phone SMS text message load offer

[LDB]

While with Panther, they brought out a text message version of load offers. It was much of the info sent via qc. Advantages were clearly seeing information rather than trying to understand a computer voice as well as getting messages in places where phone service wouldn't work. I can't remember which one now but one of the J location restaurants will get SMS all day but forget about getting phone calls. Here's one example of how the SMS would appear. It could be modified to include more or other info if desired.

Pro######### mi:xxxx $xxxx.xx
Pcs:xx Wt:xxxxx HMy DODy
pu:xx-xx-xx hh:mm
somewhereville tx, zzzzz
dv:xx-xx-xx hh:mm
elsewhereville oh zzzzz

The lines should be self explanatory but are as follows:
1. Pro number, total miles, total pay
2. # pieces, total weight, Hazmat? DOD?
3. pickup date and time
4. pickup city, state, zipcode
5. delivery date and time
6. delivery city, state, zipcode

There is room for at least two dozen more characters or spaces in a standard SMS so additional info can be included if desired.

 

[piper1]

That format would be really cool, it is the information most of us usually want anyways. If you wanted more than that, you could go look at the C-Link or call the VRU.

Great idea!!! Wonder how hard it would be to implement?

 

[aileron]

i would definitely like it

 

[TeamCaffee]

Leo when you receive this text message would you need to call in to accept or decline the load?

I think the message would need to include additional stops and I like the idea that there could be a couple of short notes included.

Great idea and I would like to see this done on all loads for those that want to sign up for it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Leo when you receive this text message would you need to call in to accept or decline the load?

I think the message would need to include additional stops and I like the idea that there could be a couple of short notes included.

Great idea and I would like to see this done on all loads for those that want to sign up for it.

Short of talking to people again I would think this would be better than listening to "Miss Electric"

 

[ATeam]

Great idea!!! Wonder how hard it would be to implement?

That's the rub. Changes to company computer programs are not flipped on and off like a switch. A change made here may cascade through the system in unintended ways and cause a negative effect someplace else. A good amount of thinking and testing precedes such changes.

It is easy to come up with good ways to utilize good technology but implementing them is easier said than done. I don't know how many people in the IT department lost their jobs as hours reductions and the layoff ax came to FDCC.
Even if the IT staff was unaffected, the company is unlikely to put new money into developing a feature that falls into the nice-to-have category but would not likely change business results for the better.

With or without this nice-to-have feature, contractors will still receive and react to load offers. I don't see LEO's very good idea making it to the top of the executive meeting agendas any time soon. They have been threatening to upgrade our C-Link for years but the same old clunker is still in our truck.

By the way, I have no problem with that. The old clunker is getting the job done and I have no need for something new. I already have e-mail, fax, scan and GPS in the truck. I don't need to pay more money for a new device that does what I can already do now, and one that will likely go obsolete when feature improvements in other devices convert it into an antique. Leave me alone, keep your hands out of my wallet and let me keep the antique I like.

While I'm ranting about technology, keep in mind that the powerful chairman of the House Transportation Committee just made a major push to put electronic onboard recording devices into trucks. With them likely to come in the not-too-distant future, it would be wise, I believe, to make no company-mandated in-truck technology changes now. Wait to see what the new rules require. Don't make me buy something now and then something again that may be required by the new rules.

 

[layoutshooter]

That's the rub. Changes to company computer programs are not flipped on and off like a switch. A change made here may cascade through the system in unintended ways and cause a negative effect someplace else. A good amount of thinking and testing precedes such changes.

It is easy to come up with good ways to utilize good technology but implementing them is easier said than done. I don't know how many people in the IT department lost their jobs as hours reductions and the layoff ax came to FDCC.
Even if the IT staff was unaffected, the company is unlikely to put new money into developing a feature that falls into the nice-to-have category but would not likely change business results for the better.

With or without this nice-to-have feature, contractors will still receive and react to load offers. I don't see LEO's very good idea making it to the top of the executive meeting agendas any time soon. They have been threatening to upgrade our C-Link for years but the same old clunker is still in our truck.

By the way, I have no problem with that. The old clunker is getting the job done and I have no need for something new. I already have e-mail, fax, scan and GPS in the truck. I don't need to pay more money for a new device that does what I can already do now, and one that will likely go obsolete when feature improvements in other devices convert it into an antique. Leave me alone, keep your hands out of my wallet and let me keep the antique I like.

While I'm ranting about technology, keep in mind that the powerful chairman of the House Transportation Committee just made a major push to put electronic onboard recording devices into trucks. With them likely to come in the not-too-distant future, it would be wise, I believe, to make no company-mandated in-truck technology changes now. Wait to see what the new rules require. Don't make me buy something now and then something again that may be required by the new rules.

Yeah Phil, it may not happen now. It will NEVER happen if ideas are not tossed out there to be looked at from time to time. FedEx, just as every other company, is feeling the pinch right now. One thing is certain, the need to keep good contractors is NOT going away unless they go away from their business plan all together. Many companies get into long term trouble by not looking at ways to keep people around. Sooner or later things will pick up and the company that is poised to strike will do very well. Not making minor improvements to keep contractors MIGHT bite them in the future. Who knows? This is not all that big a deal, but somethings might become big. A down turn is often the best time to do upgrades and improvements.

 

[nightcreacher]

If I leave my c-link on,run offer is text to my cell with run number,but what I do is call the VRU and option 6 to see what exactly the run is.When listening to run,I hit option 1 and it will break down how load is being paid,then I either hit a 3 yes or 4 no or 0 to talk about it

 

[aileron]

If I leave my c-link on,run offer is text to my cell with run number,but what I do is call the VRU and option 6 to see what exactly the run is.When listening to run,I hit option 1 and it will break down how load is being paid,then I either hit a 3 yes or 4 no or 0 to talk about it

Steve, I used to do something similar to this, but some of my text messages get to me too late (a lot later than the 10 min allowed to reply). I lost a couple of loads because of this, so now it is phone only. I would like them to do both at the same time, phone and C-Link, but they would not do that.

 

[TeamCaffee]

The C-Link message and phone message are sent out at the same time and this is invisible to the dispatcher or system sending out the load opp. The C-Link is just slow in certain areas as well as our phones not getting a good signal in certain areas. I am not sure what the ideal situation is but when talking to drivers before C-Link and cell phones I would much rather have what we do now then constantly looking for a payphone to call the office.

I consider ourselves to be pretty darn spoiled compared to some of the funny/horror stories of what used to happen trying to get a load or trying to find a customer.

 

[redytrk]

I am not sure what the ideal situation is but when talking to drivers before C-Link and cell phones I would much rather have what we do now then constantly looking for a payphone to call the office.

I consider ourselves to be pretty darn spoiled compared to some of the funny/horror stories of what used to happen trying to get a load or trying to find a customer.

Believe me it was no fun to call in every 4 hours while on a run. Imagine getting off the freeway in Chicago in the middle of the night to go searching for a pay phone.

We also went through the agony of staying in the truck all the time waiting for C-Link offers. Fortunately someone figured how to hook up a Radio Shack Pager so we could at least be a few hundred feet from the truck.

Today's system is light years better. My thanks to all who constantly strive to make it better.

 

[aileron]

I agree, what we have is a lot better than they had before.
All I am saying, would it be too much, or too expensive, to have the offer sent both to the c-link and phone at the same time? And of course with the c-link, a SMS on the phone. I do much better when I see the offer than when I hear it. This would cover all the bases.