Saying "no" to cheap freight!!

[Grizzly]

Requiring VOI to be a member was talked about but legal council had concerns with it. As well the "hope" of the organization was to help educate members on risks and better understand the reasons for proper compliance. In my opinion that challenge only grew. Members and non members took that information and used it to try and find more loopholes, smoke and mirrors, fakes and everything in between to falsify full coverage. We even saw agents "turning a blind eye" to activity they simply had to have known that was taking place. Simply sad the level of fraud and how much money it is truly costing the owner operators in this industry. It isn't 8 or 9 cents a mile as some would think. That is the hard up front number. But it goes way deeper than that.

Fully insured traditional carriers have to put large down payments at renewal time and they have to meet financial review for insurance finance policies. How many of today's carriers that put the insurance on the owner operator would not be able to meet this criteria and be gone or they would be much smaller and grow at a more controlled pace? How does that effect the market of supply and demand and rates?

Thank you for taking the time, it's much appreciated.
I don't know how conducive it is to attempt to have this conversation about the industry as a whole. It's a labyrinth. Which is why I geared my question towards current TEANA members. I don't see the point of looking at the behavior of non members, if current members have questionable practices. I'll put it bluntly ... in my opinion, it's an interesting list.

I reference to your point concerning traditional vs non traditional carriers .... I operate for multi carriers. I believe there's room for responsible, ethical multi carrier companies. But it has to be on an level playing field. Currently the field is not level.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Requiring VOI to be a member was talked about but legal council had concerns with it. As well the "hope" of the organization was to help educate members on risks and better understand the reasons for proper compliance. In my opinion that challenge only grew. Members and non members took that information and used it to try and find more loopholes, smoke and mirrors, fakes and everything in between to falsify full coverage. We even saw agents "turning a blind eye" to activity they simply had to have known that was taking place. Simply sad the level of fraud and how much money it is truly costing the owner operators in this industry. It isn't 8 or 9 cents a mile as some would think. That is the hard up front number. But it goes way deeper than that.

Fully insured traditional carriers have to put large down payments at renewal time and they have to meet financial review for insurance finance policies. How many of today's carriers that put the insurance on the owner operator would not be able to meet this criteria and be gone or they would be much smaller and grow at a more controlled pace? How does that effect the market of supply and demand and rates?

John....
Why should we concern ourselves about a large conventional carriers problems.....are large carriers in expedite really needed?
Brokerage houses, 3pls, 4pls....seem to be doing just fine. with what dwindling volume there seems to be....Unless I am missing something?....

 

[jelliott]

Thank you for taking the time, it's much appreciated.
I don't know how conducive it is to attempt to have this conversation about the industry as a whole. It's a labyrinth. Which is why I geared my question towards current TEANA members. I don't see the point of looking at the behavior of non members, if current members have questionable practices. I'll put it bluntly ... in my opinion, it's an interesting list.

I reference to your point concerning traditional vs non traditional carriers .... I operate for multi carriers. I believe there's room for responsible, ethical multi carrier companies. But it has to be on an level playing field. Currently the field is not level.

I agree there a few ethical, compliant multi carriers....but I believe they are the few and I mean the few. I don't love the structure for a couple of reasons, but insurance fraud and the risk to others would be one of the biggest.

 

[jelliott]

John....
Why should we concern ourselves about a large conventional carriers problems.....are large carriers in expedite really needed?
Brokerage houses, 3pls, 4pls....seem to be doing just fine. with what dwindling volume there seems to be....Unless I am missing something?....

Why would small carriers be needed any more than large carriers? Not sure I follow your thought train here.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Thank you for taking the time, it's much appreciated.
I don't know how conducive it is to attempt to have this conversation about the industry as a whole. It's a labyrinth. Which is why I geared my question towards current TEANA members. I don't see the point of looking at the behavior of non members, if current members have questionable practices. I'll put it bluntly ... in my opinion, it's an interesting list.

I reference to your point concerning traditional vs non traditional carriers .... I operate for multi carriers. I believe there's room for responsible, ethical multi carrier companies. But it has to be on an level playing field. Currently the field is not level.

check your history of transportation....there has never since the advent of horse and wagon been a truly level playing field...organized crime has always been well rooted in this business.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Why would small carriers be needed any more than large carriers? Not sure I follow your thought train here.

big or small carriers wouldn't be needed at all...in theory....independent O/O's with load board/ email access would and might be all that is needed.....except in times where scheduling multi truck orders...

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Why would small carriers be needed any more than large carriers? Not sure I follow your thought train here.

i mean outfits like Bounce, Trinity, Ryder, Penske ....do fine it appears

trucking has had the onion appearance.....many layers to peel back....and it is still growing...
when I see loads being brokered out 3-4 times before the money gets to me....that indicates skimming to me and waste of time and resources

 

[jelliott]

big or small carriers wouldn't be needed at all...in theory....independent O/O's with load board/ email access would and might be all that is needed.....except in times where scheduling multi truck orders...

Not sure most 3pls would agree. Most would rather deal with a select number of carriers. Operational hours, coverage, payment and billing, insurance and risk and a number of other reasons for it. The cheapest rate is not always the goal. I happen to own a 3PL so I am slightly versed in it.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Not sure most 3pls would agree. Most would rather deal with a select number of carriers. Operational hours, coverage, payment and billing, insurance and risk and a number of other reasons for it. The cheapest rate is not always the goal. I happen to own a 3PL so I am slightly versed in it.

I understand ...I do....I think the Active/Roadrunner model is very efficient for customers knowing where their freight is as in JD and now GM
...as Caterpillar is to Fedex and Whirlpool are to Panther...almost exclusive service with very limited brokering out....the lessening of load board opportunities....as you noted volume was down last year...

 

[Jim Tropf II]

A lot of the 3PL and 4PL that you are calling brokers are anything but. These company's all are adding value to their customers supply chain and in most instances are under a monthly or yearly contract that pays by dollars saved or a flat monthly fee plus processing fees. Actually there are several ways that the contracts can be structured. So they aren't all taking a piece of the pie on every shipment that passes through them.