Re: West Coast Runs Reconsidered

[davekc]

Probably just an economic decision. Why pay 2 to 2.50 per mile for a contractor truck when you can do it for 1.73 as they advertise? Based on the obvious, I would say they are steering away from any "entitlement pay" except for loads that aren't profitable with company trailers. art loads, liftgate, in city deliveres, and loads to nowhere.
As for CA to WA, can't say how that will go with the Fed. The good news is there are some decent long haulers coming out of Boeing if you are in that area and I guess not throwing them on company trailers.

 

[mrgoodtude]

There is now talk here(and probably behind the scenes) amongst individual "Contractors" and "Fleet Owners" who are making a decision to TURN DOWN all West Coast runs originating from the East. What do you guys think is going to happen when the time comes that FDCC happens to have no "Contractors" on the West Coast to take that load from Sacramento to Chicago?? Or from LA to Baltimore??

Worst case scenario is that loads are going to start getting covered by "company owned" equipment who are then going to be right there with you guys on the "east coast" being given Preferential Treatment when it comes to offers you "Contractors" have had free will at. Then worst worst case scenario would be that FDCC realizes the cost savings/customers being serviced better overall effect with company owned equipment all across the country, and "Contractors" start slowly getting phased out.

This may seem a little far fetched, but it is something "Contractors" out there need to seriously consider. My "thoughts" would not take place overnight. Changes - Scenarios like this would take time. But, it very well could happen. Know what I mean.

The thought process is that East coast runs are more abundant ergo more "crumbs" to pick thru..
Again you have to look at the
'Big Picture" and judge the wash at the end of the quarter/year.
I really don't know what's gonna happen with the Fed but they have met and or exceeded my expectations so I liken it to a marriage give and take.
Might divorce her tomorrow but I got enough outta the relationship to give some time to counseling today..hehe

Maybe I am delusional but my present station in life has carried me 7 years and really I hate change.
I do have a fresh app from the Star in case of a divorce

 

[mrgoodtude]

Here is a threat about the truck. I will add pictures when we get out of the rain as we have added our Air Tabs and Tool Boxes. We do not have our wheel covers as they modified them and we will get them next time home. We can haul 16,500 and what we are fighting is a heavy front end which is pretty common. So far the truck has done nothing but impress us and we are still in hog heaven.

As for Washington we took the load for enough money to go south some and we will see what happens. I agree Washington and Oregon can be the pits for a dry box unless DoD is moving.

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/truck-talk/47075-caffees-cascadia.html

Will look forward to more truck info!
Question does the new Ultra skip shift?
Mileage (raw figures)
Differential ratio?? May have missed that one
Saw the original thread guess curiosity gets the better of me..

 

[ATeam]

I'd bet it's a four skid truk with all the other stuff you have in there.

Part of what makes a CR-unit a CR-unit is 12 feet of space in the box for cargo. That's six skids. FDCC requires a 14 foot box on C and CR-units, reasoning that the front two feet is used for freight handling equipment storage.

Our box is 16 feet long inside diminsion. If needed, we could use our E-track and decking sheets to build a high loft and clear 16 feet of cargo space to haul 8 skids. It has never been needed. Six skid loads happen sometimes. One and two skid loads are the most common.

Just want to keep the record clear about us having better than the 12 feet of cargo space our carrier requires for a CR-unit.

 

[ATeam]

Could this be a decison made by Management to get those West Coast customers covered in the most beneficial way???

It can be very entertaining and satisfying to speculate about what is on management's mind or about what someone was thinking or what the motives are. Entertaining and satisfying yes, productive no.

I have spent very little time thinking or writing about why our carrier is doing what it is doing. My focus is on the deeds and the effects it has on Diane's and my little one-truck business.

Even if you ask management why they are doing what they are doing, you can never be sure you are getting the whole truth. I have met managers in various companies over the years who did not themselves know what they were doing or why.

In the context of the situations you mention, it is fruitless to plan for or react to what you think someone else is thinking. Better to focus on what they are doing and plan your deeds accordingly.

What do you guys think is going to happen when the time comes that FDCC happens to have no "Contractors" on the West Coast to take that load from Sacramento to Chicago?? Or from LA to Baltimore??

What will happen is what has always happened. Trucks will be paid enough money to make it worth it to deadhead from their present location to the pickup. Diane and I have been deadheaded from Chicago to New Hampshire for a pickup. We have been deadheaded from Denver to Spokane for a pickup. If the company wants to cover the load bad enough, they will come up with the coin to do it. An outside carrier may also be used but only if the requisite credentials and equipment can be provided.

Then worst worst case scenario would be that FDCC realizes the cost savings/customers being serviced better overall effect with company owned equipment all across the country, and "Contractors" start slowly getting phased out.

Some people have already suggested that is our carrier's intent. Another suggestion is the intent to go to move to a flat-rate fleet across the board. Others suggest that FDCC will be absorbed into FedEx Freight and reconfigured there to the point that it is no longer recognizable. Still other have suggested that FedEx will spin off FDCC to be rid of this nusiance company that barely merits a footnote in the FedEx annual report. There are probably other speculative scenarios out there that make perfect sense but that no one has any real idea about.

If you are inclined to go on and on about such things, knock yourself out. I am focused on the present.

In the last ten days Diane and I learned of a change in our carrier's behavior and noticed the negative impact it had on our one-truck business. We gathered additional information, did some emotional processing and changed our strategy.

The biggest question on our minds right now is, where do we get a haircut on Friday after we deliver?

 

[davekc]

The biggest question on our minds right now is, where do we get a haircut on Friday after we deliver?

I would go for the best you can find. Have to look good running the Fedex Ontario shuttle.

 

[Brisco]

Interesting outlook here:

It can be very entertaining and satisfying to speculate about what is on management's mind or about what someone was thinking or what the motives are. Entertaining and satisfying yes, productive no.

Even if you ask management why they are doing what they are doing, you can never be sure you are getting the whole truth.

At least from my view it is.

"Management" is just that. Proper management does not let the subordinates under them, in this case, the "Contract Drivers", everything it is they wish to know, just what they believe they need to know.

Let me say it this way. Several several years ago I managed a warehouse for this supply company here in the DFW area. When I took over the warehouse for the guy that was leaving, he had the delivery system set up to where all they used was a local courier company to do all their deliveries. My first couple of months there I tried to work with the 5 dozen different "Drivers" that showed up at my dock every morning. (not 5 dozen a day, just 2-3 different drivers every single day) I could not get a repoir going with the drivers, mainly cause I hardly ever saw the same driver twice. I could not get a program going with concerns to what it was I was expecting from "my" drivers while they were face to face with "our customers".

Of course during this time, I'd get a couple of phone calls every week or so due to some complaint a customer had when the driver made the delivery. (Driver wouldn't put stock in proper location, just left it by front desk. Ran their 2 wheelers across a freshly buffed floor. Ringing and ringing delivery bell when customer didn't open door within 8 seconds after they initially rang it, etc) When said driver would answer to upset customer with their complaint, driver would say "Call my Boss if you have a problem". Well, the drivers didn't answer to me, they answered to the company that was hired to supply the drivers, not "me".

So, after a couple of more months, and working with the owner of the company on changes to our delivery service, I was lucky enough to get 2 trucks leased onto the company and hired 2 drivers that ran those trucks my way, did the companies deliveries the way I wanted them done, and not the way the "drivers" or the "courier company" saw fit on how to get my deliveries done. And, our total shipping/distribution overhead costs were cut dramatically, as well as "complimentary" calls coming in from customers instead of complaints.

Does this relate to what FedEx is up to now with the purchasing of "company owned" equipment? Probably not, but could very well parallel it.

I say that because of your outlook here:

I have spent very little time thinking or writing about why our carrier is doing what it is doing. My focus is on the deeds and the effects it has on Diane's and my little one-truck business.

In the last ten days Diane and I learned of a change in our carrier's behavior and noticed the negative impact it had on our one-truck business. We gathered additional information, did some emotional processing and changed our strategy.

My Opinion, with FDCC having ALL "Contractors", or "Business Owners" in their fleet, it really boils down to every one in that divison that is servicing the customers face to face are all "Chiefs" with not enough "Indians".

Maybe FDCC is realizing this too. They recently put in a new dispatch system that has annoyed a lot of you "Business Owners". I'm referring to the same offer over and over on the QC that you guys have had to turn down multiple times. Do you think that new system was put in play for harrassment purposes, as has been mentioned before, or do you think that system was put in play to help the main "Chief", FDCC, get their loads covered quicker?

I read a lot here, and not from you only Phil, OK, about FDCC drivers turning down and turning down multiple offers til that "1" pops up that they finally accept. Is there a possibility that the "Chiefs" there at FDCC are trying to work out a way where they have "Indians" working for them instead of trying to get other "Chiefs" to do work those Chiefs don't want to do????

Just common sense observations, that's all.

Now this:

If you are inclined to go on and on about such things, knock yourself out. I am focused on the present.

I make 1 post expressing my thoughts over this whole ordeal, and you think I'm going "on and on" about it??

Truthfully Phil, I might have hit a nerve here that has caused you to think about this whole ordeal even more.

If I did, you will not admit it, and will come here to deny it. But, like I've said before, Expediting aint Rocket Science. A little common sense goes a long way in this industry.

 

[pjjjjj]

..... My Opinion, with FDCC having ALL "Contractors", or "Business Owners" in their fleet, it really boils down to every one in that divison that is servicing the customers face to face are all "Chiefs" with not enough "Indians".

Maybe FDCC is realizing this too. They recently put in a new dispatch system that has annoyed a lot of you "Business Owners". I'm referring to the same offer over and over on the QC that you guys have had to turn down multiple times. Do you think that new system was put in play for harrassment purposes, as has been mentioned before, or do you think that system was put in play to help the main "Chief", FDCC, get their loads covered quicker?

I read a lot here, and not from you only Phil, OK, about FDCC drivers turning down and turning down multiple offers til that "1" pops up that they finally accept. Is there a possibility that the "Chiefs" there at FDCC are trying to work out a way where they have "Indians" working for them instead of trying to get other "Chiefs" to do work those Chiefs don't want to do????

Just common sense observations, that's all.

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense to a point.. but I believe the thing you may be forgetting is that carriers are choosing to escape many costs to themselves, by contracting with OOs, instead of paying for their own trucks and all associated expenses, and hiring employees to drive them, with all of their related expenses and problems.

It isn't a matter of contractors just saying, nope, don't want that load.. it's a matter of the contractor making their own business decision on whether the load is financially viable, considering it is himself that is paying the expenses.

Carriers got wise to the fact that they could serve their customers without bearing the expense of doing so, and still make a large profit, by contracting it out. Seems to me it wasn't enough to over-'hire' too many OOs so that one could be available and waiting on every corner at no cost to themselves, and at the expense of the OOs who have no choice but to wait for their dispatch. OOs for whatever reason, seem to be wising up to this rather one-sided business model, and just saying no, if it doesn't make sense for their business. In the past it seemed there were many more people saying, just take the loads, do them favors, and it will come back to you. They were wrong, the favors were forgotten, often not returned, and now OOs appear to be caring more about their own bottom lines, and rightfully so.

It looks like pure greed to me. If they keep it up, they will soon look forward to not having any OOs, and having to bear the cost of their own equipment, and dealing with 'employees' who they can 'control', with all the problems and expenses that will bring.

It's a two-way street, this business, and by the looks of things, the pull to have it become more and more of a one-way street is going to backfire on them in a big way.

If one thinks about this business from a non-attached perspective.. like for example, say it was a real estate office... where the real estate company contracts with real estate salespeople who can only sell for that one company alone, and pretend that the real estate people have to sit and wait to be handed their customers.... the company contracts with piles of realtors, because it's mostly at no cost to themselves.. the salespeople are self employed, and bear 99% of their own expenses... the company distributes the leads fairly for awhile.. and then suddenly, the company hires a pile of family members.. suddenly the leads are being given to the family members whenever possible.. at the salespeople's expense.. they now wait longer in between each lead they are given.. how long are these salespeople going to stick around?

Maybe that's not a perfect example.. but it seems to me like this is a conflict of interest, and looks like they just want to 'have their cake and eat it too'.

Of course, it is the carrier's business and they have to think about their own bottom line and do what's best for them.. but so do the OOs. In good faith, the OOs purchase expensive vehicles, keep up with all the ongoing expenses, abide by the rules that the carrier sets for them, spend their time on the road waiting in turn for the carrier to meet their end of the deal. Now this appears to be changing. Good luck to the carriers in sucking up their own expenses and dealing daily with employees instead, they will get what they deserve.

 

[greg334]

It looks like pure greed to me. If they keep it up, they will soon look forward to not having any OOs, and having to bear the cost of their own equipment, and dealing with 'employees' who they can 'control', with all the problems and expenses that will bring.

BUT see here's the issue that this overlooks, FedEx owns a lot of equipment - from planes to box cars - and they cut costs any which way they can. Using their own equipment over a contractor's equipment is what they should do because the equipment in their case and in the case of UPS and other package companies cost them money to idle.

So their move makes sense, it is to use what they have to move things for their customer because many of the contractors are fickle and don't want to run their cheap freight.

What I think it all comes down to is Phil is crying about something that happens to all of us unless you are special in that fleet.

WITH that said two things comes to mind about this issue of Phil sitting for a couple days;

1 - Colonial pointed out that capacity of the truck matters and in Phil's cases (as in mine), there is room for six skids on the floor - pretty d*mn small. His operating costs are most likely just under a tractors, which means his dollar per mile capacity is rather imbalanced. Why should FedEx load a small truck when they can get more tons per mile out of using their own?

2 - FedEx seems to have people who don't want to take the issue in hand and actually look for work. I thought they had a great system that you can get external work from say GetLoaded and book it through FedEx? I heard so much how it is great and how the 'team' works so hard for those who have been out for a measured amount of time. I know it isn't like Panther's where anyone can do that, because I've asked ... begged for them to help me when I needed to get back home for family stuff and they refused to making excuses, but nevertheless the last I heard it was still operating.

I say this is not a big change for them, they have done this for a long time just that no one at CC seemed to get it until now. They will continue and they don't care what any of us think because no matter how you cut it, outside of the la la green land, you are just contractors to them.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

Just Say no to California !!!

California Nope Nada NO way Forget it.

Not after all the Hoopla that A Team has druged up
and they are a Straight Truck.

NA not not worth it.

California is Broke any way.

What they need is one big shake so then they can get funds they need to rebuild theIr roadS but I guess that another thread.
You dont need a Freight shaker to ensure the freight your hallen has shaken syndrom.

Your your Reefer to have shaken syndrome as well.
but like I said thats another thread.

Cali Roads Shaken Syndrome comming soonn to a thread near you. ROTFLMAO. HA HA HE HE HA HEEE HAAA
AAAA THAT WAS FILMED IN NASHVILLE TN.
HEE HEEE HAW HAW HAW HEE HEE HEE HAW HEEE HAAWWW