Unfortunately some of your comments seem to imply “it is safer to sign with one carrier”. And who would that be?
Not unfortunate at all. Its not so much that I believe signing with one carrier in and of itself is the correct answer. Its that the majority of the carriers that comprise the multiple carrier segment are startups. Startup businesses of any kind are more likely to fail. It has always been that way and I dont see that changing anytime soon. We see it here all the time. John Elliot made mention of it earlier in this thread and I agree...most of the non payment/slow payment issues that are discussed on here involve these multiple carrier operations.
You say you like the risk involved. If thats what you like, have at it. But that doesn't mean the risk is not there or that its not greater. I can understand taking a greater risk if there is more profit potential, but Ive yet to see anyone running for multiple carriers that were doing any better than those who run for one good carrier and most do less. Why would you want to take on the added risk for less potential profit?
There are a few good companies out there who you can lease to. I'm leased to one of them now. You can find your own. Thats kind of what I did.
Its not all about the size of the carrier either. My last carrier had about 60-70 units total. They have been well established in the industry for years. Its not that I think the multiple carrier carriers are all bad. Its that I think if you look at each group as a whole, you'll find more problems in the multiple carrier carriers. I believe this is because the segment is saturated with startup operations of which some will make it, but most will fail and when a carrier fails, the contractors are usually the ones who get the shaft.
The established carriers are less likely to fail simply because they have already proven themselves. That doesnt mean that some of them won't fail. It just means that less of a percentage of them will.
Everyone wants to defend their chosen business model and I understand that. My original post in this thread is exactly the way I see it. If this company comes back under a different name, there will be people who will take a chance on them and then the next thing we'll be hearing about is how good they are, great rates, great dispatchers.....blah, blah, blah. What will be left out is that they have already failed and that makes them more likely to fail again. Kinda tough to get around that one.