Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

LandShark is out of business.....

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
Dave: if you donate a truck, please retain approval rights over the colors for the paint - the screaming blue & yellow was the stuff of nightmares, lol. ;)
 

Deville

Not a Member
Offline
I have never been messed over by Freightliner or Cat to be honest. Cat has always done us right and even replaced a motor in one of our trucks because a new injector cracked the block on a 3126 Cat. The truck I drove for many years had over 1.2 million miles on that engine when my wife ask me to sell it. I think the next truck we retire we will donate it to EO for another Trick my Expediter for the Expo.
1.2 million on a 3126!? That gives me hope! I'm hoping I get 750,000 out of mine. I'm at 527,000 now.
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
Offline
1.2 million on a 3126!? That gives me hope! I'm hoping I get 750,000 out of mine. I'm at 527,000 now.
When we sold that truck the motor ran like the day it was put in it. We use Lucas Motor oil in all off our trucks. I bet I could have gotten two million miles out of that motor. 527,000 is just broke in. The 3126 can be overhauled too, R & R engine can overhaul those motors and put sleeves in them. R & R engine did that on one of our trucks. Only way we would buy a M2 Freightliner is if it had a 3126 Cat.
 

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
Offline
Dave: if you donate a truck, please retain approval rights over the colors for the paint - the screaming blue & yellow was the stuff of nightmares, lol. ;)
If we was to do that with one of are trucks I would do that. We would only ask that the paint job is on the cab and sleeper with the box still white. The one that was built a few years back I think was sold and I don't even know if it on with a expedite carrier.
 

Dynamite 1

Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
There is a rumor of an argument stemming from the discovery of missing funds. As I said donors, don't quote me. In a case like this it will all be second hand info. We will see what the donors mill provides over the next few days, if any.
 

Darmstadter

Expert Expediter
Offline
Wait a minute...Landstar or Landshark is out of business?:p Can't say I ever saw a Landshark truck on the road.
 

JOHNCLARK

Expert Expediter
Offline
Is it a surprise that this theif struck again? It was well known that he was back in business under another name. It was just a matter of time! Good riddens!! Wait, did he file another authority 8 months ago?
 

jelliott

Veteran Expediter
Motor Carrier Executive
US Army
Offline
Is it a surprise that this theif struck again? It was well known that he was back in business under another name. It was just a matter of time! Good riddens!! Wait, did he file another authority 8 months ago?
John,

What is the new carrier name so we can "watch" for it?
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
Is it a surprise that this theif struck again? It was well known that he was back in business under another name. It was just a matter of time! Good riddens!! Wait, did he file another authority 8 months ago?
There is a nameless carrier in Chicago that operates under several names as well. Stories like these have a way of repeating themselves.
 

lugnut1

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
It will be the next "good carrier, with great dispatchers" that all the multiple carrier guys are signing on with.
Unfortunately some of your comments seem to imply “it is safer to sign with one carrier”. And who would that be?

I saw what Arrow trucking did when they filed bankruptcy. (I think that was fall of 2008) Many small carriers were pulled under along with Arrows demise. Maybe Landshark was pulled under by a customer that owed them money.

At one time I was a large investor in a company called Global Crossing before they made bad decisions and eventually went out of business their first time, almost took me with them.

The point is, the risk of loss is always sitting next to the potential profit. Maybe the folks at Landshark get it right next time.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
Think I would wait until they have a proven track record of success. No need to gamble your money with a new carrier that may or may not produce. If you are going to do that, might be better off being the carrier.
 

lugnut1

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
Think I would wait until they have a proven track record of success. No need to gamble your money with a new carrier that may or may not produce. If you are going to do that, might be better off being the carrier.
True, true enough. Your point about a proven track record is one reason we chose a different path in freight transportation. But, I have personally always had an appetite for things at the table of risk that many would toss their cookies to eat.
 

Rocketman

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Unfortunately some of your comments seem to imply “it is safer to sign with one carrier”. And who would that be?
Not unfortunate at all. Its not so much that I believe signing with one carrier in and of itself is the correct answer. Its that the majority of the carriers that comprise the multiple carrier segment are startups. Startup businesses of any kind are more likely to fail. It has always been that way and I dont see that changing anytime soon. We see it here all the time. John Elliot made mention of it earlier in this thread and I agree...most of the non payment/slow payment issues that are discussed on here involve these multiple carrier operations.

You say you like the risk involved. If thats what you like, have at it. But that doesn't mean the risk is not there or that its not greater. I can understand taking a greater risk if there is more profit potential, but Ive yet to see anyone running for multiple carriers that were doing any better than those who run for one good carrier and most do less. Why would you want to take on the added risk for less potential profit?

There are a few good companies out there who you can lease to. I'm leased to one of them now. You can find your own. Thats kind of what I did.

Its not all about the size of the carrier either. My last carrier had about 60-70 units total. They have been well established in the industry for years. Its not that I think the multiple carrier carriers are all bad. Its that I think if you look at each group as a whole, you'll find more problems in the multiple carrier carriers. I believe this is because the segment is saturated with startup operations of which some will make it, but most will fail and when a carrier fails, the contractors are usually the ones who get the shaft.

The established carriers are less likely to fail simply because they have already proven themselves. That doesnt mean that some of them won't fail. It just means that less of a percentage of them will.

Everyone wants to defend their chosen business model and I understand that. My original post in this thread is exactly the way I see it. If this company comes back under a different name, there will be people who will take a chance on them and then the next thing we'll be hearing about is how good they are, great rates, great dispatchers.....blah, blah, blah. What will be left out is that they have already failed and that makes them more likely to fail again. Kinda tough to get around that one.
 

BigCat

Expert Expediter
Offline
Unfortunately some of your comments seem to imply “it is safer to sign with one carrier”. And who would that be?

I saw what Arrow trucking did when they filed bankruptcy. (I think that was fall of 2008) Many small carriers were pulled under along with Arrows demise. Maybe Landshark was pulled under by a customer that owed them money.

At one time I was a large investor in a company called Global Crossing before they made bad decisions and eventually went out of business their first time, almost took me with them.

The point is, the risk of loss is always sitting next to the potential profit. Maybe the folks at Landshark get it right next time.
Arrow didn't go under because someone owed them they went under because the owner drained the accounts and took off. There was no indication it was going to happen just a bunch of drivers woke up one morning across the country to find out fuel cards were shut off and were told to leave trucks where they were sitting and find their own way home.

That could happen anywhere but they are referring to fly by night companies who don't have capital to stay in business.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jelliott

Veteran Expediter
Motor Carrier Executive
US Army
Offline
Most of these carriers are startups (the insurance that allows this model is relatively new). Yes start up's in any business have higher failure rate. As well most operate solely off of bid boards or on carrier overflow. Most then factor the money, then pay the owner operator weeks or a month or more later. They live off the cash in between. Like most any business, if it is easy to get in and you have little on the line = easy to depart. I am not saying that all are bad. Some will use this model as a base to grow into "full" carriers with fully signed on units.
 

lugnut1

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
Arrow didn't go under because someone owed them they went under because the owner drained the accounts and took off. There was no indication it was going to happen just a bunch of drivers woke up one morning across the country to find out fuel cards were shut off and were told to leave trucks where they were sitting and find their own way home.

That could happen anywhere but they are referring to fly by night companies who don't have capital to stay in business.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Look a little closer at my post, maybe I did not clearly imply that other carriers were pulled under by monies owed them by Arrows bankruptcy protection.
 
Top