At what point is it a bad business decision?
>Personally, I'd love to have the 150" bunk on the t-300 from
>truckpaper.com. I can't help but wonder what loads I'd be
>missing out on though.
To my critics in the Open Forum, here ATeam goes again...speaking up. But since no one has so far answered the question asked with definitive information, allow me to do so.
We've been runnouing fleet-owner D-unit trucks for 17 months, both reefer-equiped and dry box. Before spec'ing out our new truck we ran a load analysis to answer the very question you ask; namely..."At what point is [a larger sleeper] a bad business decision?"
We found that 7% of our loads were true D-unit loads, either by weight or size (height/length/width). If we went with a C-unit to accomodate a larger sleeper, we projected - based on our actual results - we'd lose those D loads.
However, that does not mean that the income is certainly lost too. If we had a C-unit in the situations where the 7% of the loads were offered to us, those loads would not have been offered. But it may very well be the case that a smaller load would be available in the same city on the same day. Or it could be that no additional loads of any size would come up on the board. Such is life in expediting.
With those considerations in mind, we decided on a large-sleeper C-unit with an RV-like shower and toilet. The freight doesn't have to pee.