"Texpress offers a summary. In matters like this I suggest that there will always be more thinking to do once you get to the point where a summary is possible. Expediting is an open-ended business where yesterday's events, decisions and results may be a good guide for today's, and or may or may not be a good guide for tomorrow's."
Like I said recap.. No where did I state that these were the guidelines set in stone and applicable to all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpress
1. There's always someone that will haul cheap freight, IF it may take them home, or move them from a dead area. To do so would not make them a bad business owner.
However, going to a dead area too often and using cheap freight to get out, and going home too often, will contribute to business failure. Don't lull yourself into believing that everything will be OK if you use the cheap-freight crutch to move around. Consider the wounds you inflict by going to dead areas in the first place and going home too often.
Hmm.. where did you get this from my post. I merely stated that there(with all the drivers out there) will always be a reasonable chance that someone may need to GET OUT of a dead area OR grab a cheap load to try to cover their cost to get home or back to the better lanes. I don't see anywhere in my post where I condoned "using cheap freight crutch to move around" I said to get out of a dead area. How one gets to a dead area would be a whole different subject. But from what I see here most people that reject the "cheap freight" don't do so because of the destination but more so on the amount the load offer pays.
2. It's obvious that the more trucks a carrier has the more availability they have for their shippers. It's also obvious that the carrier has no loss associated with a truck or 10 idling at the "J". Concludes that the carrier will continue to recruit because they have a minimum investment, per unit, compared to the possible return of said unit.
That is a popular notion among truckers but if you think it through, is it really true?
Yes it is really true..
If it costs a carrier nothing to add another truck, what keeps the carrier from adding one thousand more?
Good point and the answer is absolutely nothing now that the companies have moved away from the fleet "ownership". When I started in this industry the amount of carrier owned trucks -vs- that of the Owner Opps in their fleet was around approx. 70% trucks owned by the carrier to 30% owner operators. I don't think I need to explain why this has become the norm do I?
Carriers continually struggle to make their fleets "right sized" to their objectives. The costs of recruiting new trucks, servicing existing trucks and retaining existing trucks is high.
The recruiting is in place period, it's not really an additional cost per truck that is recruited. Wow, things have really changed I didn't realize that you servicing your truck cost the company anything.
A carrier that adds two new trucks for every old truck it loses will be a carrier that will soon be broke.
Are we talking about carriers or fleet owners. I really need to apologize here because I thought the gist of the drivers here as well as this thread was about independent contractors. The cost to add owner operator trucks to their fleets is nominal compared to the potential return. Of course this would be different if they were company owned trucks but again I don't see that as the case.
There is overhead associated with every truck in a carrier's fleet. That fact is not often recognized by those who say it costs nothing for carriers to add or replace trucks.
Yeah.. I think your gonna have to help me with this one. I just don't see the "overhead" for the carrier being that much. (No insurance cost, No maintenance cost, No fuel cost per say) the cost QC and some signs?
Also worth considering is the value of "good" contractors vs. the unknown value of new contractors. A good contractor is one that can be relied upon to serve the customer, abide by carrier policies, represent the company well, minimize carrier liability exposure by being safe and having no freight damage claims, etc. A supply/demand policy of running an oversize fleet and replacing those that leave brings in costs and risks associated with adding unproven contractors to the mix.
Where this may sound good as reply on an internet forum it is some what of a naive statement if it weren't the carriers would not give me the time of day "right now". The fact that "any" carrier is talking to me let alone every one I've contacted speaks directly to the problems with this statement.
3. The more toys you have on your truck the more potential to make $$ you have, as well as the better chance to stay close to the freight lanes. (Refer, climate, Lift, etc..)
As one who runs a fully-equipped truck, I would not put it quite that way. The first part is true. The more kinds of freight your truck equipment and credentials can expose you to, the better off you are.
Regarding freight lanes, the advantage is not keeping you close to them but greatly expanding your reach from a remote area or even a busy one.
Hmm.. I'm glad you put in some examples cuz I really don't know what this means. Don't get me wrong it sounds good but..
Example 1: A profitable load in which we dead headed 1,000 miles from Chicago to pick up a load in New England and drive it to the West Coast,--- would have been better if we could have found a paying load to New England?.
Example 2: A profitable load on Thankgiving weekend in which from Portland, Oregon, we received an offer to pick up in Arizona and deliver in Pennsylvania.
Example 3: A profitable load in which we deadheaded 1,000 miles from Denver to pick up in Washington state and deliver on the East Coast.
Examples 1, 2 and 3 are not typical runs. I share them to illustrate my point about extended range.
Not trying to sound stupid here but the only thing that I see is extended dead head. Granted with your rig these loads that you dead headed too may have been specialized and paid great but frankly I was taught years back that an empty truck is a worthless truck.
If we were offered a load today to go to say Portland, Oregon (a dead area according to some), and if the money was right, we would not hesitate to take the load.
Well sure you would I don't see any reason why you wouldn't and as I said earlier I don't think it's the destination that makes drivers turn down freight.
We believe (note the word believe) that our equipment and credentials would get us out of Portland and that we would have no need to use "cheap" freight to do it.
No doubt that eventually you will find a load out of Portland. Whether it has to do with you having better equipment may or may not come into play. My statement about an empty truck being worthless applies to parked trucks as well.
This belief has served us well in the past and we rely on it today. Whether it will hold up tomorrow is anyone's guess. As things stand now, as long as it keeps working, we will stick with it.
This is what really matters "what works for you". My post was not targeted at anyone in particular. If you have time to wait for the better loads, when you get to Portland, that's super but don't be fooled into thinking that just because it works for you it is the most profitable way to run your truck.
4. The more access's to freight you have the more potential you have. The more access's to freight you have the better chance you may have at getting home and/or getting to a better freight lane without having to haul cheap freight?
I would add that the more often you go home, even if you live in a good express center, the more you hurt your business. It takes time and miles to get home. Expediters do not make their money at home. They make it out on the road. If you use your full-featured truck or even backhaul freight to get you home, you are oriented to home. The money is out here, not back there.
OK dokie.. I guess this came from me saying that some drivers would take cheap freight to get them home. At this point it's really starting to sound like you have decided to shoot down my post, for what ever reason, as opposed to discuss reality. I never said drivers made money at home etc etc.. did I?
Having a truck that provides most of the comforts of home on the road, and living a property-free life in which getting home every so often is not necessary makes it easier to stay out longer and minimize our expenses.
How? Not having a mortgage. Maybe your thought is that since you live in your RV/Truck you don't have as much overhead but honestly if you took a look at it I wouldn't be surprised if your situation doesn't increase your expenses, as opposed to someone who doesn't live in their truck full time. Just an opinion.. Now it would be different if you had said living in your truck gives you more opportunities to make money, but you didn't say that.
This has obviously given me another question to discuss with recruiters although.. I still haven't gone down and spent the night in my car at the Walmart.
Another thing you might try is to not use your bathroom at home for a week. Limit yourself to public bathrooms, which may mean driving to one when you need to.
LOL..thanks, I'll get right on that, just as soon as you run down to Yuma AZ. in august and sit for 12 days calling your dispatcher using quarters and a pay phone. You new guys really think you have it rough with QC and cell phones and air ride, 200 inch bunks.
Mr. Ateam the fact that you live in your truck may make the rules different for ya'll. layovers may be welcomed and if so it would make perfectly good since, for you, to wait around and see some sights in Portland waiting for a load. For the average guy that may be out for 2-3 weeks away from home and family, every mile and minute counts as does every minute at home.
Blessing,
dave
Like I said recap.. No where did I state that these were the guidelines set in stone and applicable to all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpress
1. There's always someone that will haul cheap freight, IF it may take them home, or move them from a dead area. To do so would not make them a bad business owner.
However, going to a dead area too often and using cheap freight to get out, and going home too often, will contribute to business failure. Don't lull yourself into believing that everything will be OK if you use the cheap-freight crutch to move around. Consider the wounds you inflict by going to dead areas in the first place and going home too often.
Hmm.. where did you get this from my post. I merely stated that there(with all the drivers out there) will always be a reasonable chance that someone may need to GET OUT of a dead area OR grab a cheap load to try to cover their cost to get home or back to the better lanes. I don't see anywhere in my post where I condoned "using cheap freight crutch to move around" I said to get out of a dead area. How one gets to a dead area would be a whole different subject. But from what I see here most people that reject the "cheap freight" don't do so because of the destination but more so on the amount the load offer pays.
2. It's obvious that the more trucks a carrier has the more availability they have for their shippers. It's also obvious that the carrier has no loss associated with a truck or 10 idling at the "J". Concludes that the carrier will continue to recruit because they have a minimum investment, per unit, compared to the possible return of said unit.
That is a popular notion among truckers but if you think it through, is it really true?
Yes it is really true..
If it costs a carrier nothing to add another truck, what keeps the carrier from adding one thousand more?
Good point and the answer is absolutely nothing now that the companies have moved away from the fleet "ownership". When I started in this industry the amount of carrier owned trucks -vs- that of the Owner Opps in their fleet was around approx. 70% trucks owned by the carrier to 30% owner operators. I don't think I need to explain why this has become the norm do I?
Carriers continually struggle to make their fleets "right sized" to their objectives. The costs of recruiting new trucks, servicing existing trucks and retaining existing trucks is high.
The recruiting is in place period, it's not really an additional cost per truck that is recruited. Wow, things have really changed I didn't realize that you servicing your truck cost the company anything.
A carrier that adds two new trucks for every old truck it loses will be a carrier that will soon be broke.
Are we talking about carriers or fleet owners. I really need to apologize here because I thought the gist of the drivers here as well as this thread was about independent contractors. The cost to add owner operator trucks to their fleets is nominal compared to the potential return. Of course this would be different if they were company owned trucks but again I don't see that as the case.
There is overhead associated with every truck in a carrier's fleet. That fact is not often recognized by those who say it costs nothing for carriers to add or replace trucks.
Yeah.. I think your gonna have to help me with this one. I just don't see the "overhead" for the carrier being that much. (No insurance cost, No maintenance cost, No fuel cost per say) the cost QC and some signs?
Also worth considering is the value of "good" contractors vs. the unknown value of new contractors. A good contractor is one that can be relied upon to serve the customer, abide by carrier policies, represent the company well, minimize carrier liability exposure by being safe and having no freight damage claims, etc. A supply/demand policy of running an oversize fleet and replacing those that leave brings in costs and risks associated with adding unproven contractors to the mix.
Where this may sound good as reply on an internet forum it is some what of a naive statement if it weren't the carriers would not give me the time of day "right now". The fact that "any" carrier is talking to me let alone every one I've contacted speaks directly to the problems with this statement.
3. The more toys you have on your truck the more potential to make $$ you have, as well as the better chance to stay close to the freight lanes. (Refer, climate, Lift, etc..)
As one who runs a fully-equipped truck, I would not put it quite that way. The first part is true. The more kinds of freight your truck equipment and credentials can expose you to, the better off you are.
Regarding freight lanes, the advantage is not keeping you close to them but greatly expanding your reach from a remote area or even a busy one.
Hmm.. I'm glad you put in some examples cuz I really don't know what this means. Don't get me wrong it sounds good but..
Example 1: A profitable load in which we dead headed 1,000 miles from Chicago to pick up a load in New England and drive it to the West Coast,--- would have been better if we could have found a paying load to New England?.
Example 2: A profitable load on Thankgiving weekend in which from Portland, Oregon, we received an offer to pick up in Arizona and deliver in Pennsylvania.
Example 3: A profitable load in which we deadheaded 1,000 miles from Denver to pick up in Washington state and deliver on the East Coast.
Examples 1, 2 and 3 are not typical runs. I share them to illustrate my point about extended range.
Not trying to sound stupid here but the only thing that I see is extended dead head. Granted with your rig these loads that you dead headed too may have been specialized and paid great but frankly I was taught years back that an empty truck is a worthless truck.
If we were offered a load today to go to say Portland, Oregon (a dead area according to some), and if the money was right, we would not hesitate to take the load.
Well sure you would I don't see any reason why you wouldn't and as I said earlier I don't think it's the destination that makes drivers turn down freight.
We believe (note the word believe) that our equipment and credentials would get us out of Portland and that we would have no need to use "cheap" freight to do it.
No doubt that eventually you will find a load out of Portland. Whether it has to do with you having better equipment may or may not come into play. My statement about an empty truck being worthless applies to parked trucks as well.
This belief has served us well in the past and we rely on it today. Whether it will hold up tomorrow is anyone's guess. As things stand now, as long as it keeps working, we will stick with it.
This is what really matters "what works for you". My post was not targeted at anyone in particular. If you have time to wait for the better loads, when you get to Portland, that's super but don't be fooled into thinking that just because it works for you it is the most profitable way to run your truck.
4. The more access's to freight you have the more potential you have. The more access's to freight you have the better chance you may have at getting home and/or getting to a better freight lane without having to haul cheap freight?
I would add that the more often you go home, even if you live in a good express center, the more you hurt your business. It takes time and miles to get home. Expediters do not make their money at home. They make it out on the road. If you use your full-featured truck or even backhaul freight to get you home, you are oriented to home. The money is out here, not back there.
OK dokie.. I guess this came from me saying that some drivers would take cheap freight to get them home. At this point it's really starting to sound like you have decided to shoot down my post, for what ever reason, as opposed to discuss reality. I never said drivers made money at home etc etc.. did I?
Having a truck that provides most of the comforts of home on the road, and living a property-free life in which getting home every so often is not necessary makes it easier to stay out longer and minimize our expenses.
How? Not having a mortgage. Maybe your thought is that since you live in your RV/Truck you don't have as much overhead but honestly if you took a look at it I wouldn't be surprised if your situation doesn't increase your expenses, as opposed to someone who doesn't live in their truck full time. Just an opinion.. Now it would be different if you had said living in your truck gives you more opportunities to make money, but you didn't say that.
This has obviously given me another question to discuss with recruiters although.. I still haven't gone down and spent the night in my car at the Walmart.
Another thing you might try is to not use your bathroom at home for a week. Limit yourself to public bathrooms, which may mean driving to one when you need to.
LOL..thanks, I'll get right on that, just as soon as you run down to Yuma AZ. in august and sit for 12 days calling your dispatcher using quarters and a pay phone. You new guys really think you have it rough with QC and cell phones and air ride, 200 inch bunks.
Mr. Ateam the fact that you live in your truck may make the rules different for ya'll. layovers may be welcomed and if so it would make perfectly good since, for you, to wait around and see some sights in Portland waiting for a load. For the average guy that may be out for 2-3 weeks away from home and family, every mile and minute counts as does every minute at home.
Blessing,
dave
