Should O/O Welcome Reduced HOS?

[TeamCaffee]

Jeff Clark, Team Run Smart Pro wrote a blog about supply and demand that I found interesting and I wanted to share the link:

Team Run Smart Pro: Jeff Clark

What do you think of the idea of reduced HOS?

 

[piattteam]

I liked that article!! Hopefully that will be the case!

 

[blackpup]

The logic seems reasonable. How will it play out in the real world?

jimmy

 

[moose]

reduced productivity will NOT increase take home money.
reduced productivity WILL increase costs for peoples relying on transportation service.
supply & demands markets do NOT react to individual capacity, they are SPOT markets.
i'd cation everyone reading this to be prepared for the new HOS, anderstands it's effects on YOUR operation, & comunicat your new costs of doing business with your costumers.

 

[ATeam]

The logic of the article is fundamentally flawed. Reducing the productivity of the entire industry with a rule change that mandates a 30 minute break is not the same thing as reducing supply. Also, the marketplace is affected by many more factors than supply and demand alone.

I do not know that the following will happen, but an imaginable scenario is that the government-forced productivity decline will push marginal carriers closer to or over the edge. Desperate to survive, they will run at breakeven or less, thereby putting downward pressure on rates and driver pay.

Another imaginable scenario is that drivers will figure out that they have not been masters of efficiency and time management before. Faced with this new mandate, they will find ways to adapt and offset the effect of the new rule, continuing as productive as they have always been, because they were not at the top of their productivity game before.

There are other imaginable scenarios. Even if the assumptions made in the article are sound, supply and demand does not the whole story tell.

 

[davekc]

The logic of the article is fundamentally flawed. Reducing the productivity of the entire industry with a rule change that mandates a 30 minute break is not the same thing as reducing supply.

That would be my take. Probably the same reason that a carrier like E-1 maintains their rates to customers but cuts the rates and revenue to drivers. Have to think they studied this a little ahead of time. As the economy improves a little, the specific side of expediting remains soft.
So....where is that extra freight? Especially as some carriers are shrinking in size. Most to small operators with little overhead (and there are plenty) legal and otherwise, with quite a bit of truckload freight going to the rail industry. The latter to continue as subsides by government to rail are high and have a commitment to receive quite a bit more.
At this point, trucking receives virtually nothing.
So my opinion is, nothing will really change for the owner operator with regards to HOS. On the medical side, those are the changes I see having a significant impact.
One of those.....follow the money.

 

[Turtle]

The logic of the article is fundamentally flawed. Reducing the productivity of the entire industry with a rule change that mandates a 30 minute break is not the same thing as reducing supply.

Singling out the San Francisco Giants, a clear exception to the rule, and applying it to the MLB as a whole is also deeply flawed. It's just as flawed as using the Cleveland Indians, average attendance per game: 37.4 percent. The reason the Giants increased their revenues in a smaller stadium is because they are winning games, and World Series, and because of the most recent television contract which increased revenues for all teams by a large percentage. Also, while the NFL is gaining in popularity, attendance is not. NFL revenues are up, because of the TV contracts. The statement that baseball struggles to maintain is also false. Between 2007 and 1010 baseball attendance was down across the board, a time period coinciding with the downturn in the economy. Since then attendance is back up and steadily rising, and revenue is rising faster than attendance. In addition, 22 or the 30 teams now have fluctuating ticket pricing, where demand sets the prices. Unpopular games have lower ticket prices, and the games of the hot ticket have higher prices. A $30 ticket may be $15 for one game or series (load out of Laredo), and $50 for another (load to Manhattan).

As with any other case of a simple system trying to regulate a more complex one, there are always unforeseen unintended consequences, and almost all of them are always bad. Reducing the supply of available hours for individual truckers industry wide won't reduce the capacity or increase rates, it will create a demand to fill those missing hours. How that demand is filled is unlikely to be a method that will improve the lot of those who are less efficient and less productive because of a reduction in available hours.

 

[moose]

one thing Expediters must fully understands {many won't or even dispute}is that Expedite do not work in a vacuum, but rather as a subsidy of Trucking. this present both dangers & opportunity for expediters rates & loads availability.
i thing many truckers are growing alligators skins. i know i am.
many shippers & carriers will be faced with drivers that place their available remaining HOS on top of the list.
a simple 8 hours run can becomes a 3 days ordeal, truckers will flat out confiscated costumers freight. refused to serve costumers that do not provide for parking solutions, or abused drivers time.
this new HOS will be a nightmare for logistic provider.
i normally serve dedicated shippers, but when i go out of my comfort zone, i find many business partners that fail to understand MY costs and ability's. NONE of the last 8 loads i have deliver{with the exception of 6 dedicated runs in between} could have nor would have delivered on time,under the new HOS.
i'd recommend Expediters to do the same. grow alligator skin and refused to DELIVER a load if it's not for the best of your logbook. you are going to get hammered down by dispatch. but soon enough your carrier will find out that they simply do not have any other choice.
unlike trucking, where negotiation, service and track records play into the contract, in Expedite, for the most parts we are all competing for the same costumers.
thanks to {enter an load management soft-where of your choice here}.
like i said before, there is absolutely Zero chance that expedite rates will razed in near future.
drivers lost income? - yes, shippers cost increase? - you bet, increase rates or load availability?- no way!

 

[xmudman]

Yes! As Moose says, hold your ground! Just don't mind if you lose a few two-skid loads to us vanners; that's where those loads belong in the first place

Sent from my SCH-I110 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[paullud]

The reduction in HOS will do nothing for the rates because you haven't changed the supply of drivers or trucking companies. You might make a few drivers a little less efficient but there is already plenty of time to get the half hour break in for the vast majority. It seems some are trying to put a positive spin on more regulations so they can keep smiling rather than facing burdensome regulations for what they are and fighting back.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[BobWolf]

Realy??
The 1/2 hour break wont affect most of us.
Ive posted the typical fuel stop and how most of us burn a half hour anyway. We still have 11 hours to drive and a total 14 hours to do everything and take a break. The 1/2 hour dose not reduce driving hours it goes against your 14 hour clock and it forces your employer to give you an oppertunity to park the truck eat lunch, drink a coffee, and use the restroom.
I think the Truckstop chatter and trucker satelite radio is getting too much misinformation out there. In my opinion I think that will screw us in the end. Lets face the truth, if you are held up at a stop a 1/2 wont change anything. If in doubt contact your regional FMCSA office and ask to speak to an investigator and they will be happy to answer your questions so you have the right intell. After all we might as well get somthing in our favor out of the F.M.C.S.A.

Bob Wolf..

 

[runrunner]

I must admit I have driven many 10 and 11 hour shifts without a break,as a team driver and when single. I know everyone has. But as long as I can get it there on time I feel much safer and more comfortable with a break and I think everybody does. I think that rule will have little impact either way.

 

[layoutshooter]

Every human body is different. The idea that we are now forced by law to take a break does nothing to enhance safety. The lack of flexibility in the HOS, the lack of separate team driving regulations and the restrictions on the 34 hour reset regulations prove that the governing agencies are totally out of touch with reality and are not at all interested in the safety of the trucking industry or the public in general.

It is just about generating more funds through fines. It is just regulation for regulations sake. They are a joke.

 

[moose]

. The 1/2 hour dose not reduce driving hours it goes against your 14 hour clock and it forces your employer to give you an oppertunity to park the truck eat lunch, drink a coffee, and use the restroom..

in too many cases TRUCKERS are pushed against their 14 more often they they are against their 11.
the 1/2 hour break WILL reduced drive time. daily.
the new restart rule WILL reduce drive time. greatly.
this rule will do nothing for safety. a 2007 study done by the DOT, {NITZA}, showed that ONLY 1.4% of all truck accident are 'fatigue related', a lunch break will NOT improved safety, it will do nothing to improved drivers lifestyle, or comfort zone.
it will create the opportunity for more accident to accrue, as most truck accident happen in or around truck parking area's.
it WILL increase congestion in area's where trucks go in or out. it WILL increase the time it takes Expediters to get in/out of a fuel stop.
we are away from our homes for weeks at a time trying to make an honest living providing an essential service to our country. this rule will make us work less, and save MUCH less while away from home. as a direct result, from now on, Expediters will be home less.
most of us do not work for an Employer. this is the MAIN problem with this 'one size fits all' rule making process. it meant to regulate the ATA while infact it regulate the small business owners.
this is the result of not joining an association that represent truckers.
or you can ***** around, what ever float your truck.

 

[TeamCaffee]

Realy??
The 1/2 hour break wont affect most of us.
Ive posted the typical fuel stop and how most of us burn a half hour anyway. We still have 11 hours to drive and a total 14 hours to do everything and take a break. The 1/2 hour dose not reduce driving hours it goes against your 14 hour clock and it forces your employer to give you an oppertunity to park the truck eat lunch, drink a coffee, and use the restroom.
I think the Truckstop chatter and trucker satelite radio is getting too much misinformation out there. In my opinion I think that will screw us in the end. Lets face the truth, if you are held up at a stop a 1/2 wont change anything. If in doubt contact your regional FMCSA office and ask to speak to an investigator and they will be happy to answer your questions so you have the right intell. After all we might as well get somthing in our favor out of the F.M.C.S.A.

Bob Wolf..

The 1/2 hour cannot be used when fueling according to the HOS. For everyone that is NOT paying cash for their fuel be aware of the time stamp. The time stamp is not on the fuel ticket it is on the T-Chek transaction. This will be one of the first things that will be looked at when an audit is performed.

Fuel the truck, pull forward, pay for fuel, find a parking spot, and sit for 1/2 off duty before driving.

 

[layoutshooter]

I find that if I have been driving for a while and then stop and sit for that long, even if I walk around, it makes me sleepy. This should be LOADS of fun!

 

[jeffclark]

Well-at least no one threatened to shoot me. No-it is not bascially fundamentally flawed. It is based on one of the most fundamental principles of basic economics. If demand remains steady and supply is reduced prices will rise-all else being equal. Economists like to add all else being equal to cover their hinders-all else never remains equal. The changes coming this summer will do very little to change supply-I agree with that. Therefore will do very little to change rates-but the principle remains the same.

AND yes picking the SF Giants was the "best" example of teams profiting by limiting the supply of tickets. And if you do look at the cpacity of MLB stadiums built within the last 20 years-they reduced the capacity. I figured that alot of drivers would find reasons to disagree with the premise of the piece-and that is part of my point-we need to stop reacting and start thinking-now how many of you are in favor of incresed size and weight limits for trucks-guessing not many-so why not apply the same beliefs to HOS?

 

[ATeam]

Well-at least no one threatened to shoot me. No-it is not bascially fundamentally flawed. It is based on one of the most fundamental principles of basic economics.

Actually, it is fundamentally flawed. The logical fallacy that you deploy in making your case, and again in your post above, has a name. It is "tautological definition."

You can read more about logical fallacies here. Pay special attention to "False Analogy," which you also rely on to make your case.

 

[Turtle]

Yes, reducing available hours being equated to reducing the supply is fundamentally flawed beause it assumes the number of trucks and drivers will remain static.

Yes, MLB stadiums have reduced capacity over the last 20 years, but that was because ticket sales revenue has been shifted to television and Internet revenue. The new stadiums also have new revenue streams from innovative advertising and other sponsorships, newly created high-dollar luxury boxes, as well as the revenue from stadium naming rights. The Giants gate receipts in 2012 was $129 million, but their revenue was $262 million. The Giants also own AT&T Park, so they don't have to split concessions, parking or other services with anyone, which greatly adds to their revenue despite smaller seating capacity. That's one reason many of the new parks have fewer seating, because the teams for the most part own their stadiums (instead of city or county ownership) and therefore get to keep more overall revenue despite fewer gate receipts. You have to look at all the revenue streams of a team before you can make any kind of determination as to what the cause of increased revenue might be. Saying the Giants increased revenue by reducing capacity and raising ticket prices simply isn't accurate.

 

[skyraider]

One more time: I still say, there is in some darkened room somewhere full of old silvered haired men who have nothing better to do then to screw up sheetze in all areas of the American economy, there just has to be,,,Nancy and Reed can't do all of it,,they got help now.....