Tristate is exactly what I was thinking also. LolTo me its not good. My guess they were needing more vans and that person was the only one willing to put more on. You must drive for TriState?
To me its not good. My guess they were needing more vans and that person was the only one willing to put more on. You must drive for TriState?
I know this driver and he definitely does not drive for Tri-State.Tristate is exactly what I was thinking also. Lol
Oh!I know this driver and he definitely does not drive for Tri-State.
Why would a company want or allow one fleet owner to own half of the vans in service. It seems this allows the fleet owner to have an advantage over the other owner operators.
What if the carrier tries to push to bankruptcy that fleet owner?IF I were the carrier I'd have it in the contract that the owner could only pull so many vans at a time within a specified time period...
....that is an issue created by 1 or both parties that they should be able to work out as supposedly professionals...What if the carrier tries to push to bankruptcy that fleet owner?
Coincidence. The carrier has zero incentive to harm you by their wrongdoings (which is implied by cover up). For one, it is slow all over for cargo vans, and two, when it's slow for cargo vans, and it always is, increased competition for loads makes it even slower for individual cargo van drivers, whether that competition is from inside or outside your own carrier.I think that allowing one owner to own a large amount of units in a company tips the scales to his or her advantage. My weekly miles have dropped since the recent additional units have been put into service. When I spoke to our GM about this issue, I was told its slow all over. Coincidence or cover up?
One thing that must be understood in that context is, very few carriers are "smart," and will add more vans than they have loads, in the hopes they'll get loads for them. But they rarely do.I agree "smart" carriers shouldn't add on units during slow periods.