it's unlikely that all the loads you haul are actually paying that amount. Some may pay less, some more.

I don't think that a FSC regulation would necessarily result in more money in the O/O's pocket. But that hasn't been my reasoning in any of these discussions. It would be good for the industry.

[mike3fan]

Originally Posted by no_worries

Those of you that are paid % probably get 100% pass-through, and does that FSC vary depending on the load?

Most,I would say 95% of the loads pay the same fsc,some customers want a higher rate and a lower fsc which actually hurts us O/O's because then the company get a percentage of the increased rate but they are very few that do this.

[Larry Heyns]

We had 100% pass through in the 1970s until the companies sued the government and won. Then, the surcharge was folded into the rates, and the government could no longer tell trucking companies what to pay their owner-operators. It is not likely that legal precedent will be overturned.

[no_worries]

Mike, I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more companies being forced by shippers to adjust their FSC basis significantly higher before too long. Nobody thinks we'll ever see diesel prices at $1.20 again...or $2.20 for that matter. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to peg the FSC at that level. By increasing the base rate, shippers will get a more accurate sense of what their transport really costs them. On a project I'm putting together right now, I'm using $3.50 as the base for the FSC.

[special k]

Here's my scenario I haul steel which pays by the hundred weight. Our FSC is a % of the freight bill. Its around 22% now I get 100% of that BUT we have no way of knowing what the final customer is actually paying if the load comes through a traffic department. If it's our own customer and we are doing a customer p/u than we know. I know a steel supplier that is currently charging 35% to the customer. You tell me what the customers are paying when you get a load through the traffic dept OR a load broker. It's in their best interest to move it as cheap as possible. The only way they'll disclose that # is if they have to legally.

[rank]

All I want is 100% rate transparency. I want the truck to know what the shipper is paying. I think that would be fun.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by rank

All I want is 100% rate transparency. I want the truck to know what the shipper is paying. I think that would be fun.

Me too.

A mandatory law would require the o/o or driver to actually get a copy of the freight bill.

Is it any wonder ALL brokers and ALL big carriers are against this law?

How would they skim off the top?........and YES they are skimming, why the ONLY one who is up front about it is Landstar.....65% of 98% with Landstars trailer, 75% of 98% with your own trailer, right Landstar guys?

Ask me how I know. :wink:

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by Maniac

Me too.

A mandatory law would require the o/o or driver to actually get a copy of the freight bill.

Is it any wonder ALL brokers and ALL big carriers are against this law?

How would they skim off the top?........and YES they are skimming, why the ONLY one who is up front about it is Landstar.....65% of 98% with Landstars trailer, 75% of 98% with your own trailer, right Landstar guys?

Ask me how I know. :wink:

:shock: :shock: :shock: You left Dana and signed with LS ??????




NO...wait a second here....You left LS and signed on with Dana did ya !!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Maniac]

NO...wait a second here....You left LS and signed on with Dana did ya !!!

Nope

You left Dana and signed with LS ??????

H**L NO :lol: :lol: :lol: