[mcbride]

Originally Posted by nobb4u

Do you see my point as to why you get passed over?

-----All trucks are equal size, all teams, and equally equipped trucks----

[nobb4u]

Actually it is not possible for all trucks to be exactly equal there are always going to be differences. Just like to cars sitting on a car lot, same make, model and year they may seem the same but there are differences and with FDCC some of those differences might only be a computer error(some of your equipt. might not be flagged correctly), but there will be differences.

[pjjjjj]

Originally Posted by nobb4u

I feel like a lot of people try to over think things and some really don't have the right processing equipment for the job.

Since this is not in the FECC Category, and seems to be a free-for-all, I will add my 3cents. (That's what, 4cents in USD?) I think McBride has some really valid points that he deserves to have responses to. Perhaps this isn't the place, but he opened it up for discussion here.

No offence to you Nobb, but contrary to your comment above, I think perhaps too many under think things, and that's what some companies are perhaps counting on. If they're going to have a new policy, they should publish the new rules, and stick to them. I don't think many would have a problem with the setup, or whatever the rules turn out to be, if they knew exactly how it would work, every time.

When I was much younger, it was a very disappointing day in my life when I discovered that all the 'authorities' I had always thought of as knowing the answers, doing the right thing, having the knowledge, etc., were in fact just simply humans, like everyone else. People have learned it's necessary to take responsibility for their own fate, whether it's getting a third medical opinion, researching a reno project so you can be aware of the quality of work, knowing a thing or two about vehicle repairs so you don't get fleeced, etc.

It would be beautiful to be able to be blissfully ignorant and believe everyone is doing the right thing,and just have faith in everyone, but it just isn't that way any more. Seems these days, most will take advantage of others where there is opportunity to do so. Or perhaps it's not even taking advantage, perhaps the people we're supposed to trust, aren't thinking hard enough.

[pelicn]

McBride, we are not with the Fed anymore, and with the scenarios you have posted, the new dispatch system sounds very confusing. I still fail to understand how this new system can speed up the time for dispatching a truck.
If more than one truck has accepted the load opportunity then how long does a truck have to wait to roll before finding out "for sure" that they have the load?

[davekc]

Originally Posted by nobb4u

Actually it is not possible for all trucks to be exactly equal there are always going to be differences. Just like to cars sitting on a car lot, same make, model and year they may seem the same but there are differences and with FDCC some of those differences might only be a computer error(some of your equipt. might not be flagged correctly), but there will be differences.

That is true with any company. It would seem strange to send you loads that you can't do whether equipment or qualifications? If would have to be a nightmare if they send trucks loads that they can't carry? What would be the point? Or who would want to be bothered? I wouldn't think that would be the case.
I think Nancy is saying they are all qualified to haul the load but they award it to a truck that is farther away.
Maybe they send it to a farther truck at a cheaper rate? Don't know?

[hdxpedx]

All new software needs to be tweaked.. use your cell until they match the load # to the offer on c-link.. MULTI-OFFERS =GOOD!!

[ATeam]

Originally Posted by davekc

Maybe they send it to a farther truck at a cheaper rate? Don't know?

That's right, Dave. You don't know.

Do you really expect people to buy into your .... whatever? Think about it. If a truck is close and the load can be offered at one rate, offering a lower rate to a more-distant truck is unlikely to attract that truck to the load. The more-distant truck would not only have less money to work with from the outset, it would also have to incur higher deadhead expenses, because of the distance, to get to the pickup.

Again, you do not know. Groundless speculation does more harm than good in an Open Forum; not only is the Forum itself degraded, people researching the industry are unnecessarily burdened with the need to sort through it, but are given no factual information to work with.

It is better to talk about things you know about than things you don't, or things that you can factually substantiate. Or, if you want to know more about something you don't know about, put it in the form of a question that shows respect for the carrier and people who have chosen to affiliate with it.

No one else does what you do in this regard. I could easily pick and choose negative comments made about your carrier by people who contract with it. I could easily use those statements as "fact" and spin them in a direction that is uncomplimentary to your carrier. I could put the spotlight on them by repeating them over and over again. But I don't. I don't because running a competing carrier into the ground benefits no one.

I don't bash Panther (your carrier) because a bunch of people, I know, and a couple I count as good friends, have chosen to affiliate with Panther and are happy there. Out of respect for them and for a company that has clearly proven itself in our industry, I do not bash Panther. Would it be too much to ask for you to refrain from consistently casting FedEx in a dark light?

You are the only moderator that consistently makes insinuations, innuendos and vague statements that cast a competing carrier in a negative light. For an ordinary member with an ax to grind, I can understand the motivation. But for a moderator with a responsibility to maintain high standards in the Open Forum, using insinuations, innuendo and calculated vague statements toward a dark end are disappointing.

You would be no less of a man if you let FedEx alone. And FedEx will be no less of a company if you don't. But if you rise to a higher standard when talking about a competing carrier, there is at least one reader I know who will think better of you.

[ATeam]

Originally Posted by pelicn

I still fail to understand how this new system can speed up the time for dispatching a truck.
If more than one truck has accepted the load opportunity then how long does a truck have to wait to roll before finding out "for sure" that they have the load?

Time is saved because dispatch can send the same offer to multiple trucks at the same time. Before, an offer would go to one truck at a time, the truck would have 10 minutes to respond, and if the load was declined, the offer would go to the next truck. If three trucks declined the load and a fourth accepted it, it could take up to 30 minutes for the fourth truck to even see the offer.

Under the new system, say those same four trucks were all eligible for the load. The offer would be sent to them all at once. When the fourth truck took the load, the truck is booked and the customer is more quickly served, thereby reducing the chance that the customer will start calling other carriers to move his or her hot freight. If more than one truck accepts the offer, the offer is awarded according to the rank order the trucks have (dwell time, less-than-75 status, etc.).

I can only speak from my own experience about how long one must wait to find out if you actually got the load you accepted. It is two to three minutes max, and often less. If you reply by Qualcomm you find out almost instantly.

[davekc]

As mentioned, I was requested by several at CC to comment on it. So I did. It is in the general forum and NOT in the Fedex forum. Simple as that.

[greg334]

Originally Posted by davekc

That is true with any company. It would seem strange to send you loads that you can't do whether equipment or qualifications? If would have to be a nightmare if they send trucks loads that they can't carry? What would be the point? Or who would want to be bothered? I wouldn't think that would be the case.
I think Nancy is saying they are all qualified to haul the load but they award it to a truck that is farther away.
Maybe they send it to a farther truck at a cheaper rate? Don't know?

I don't think it is about cheaper rates, it may appear that way but it is putting the idea that if the truck does not accept the load, they may not get another offer for a while. If you look at the most common truck, there has to be more work for this class of truck in most of the express centers.

Like McBride using San Diego where there is 4 trucks while they also send the offer to someone in the LA area, if it was a load that has to have say a reefer, then the people in San Diego without a reefer would not get the offer in the first place.

If they broadcast the offers to trucks outside the express centers while the closest trucks have not been given the time to decide, that is where I can see what I was told - they want to move the load first unless there is a customer request for the closest truck.

WG and the special Owners/trucks won't be affected as much as the common surface truck will be. WG and special Owners/trucks will still by getting called by someone if they select off Clink option.

FedEx is targeting the hard to cover loads where the rates are below what should be like some of these cr*ppy contracted loads, leaving the others out of the mix (WG, special owners/trucks).

[ATeam]

Originally Posted by davekc

As mentioned, I was requested by several at CC to comment on it. So I did. It is in the general forum and NOT in the Fedex forum. Simple as that.

The problem is not that you replied. This is an Open Forum. The problem is the unhelpful and disrespectful way you replied; namely, insinuation, innuendo and vague statements designed to cast a competing carrier in a bad light. Simple as that.

[highway star]

Originally Posted by ATeam

Groundless speculation does more harm than good in an Open Forum; not only is the Forum itself degraded, people researching the industry are unnecessarily burdened with the need to sort through it, but are given no factual information to work with.

Since this thread isn't in the Fed forum, there's going to be less than fully informed comment. As someone who isn't with the Fed, to me it sounds like a mess, based on what I've read. Can a truck actually be offered a load they aren't qualified to carry? I know I wouldn't be happy to have the QC wake me up with something I have no chance of hauling. That's stupid! Maybe there are drivers that would say, "well, it's making dispatches job easier, so no problem. I'll just try to get back to sleep now."

Some carrier issues are fine in the general forum because they apply to other carriers as well. But, this one is very specific and is exactly what the carrier forums are for. Maybe the mods should move it.

[greg334]

Originally Posted by ATeam

The problem is not that you replied. This is an Open Forum. The problem is the unhelpful and disrespectful way you replied; namely, insinuation, innuendo and vague statements designed to cast a competing carrier in a bad light. Simple as that.

Sorry Phil, maybe you need to haul your truck over to green and start asking real questions if you are so concern over what Dave is allegedly saying to counter his comments.

He seems to be a lot more neutral and concern than others are being about a system that is not only confusing but poorly planned and executed - what a mess it is. Bad communications, bad interface with the fleet, bad specs, bad programming and so on, all make upset contractors who depend on the system to be fair (*hehe) and to allow them to make money.

He is bringing up some valid concerns among the FedEx crowd he knows, so I would think you should be along side of him and bringing up the same concerns to the people in power but I doubt that you want to rock the boat.

So why are you so focused on his comments which has ZERO to do with your business? His comments has to do with a multinational fortune 100 company who is doing things to hedge a falling economy and his comments will never effect them in any way.

Highway,
Let's not move it because someone does not like criticism of one company.

[davekc]

I thought I was very factual basing information from already posted information. I clearly stated for the new I wasn't with Fedex and where I didn't know something, it was clearly stated.
I didn't say anything bad about Fedex. I do question their new system which is what I was requested on.
Even outside of that, it isn't something I would want our carrier to adopt in its current format.
Star, you may be right on the move. Some may be too sensitive for opinions outside of the carrier.

[highway star]

Originally Posted by greg334

Highway,
Let's not move it because someone does not like criticism of one company.

No, don't move it because of that. I just think he made a good point about this being better commented on by those affected by it. Of course, having said that, those affected don't seem to really understand it. It really is just what the carrier specific forums are for.