How would this work exactly? Considering all FSC's are calculated a little differently?

What's to stop the broker from not charging a FSC at all? Instead, charging more on the linehaul rate?

Government mandated fuel surcharge you say? Well, what's to stop them from mandating rates, and how much YOU can profit?

I've never understood this FSC debate. For one load, you simply factor in FSC into your rate. You don't call the broker "$1500 plus FSC" for a load that loads tomorrow. You quote "I'll do it for $1900".

Say you take one load. 1000 miles. $2000, or $2 per mile. Your truck gets 6 miles per gallon.

One month later, fuel has gone up an incredible $1.20. Your cost has increased $200 to haul the same load.

Now quote $2200. If the broker is getting a FSC, his profit will be the same as when you hauled the load for $2000. How hard is that to understand?

Fuel surcharges are for long contracts, a year long or more. They're not for the one load you pick up from the broker.

The fsc is irrelevant if you get a good enough rate. If you are going to have a federally mandated fsc, then it would be better to have a standardized way in which to calculate the rate. I think the main concern with most people is that if a fuel surcharge is paid, then the entire amount should be passed along to the one who purchases the fuel.

As a o/o who gets paid % I would love to see that law come in. Using your eg. Allan the co would get some of the extra money they charge for the fuel. Keep the FSC seperate! The big problem I see is load brokers/traffic department's charging customers high fuel surcharges and than trying to cut it down to the bare minimum or nothing at all. This way their ripping off both the customer and the o/o. The trucking co who have mostly o/o don't care because they like collecting some of the FSC % and telling the o/o it's all in the rate. A legit co will bill it seperate or pull it out of the frieght rate for their o/o's

Most companies that I know of that pay percentage pay a full FSC.

The problem is, what is stopping the company from not charging a FSC at all?

100% of 0 is still 0.

Much of the freight out there is not originally secured on the spot market. Shippers put freight out for bid based on both volume and time. So, a broker may contract to move a certain amount of a shipper's freight over a year-long period. The broker needs rates to be flexible because if fuel goes up 30%, his original bid won't leave near as much profit, if any. The shipper wants to know that if his cost goes up, it's because fuel has gone up. Not because the broker is playing games. Plus, with a FSC, the shipper knows what to expect. So the simple answer is that shipper's will expect to see a FSC as the reason for fluctuating rates.

Back before fuel got volatile, the original bid was often the price throughout the term of the contract.

I agree completely. If the carrier looks at the bottom line, rather than just one segment of the revenue, they will realize that the FSC debate is futile at best. I'd much rather take a 1000 mile trip @ $2000 with no FSC than a 1000 mile trip @ $1400 with a $500 FSC. It all comes down to the bottom line. This is no different than the broker % argument.

Exactly, who cares if you're getting FSC if the rate is only 80 cpm.

I take it you two have never dealt with customers and contracted freight other than on the spot market?

Personally,I get a percentage of the linehaul as a fsc and in no way do I want it capped or have the feds tell me what my fsc should be,if I found a company that pays this way so can others.

If you need more to cover your fuel cost find a carrier who provides enough to cover those cost or charge more,seems simple and without more government interference.

No, actually to be honest I'm leased to a carrier, straight rate.

Does it really matter? Maybe I live a sheltered life, I don't know. Inform me.