FX (and other) fsc programs

[LDB]

In the long thread about the new FX fsc program I read two different posts where the writer said they prefer low or no fsc. One was from a driver who didn't like the fsc saying "gross-fsc-tolls times percentage" was what he gets paid. Although it's completely wrong I can see on the surface how he's figuring he doesn't like any fsc. In this case the owner would be paying fuel and tolls and therefore taking all the fsc and toll money as offset. The driver would be receiving whatever his percentage is based on the gross base rate of the load. In the second case I couldn't figure out why the writer preferred low/no fsc.

I'm not asking whose fsc program is better or worse so please don't get sidetracked with that. I am asking if anyone can explain any situation at all where low/no fsc would be more desirable than a higher fsc. I also agree with others that 10mpg overall average for straight trucks for fsc calculations is too high. To be both fair and more accurate the fsc should be based on 8.5mpg overall average for straight trucks. Those who finesse their trucks better and drive slower and do all the right things and do average 10mpg would be getting a bonus. The rest would be getting a more accurate fsc. My nickel's worth.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[ATeam]

In a case where the FSC is charged to some customers but not to others, and where a fleet owner passes 100% of the FSC onto the driver, loads that include no FSC but had high enough pay to accept would be more profitable to the fleet owner since the FSC does not need to be factored out of the gross pay before the 60/40 split.

 

[LDB]

That would be true from a non-driving owner perspective. I should have been clearer that I'm looking for driver or owner/driver reasons for wanting a lower fsc with all else being equal.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[guest]

Leo

What I was talking about was the % they would be charging the customer. FedEx feels that we as owners was making money off the FSC.
But I thought that is what everyone is in this business for.

Nice post Leo thank you


Drive Safe
David Mayfield
O/O since 1/27/95

 

[davekc]

My opinion is there is still an absorbed cost that is getting ignored in many instances. Unless there is a rate increase that rises with the fuel price, the FSC is covering that.
Regardless of the load, there is still a fuel cost on both ends of a load. The fuel to pickup a load isn't cheaper and the customer should pay that.
If the freight rate stays the same or declines, that cost has to be picked up somewhere. At some point, that same customer raises his price for his product for the exact same reason.











Davekc
owner
22 years
PantherII
EO moderator

 

[LDB]

Good points so far. Obviously we are in this to make money. On one hand I see fuel cost as an expected cost of doing business. On the other hand I wouldn't object to the full cost of fuel being rolled into the price of the load and the truck owner/operator only having to cover fuel costs for unloaded miles out of pocket. I don't see that ever happening however I don't believe it is totally unreasonable.

That said, we're back to the original question. Two different users posted that they prefer lower or no fsc in loads, at least as I interpreted the post. I can see no situation where either a driver or an owner/driver would want that. In some cases I can see an owner/non-driver wanting it but that is the exception. I'm asking about the people whose hands are on the wheel every day. Why would you possibly want a lower fsc?

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5508, 5509, 5641
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[Turtle]

The only reason that I could see for someone wanting no FSC at all is if they have poor math skills and can't deal with the additional mathematical variable of an added FSC.

As for wanting a lower FSC, if you get $1 a mile loaded, plus $.20 per mile FCS, but would rather have $1 per mile loaded and $.10 per mile FSC, well, that's just silly.

Now, if they'd prefer having $1.20 per mile and no FSC, that's fine, but it kind of throws "all things being equal" out the window.

 

[tmbm]

The only situation where you would like the fuel surcharge low is your a driver getting 40% (any percent would apply) and the owner pays the fuel and keeps all FSC (as should be). But as the driver, the lower the FSC the more your getting paid your percentage on. For example - a $1,000 load w/ 20% FSC the offer is $1200, driver is getting $400. If you get $1200 offer and the FSC is only $100, the driver gets $440.

 

[Turtle]

Well, comparing a $1000 load offer with a $1200 load offer doesn't really meet the premise of the original question of "all things being equal".

If you're paid a flat rate per mile, as I am with the .77 per mile with Panther, then whatever the FSC isn't going to affect the number of loaded miles of that particular run, or the pay for that load offer. The FSC is taken out of the equation for percentage pay purposes, anyway. If you're paid a percentage of the load, and long or higher paying loads routinely have reduced FSC that pays squat, then I think I'd want to take a look at a few line bills to see that's going on.