I agree with "Beattle-brow's". The fsc breakout works great if you are leased to a company....like I am. When your running under your own authority, like "BD", "Not-Steve" and a couple others here, then the total per mile rate is far more important, than a breakdown of the FSC.
That is why knowing what it cost's to operate the truck is so important. Not just where fuel, plates, insurance and maintanence are concerned...but driver wages..meals..the whole nine yards.

Even as an O/O leased to a company...I figure everything "In", to establish my cost to operate..and turn down loads that don't pay cost plus.

 

That's right it doesn't. But that was never my point. This is not just about the carrier.

You stating something and getting someone to agree doesn't make it so. I believe my example shows that it is not moot.

That's amusing. I doubt many here have consistently higher rates than me. But again, that's not the point. Nowhere in my example did I say that I wanted more money for moving the hypothetical load. Nobody is looking at this from the shippers perspective.

sure they are, but why the big secret?

Jeez, can't ya still calculate the coveted total per mile rate by adding the line haul to the broken out FSC??????? This ain't difficult people.

Can anyone give me a good reason NOT to show the shippers rate, line haul, FSC & broker fee on the BOL?

The only one I can think of is that all the BOL forms need to be changed. Also, I suppose it's conceivable that if the shipper sees that carriers are willing to work for peanuts, he may lower the line haul amount that he is willing to pay. That being the case, are the broker and carrier in bed together? Wouldn't that be ironic, after all the bitching and moaning they do about one another.

 

Translation.
I'm not a rich truck driver, I just play one on the internet. :roll:

 

Then what is the point of the legislation? If you are already hauling it for what you feel is fair, then it shouldn't matter whether they call part of it a FSC or not.

I believe several people here already did, and determined that it would cause rates to drop because the shipper would find out that money they paid as FSC wasn't actually going to the carrier.

I doubt you disclose how much profit you earn to your shippers. Why the big secret?

Because it will cause shippers to rethink what they are paying for shipping rates. It also is impractical, as the broker fee is usually negotiated after the shipper has already agreed to the rate, and the rate is sometimes negotiated by the consignee. It is also impractical to include these items on a blind load.

IMO, I think carriers would be better served by worrying more about what they are making, and less on what their supplier (the broker) is making. Run your own business to the best of your ability, and let the broker do the same. Propping up poor negotiators with this feel-good legislation is harmful to the industry as a whole.

 

The hard truth of the matter is that you have a lot of owner operators out here who are not businessmen. They may own the truck (for now) but haven't a clue of what it takes to run a profitable business. This is obvious due to so many taking cheap loads. A fuel charge can help with sharp fuel spikes, but it is still part of the rate. If you establish a minimum haul rate you will negate any need for the fsc. A fsc can be good, but it is still a matter of shuffling numbers and presenting them differently. If the load isn't profitable, then don't haul it. After all, no one is pointing a gun to your head to force you to take the load. Either the load is profitable or it isn't. Unless you run for a fixed mileage rate, each load is negotiated. While I still think it would be good to have some transparency, I am not sure that it will make much difference in the long term. Something such as this bill will have little or no effect unless there are penalties for not complying. Without teeth in the legislation there is no need to even spend the time putting it together. A fsc is a way for brokers and carriers to get more money without having to negotiate for better rates. Freight rates have been too low for many years. The fsc takes the monkey off of their back and puts it on the oil companies. After all, the oil companies are responsible for the higher fuel prices and increased fsc. It isn't the carrier or broker. By putting responsibility on a third party, it takes pressure off of them to negotiate higher rates.

 

So the carriers DO have a vested interest in non disclosure then.

IMO, I think carriers would be better served by worrying more about what they are making, and less on what their supplier (the broker) is making. Run your own business to the best of your ability, and let the broker do the same. Propping up poor negotiators with this feel-good legislation is harmful to the industry as a whole.[/quote]
Perhaps. Like I said, it really makes no matter to me, other than principle.