Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not a rich truck driver, I just play one on the internet. :roll: |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.