Load Acceptance Rates Included in Ranking

[psm127_dad]

A special message received just now from Jason Frederick:

I also wanted to let you know that we have added acceptance rate to the criteria we use when ranking trucks for loads. This means that, the higher your overall acceptance rate, the more “points” you receive in our ranking system when our system determines who gets the load. This recognizes those contractors who accept freight and help ensure we are meeting customers’ needs.

I guess FDC really wants us to take one for the 'team'... not making a profit? Who cares... we got the load covered & the customer is happy.

 

[zorry]

I wasn't glad to see it.
I am glad they told us.

How about: should we send out a load notice ?
You can reply Yes, I'll look at it
OR
No,probably won't work for me.

Or, let me set daily guidlines:
Today I'm looking for this direction, this mileage range, and/or this type of revenue.

 

[jjoerger]

So when they keep offering the same load at $.70 a mile and you keep declining it your acceptance rate will go down and other trucks may get a load before you.
And if you accept it your rate will go up but your profit will go down. Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me.
We'll just keep doing things the way we always do. Accept the loads that meet our criteria and decline the ones that don't.
We will go anywhere if the price is right.

 

[layoutshooter]

There is a TON of fools out there who run crappy paying loads. SOON, that is all FDCC will have, low end contractors. It is already starting to show.

FDCC would not have a problem covering loads if the rates matched the reality of what it costs to run them.

My business plan is simple work at a profit, or stay at home. VERY simple, VERY smart.

 

[zorry]

I think if you decline the same load multiple times, it only counts as one turndown.
It'd be kind of nice to know how it works.
I'm with JJ. I'll take what works.
I do "take one for the team"
A) because I used to dispatch and understand the dispatcher's dilemma.
B ) I like working here/ understand the need to service the customer.

I won't go broke doing it, but don't say no all the time either.

You got to look at the big picture.

 

[jjoerger]

I think they should use CSA scores in the ranking. Give the loads to the trucks and drivers that don't get violations and maintain there trucks and drive safely. Not some truck with bad drivers that don't maintain there vehicle but accept everything offered.

 

[zorry]

I think they should use CSA scores in the ranking. Give the loads to the trucks and drivers that don't get violations and maintain there trucks and drive safely. Not some truck with bad drivers that don't maintain there vehicle but accept everything offered.

It wouldn't surprise me if they do.

They try to keep their score up, too.

 

[Deville]

I don't recall seeing this new gem in the new lease.

Anyway none of this matters. Now that the idiot in the whitehouse has pretty much halted half the Government. The other half will shut down when we default in 10 days or so. Than we will really see the other shoe drop.

 

[layoutshooter]

I think if you decline the same load multiple times, it only counts as one turndown.
It'd be kind of nice to know how it works.
I'm with JJ. I'll take what works.
I do "take one for the team"
A) because I used to dispatch and understand the dispatcher's dilemma.
B ) I like working here/ understand the need to service the customer.

I won't go broke doing it, but don't say no all the time either.

You got to look at the big picture.

One cannot stay in business long if all they do is run for fuel. Look at the REAL rate many of these loads pay. Take out the FSC, tolls, etc. and see what you are being paid to run the load. Many of the offers we have been seeing of late have been pretty scary.

 

[zorry]

I don't run for fuel.

I know every load won't be a home run.

I believe running for a profit is good.
It's why I do it.
When it's no longer profitable, I'll go home.

It's getting tougher. It's not un-doable yet.

I get nervous with every new announcement.
Getting more little negatives than positives.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't run for fuel.

I know every load won't be a home run.

I believe running for a profit is good.
It's why I do it.
When it's no longer profitable, I'll go home.

It's getting tougher. It's not un-doable yet.

I get nervous with every new announcement.
Getting more little negatives than positives.

I don't run for fuel only either. Every run a home run? Nope, don't expect that. It is getting MUCH tougher to make money. As prices go up, like health insurance rates doubling or tripling, my rates have to go up to cover those expenses. I also don't just work for the business, it is our sole income. It HAS to cover ALL business expenses, HOUSEHOLD expenses AND retirement savings. Anything less, I could have stayed in retail.

 

[zorry]

I agree, Joe.

 

[layoutshooter]

I agree, Joe.

OH I KNOW you do and understand it. I am just posting this so that MAYBE some of the teams that are taking these horrible paying loads might understand what is going on.

 

[redytrk]

There really should be some common sense in declaring what is a turn down. Turning down a load with 250 mi DH and 60 cents pd mi should not be considered a "turndown".
One of our competitors has a criteria that more than 50% DH miles is not a turn down.
Hinda reminds me of the last time they dabbled in near "Forced Dispatch". They lost several hundred trucks.
P.S. Most of those trucks went to Panther. Panther laughed all the way to the bank.

 

[zorry]

I've noticed they are putting acceptance % on the extranet again.

My math is good enough to think mine is nowhere near accurate.

I hope they're not adding Joe's turndown's to my numbers.

Until today it didn't seem worth fixing...

 

[Jenny]

When we were at a previous carrier you were able to turn down loads and not have them count against you if you met the criteria of the dh to pu miles were over a certain percentage of the load, or if you were a team and it was under certain miles. I do not agree with the new implementation of the acceptance rating being used. All they are using it for is to get trucks to run at a lower rate, save more money for themselves. In turn this will bring rates down across the board, and all that will be left are those who are not business minded and run loads at whatever rate because they see a little bit of income from it.

Sent from my VS870 4G using Xparent Pink Tapatalk 2

 

[bubblehead]

There really should be some common sense in declaring what is a turn down. Turning down a load with 250 mi DH and 60 cents pd mi should not be considered a "turndown".
One of our competitors has a criteria that more than 50% DH miles is not a turn down.
Hinda reminds me of the last time they dabbled in near "Forced Dispatch". They lost several hundred trucks.

A loss of more trucks is what they want (to be replaced by O/Os and drivers that don't really understand this business). The biggest expense that any company is able to avoid by using contractors is idle assets. They don't have to pay for the care and feeding of all these contractors and their equipment. Now if they dumb down the fleet of contractors, they can better serve their customers...the stock holders.

 

[layoutshooter]

A loss of more trucks is what they want (to be replaced by O/Os and drivers that don't really understand this business). The biggest expense that any company is able to avoid by using contractors is idle assets. They don't have to pay for the care and feeding of all these contractors and their equipment. Now if they dumb down the fleet of contractors, they can better serve their customers...the stock holders.

Only short term. As our more high end customers get tired of inexperienced teams, more and more "vertical smiles", very sensitive loads restrained ONLY by straps etc, they WILL look for better teams/trucks/carriers. It is simple.

 

[bubblehead]

Only short term. As our more high end customers get tired of inexperienced teams, more and more "vertical smiles", very sensitive loads restrained ONLY by straps etc, they WILL look for better teams/trucks/carriers. It is simple.

Agreed on the "short term" but that short term would be long enough for the one implementing this business model to show some very strong spreadsheet numbers which will result in their upward movement on that corporate ladder. Their replacement will be found at fault when the model collapses.

 

[layoutshooter]

Sad way to move ahead if you ask me.