greg334
Veteran Expediter
No. I think the fleet size has not much to do with anything other than to ensure the company is capable of paying its bills.
Not Happy like many of You
- Thread starter canesman07
- Start date
No. I think the fleet size has not much to do with anything other than to ensure the company is capable of paying its bills.
I have no idea but we may find out soon....maybe there is a member that knows?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Yea read my post!
Probably just a sales pitch to claim that they can offer it to customers. They should have jumped in when Panther did. Might be a little late. If they go in with the intent to beat the price point, it will have little affect.
Why? Not many lined up to buy a 150K reefer only to run it at reduced rates. Or, they will have to subsidize those trucks with taking another dime from the vans
On a side note, haven't seen a E1 reefer truck anywhere. Maybe someone has?
Why? Not many lined up to buy a 150K reefer only to run it at reduced rates. Or, they will have to subsidize those trucks with taking another dime from the vans
On a side note, haven't seen a E1 reefer truck anywhere. Maybe someone has?
i understand the payment issue. so does it mean they wont consider less than 500 cause in their eyesyou may not be able to pay. some clarity from someone would be great.
Don't give em ideas Dave...Probably just a sales pitch to claim that they can offer it to customers. They should have jumped in when Panther did. Might be a little late. If they go in with the intent to beat the price point, it will have little affect.
Why? Not many lined up to buy a 150K reefer only to run it at reduced rates. Or, they will have to subsidize those trucks with taking another dime from the vans
On a side note, haven't seen a E1 reefer truck anywhere. Maybe someone has?
Myself I only heard someone seen one...and that is a reliable source eh?
whitewolf
Seasoned Expediter
For me is forced dispatch at..Panther, TriState and Fedex
The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if you, the person for whom the services are performed, have the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sorry I wasn't clear.
No not at all. The size of the fleet has less to do with it than the ability to pay for insurance and fuel.
There are a number of small operators who get work from the government, I don't know of any expediters who do but there may be a few.
The sad thing with the practices of this carrier is the fact that most of these crap loads or what I call shiz loads are bidded on NLM etc and the carrier is the only one profitting from it
90% of there buisness is load board not called in customers!!!
The customer doesnt care who does it Bolt,E1,Panther etc,as long as it gets done!!!
Would you bid on a load that you had to dead head 100+ miles for a paid load for only 85 miles plus fuel surcharge?That also puts you in a even shiz location you are currently at?
These clown carriers dont care they still make money off the load even if its a mere 10.00 profit!!!!!!
I have been force feed load after load like this to the point I also had a percentage issue. good luck getting it fixed call ur team leader maybee will help?
90% of there buisness is load board not called in customers!!!
The customer doesnt care who does it Bolt,E1,Panther etc,as long as it gets done!!!
Would you bid on a load that you had to dead head 100+ miles for a paid load for only 85 miles plus fuel surcharge?That also puts you in a even shiz location you are currently at?
These clown carriers dont care they still make money off the load even if its a mere 10.00 profit!!!!!!
I have been force feed load after load like this to the point I also had a percentage issue. good luck getting it fixed call ur team leader maybee will help?
Last edited:
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Translation.......Customer is out seeking to set their own rates instead of accepting proposed rates brought forth by carrier seeking to obtain customers business. Carrier is in discussions/negotiations with said customer at the rates customer has requested and are recruiting to fulfill potential customers request at the rates the customer set.
Future outlook, very very high turnover rate of drivers in said carriers contractor pool.
Continuing "Trend" in all aspects within the trucking industry, especially in the "Broker/Contractor" relationship type of trucking companies. (EX: Broker Panther - Contractor Joe Doe)
That's my opinion.
Generally speaking, no, I wouldn't let an acceptance rate be the deciding factor in whether or not I accept a load. In an extreme situation, maybe.
That's precisely what I'm advocating. If you get into a situation where your acceptance is below 67%, then it's a serious problem that must be addressed with a real sense of urgency. Until you once again rise above 67% you will occupy the bottom of the board, and whenever someone else enters that board they will enter it above you. On board like Detroit where there is a constant influx of new trucks delivering loads into the area, all having acceptance rates above 67%, you're gonna sit there and rot. If you're below 67%, you want to be where everyone else isn't, because everyone else is gonna be above you on the board, until there isn't anyone else on that board other than you.
If you're below 67% on the board, trust me, dispatch just won't call you last, they'll actually look for ways to dispatch around you, until they have no choice but to call you.
It's no different than deadheading on your own dime from a bad area to a good area - you may have to take a less-than profitable load or three to get your acceptance rate back up, in order to put yourself in a position to once again be offered loads on a regular basis.
From a carrier's standpoint, and Panther in particular, they don't want to say "no" to a customer. If they say "no" on this load, the customer may take all future loads to whichever carrier said "yes". Carriers are in business to service the customer and to make money, not to ensure that drivers are taken care of (beyond the point of the balancing act of keeping trucks leased on at the lowest possible price in order to make it possible for the carrier to have trucks). As long as a load takes care of the customer and makes the carrier money, whether or not it's particularly pleasingly profitable to the driver is secondary.
Exactly, they don't care. It's not a case of either/or, a case of does the driver feel he has to take the load, or a case of whether the driver feels good about the load, it's a case of getting the load delivered for the customer, period.
The acceptance rate thing isn't something I necessarily agree with, but it's one that I can understand. If you're an independent contractor, say an electrical contractor in the construction business, no matter how good you are, if you consistently turn down job offers from the general contractor, eventually you won't be offered much. The general contractor doesn't care about you, they care about getting the construction project completed for the customer. The contractor will eventually tire of calling you only to hear you say "no". It's the same in expediting, where if you consistently turn down loads past a certain point, they can't count on you when they need you, you become unreliable in terms of servicing the customer, and they'll stop calling you for loads.
I run my business the same way. I won't take an unprofitable load, generally speaking, unless it's one that leads me to more profitability, such as one that takes me from a bad area to a good one. I do know the difference between "very profitable", "merely profitable", and "unprofitable". To some people, it's either "very profitable" or "unprofitable", and those are the ones who find themselves under 67% because they find the "merely profitable" loads not to their liking. Turning those loads down is a decision they make, and it's one they must deal with the ramifications of making.
What you are missing is that there are some people who cherry pick and turn down lots of profitable loads, but that aren't the big barn burners, the rainmakers, the cherry loads. When they turn down enough loads, they reach a point where the carrier finds them unreliable insofar as getting loads covered. When they find themselves in a situation of being below 67%, it's still not forced dispatch, as they are still free to turn down any load offers. It is forced dispatch only in the sense that they dug themselves into a deep hole and if they want to get themselves out of it they will be forced to take loads that they would otherwise turn down. But it's still a decision they make, one way or the other.
The rules of acceptance and refusal are clear cut, not arbitrary. If the deadhead miles are more than 40% of the line haul, it's not a refusal. If it's a reduced rate load as per your contract, it's not a refusal. If it's dispatched more than 8 hours in advance, it's not a refusal. If you are offered a load that pays your rate per contract, it picks up in less than 8 hours, and the deadhead is less than 40% of the line haul, then more than likely it is a profitable load. It may not a the mother of all loads that pays you enough to throw a party, but more than likely you're gonna make money on it, and certainly not lose money on it. And if you turn it down you'll be hit with a refusal. There's nothing "forced dispatch" about that, nor is it unfair.
I'm usually at or very near the 100% acceptance level. I'll turn down an unprofitable load, however, especially an unprofitable load that doesn't count as a refusal, like more than 40% deadhead. In any case, you have to know the rules, how the acceptance rate is calculated. It's all of the days of the current month, plus the previous calendar month. I accepted all of the loads I was offered in December, and was OOS for a couple of weeks in January. When I came back in-service in the middle of January I was showing a 100% acceptance rate, because all of December was still in the calculations. I was offered two quick loads that were both unprofitable, both of which counted against me as a refusal. At that point I was still showing somewhere around 85% or 90%. By the end of January I had been offered 8 loads in January, and had turned down 2 of them, and was showing like 81% or something like that.
No problem, right? On February 1st the loads from December are removed from the calculations, and now I'm looking at all of January plus the current days in February, and I'm looking at 8 loads offered, 6 accepted, which is an acceptance rate of 75%. That means that on the 9th load offer, the first in February, if I turned that one down, then I'd be looking at 9 loads offered, 6 accepted, for a rate of 66.66%, which means I put myself into the position of having to accept the next load, whatever it turned out to be, in order to keep myself above 67%.
Is that forced dispatch? Not even close.
If that next load had been a really crappy load, even a money loser, I'd have taken it, in order to keep myself above 67%, to keep myself at the top of the board, to keep myself in a position to be offered loads. It's no different than deadheading on my own dime to a better area to put myself in a position to get loaded, or in taking a reduced rate load that gets me from Havre, Montana to Minneapolis. I'd much rather take one unprofitable load (that becomes a de facto profitable load) to keep myself above 67%, than to find myself in the position of looking up at everyone from the bottom of the board, since preventing that from happening is a lot easier, and cheaper, than trying to get off the bottom of the board.
I guess the difference between me and some people is, some people find themselves at 67% or below, and are shocked to find themselves there, because they don't understand the rules or the math, and then they blame the carrier for the situation they themselves created.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Turtle,
I guess for some of the confused and percentage runners here, it may seem a bit silly to think that if a van driver is contracted for .77 a mile (or what ever) there shouldn't be times when an offer is below the .77 a mile (or what ever).
So with that said, if you get consistent .77 a mile (or what ever) offers or all the offers are .77 a mile (or what ever) or above, what would cause van drivers to refuse work (financially speaking) when they end up say in Atlanta or Mobile or Memphis?
I guess for some of the confused and percentage runners here, it may seem a bit silly to think that if a van driver is contracted for .77 a mile (or what ever) there shouldn't be times when an offer is below the .77 a mile (or what ever).
So with that said, if you get consistent .77 a mile (or what ever) offers or all the offers are .77 a mile (or what ever) or above, what would cause van drivers to refuse work (financially speaking) when they end up say in Atlanta or Mobile or Memphis?
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Four "or what evers" ...... what ever!
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Interesting..........
OK, let's look at this scenario.
Let's say said driver was sitting in a nice freight area and dispatch was continuously "non forcefully" dispatching him on 160 mile runs that was placing said driver in dead freight areas (let's say Dallas to Abilene) and driver was continuously having to deadhead back on his own dime to the nice freight area to get dispatched again. Now, said driver gets 3 runs a week like this for 3 weeks which only brought him in a total revenue of $1,108.00 (using Gregs .77 cents a mile rate in his whatever post) for that 3 week period.
Why hold it against that driver when he finally starts saying "NO" to these short sporadic runs that dispatch has been only offering him on a "non force" dispatch system and starts to only accept offers of higher mileage runs that pay better for both his time and vehicle usage?
Can this scenario happen? Sure. Has it been happening to drivers? Don't know. But there's more than one way to try and understand what ones motive may be when it comes to loads they will accept, have been accepting, and have been refusing.
To have a "Points System" in play that effects a so-called "Small Business Owner" that can only offer his services to one dispatch service due to a binding contract is a "Forced" Dispatch system, even when the driver agrees to it being a "Non Force" dispatch system as stated in said contract.
Am I reading this wrong or have I touched a subject that is right there on the slippery slope???
For some, unless it's 500 miles, it's not enough miles, not enough cash in one whack, to run the load. We've all met and talked to 'em, the "I won't move my van for anything less than 500 miles" guys. Like, a 200 mile run from Nashville to Memphis, that's not enough for some people.
On the other hand, if there are already 7 vans in Memphis and Memphis is a 2-a-day board, I'd have to take a close look at that one, too. Same with Atlanta. For a place like Mobile, it's not likely to be a 200 mile run, but if it is, I'd need to have a very good FSC on top of the .77 to pay for either the 2 day waiting time or the deadhead out.
I've had reduced rate loads of 70 cents a mile, but that came with a 20 cent FSC. That's 90 cents a mile, but I know people who would (and have) turned those down simply because it's a reduced rate, regardless of where it takes them. By the same token, I've received 77 cent loads with a 6 cent FSC that delivered to an area that I wasn't likely to get loaded out from, and if the backend deadhead was too much, I've turned it down.
Some will see the miles, and if it's a lot of miles they'll get that woody and accept it without thinking it through. I had a load offer for 77 cents plus a 20 cent FSC, a 1400 mile load with plenty of time for rest along the way, no problems. I turned it down flat. Dispatch was shocked. Why? Because it went from Omaha, NE to Edmonton, AB, and I'd almost certainly be looking at deadheading another 1200 miles back to Minneapolis after delivery. That's a couple of days and a lot of unpaid deadhead. No thanks.
They offered the load to some goober sitting in Davenport, who deadheaded 300 miles to get it, having gotten paid $50 for the up-front deadhead, but then ate it hard on the backend. Instead of running to Edmonton, I got a 650 mile load to Dallas, and the next day a 270 mile load to just outside Houston, and then got one out of Houston to Laredo, 300 miles. That's 1270 miles with essentially no deadhead, instead of running 1400 with nearly 50% deadhead.
You have to look at the big picture, take everything into account, whether it's a long load or a short one. Getting hit with a refusal on that Edmonton load didn't other me in the least.
3 runs in a week like that is very rare, and it would be even more rare to have that happen 3 weeks in a row. But sure, it could happen, and Dallas is a place it could very well happen, since there is so much LTL freight coming in that gets expedited out for shorter distances. Los Angeles and Salt Lake City are also a couple of other places that it could happen. It's not as likely in Dallas, however, because of the relatively large numbers of vans and trucks that are constantly entering that area. But in some place like Los Angeles, when there are maybe one or two other trucks in the area, you could very well be offered a lot of short loads in a row.
The thing is, if you start turning those down from the very beginning, you get no sympathy from Dispatch. On the other hand, if you take a couple or three of those, and then when the next one comes in you tell dispatch, "These shorts loads are all I've been running, and I need a longer one," and then turn it down, they will usually realize you are trying to help, particularly if you let them know that you understand all they can do is book what comes in and they can't manufacture loads for you. They will either try and find you a longer one or pony up some extra money for the short ones. It's all in how you handle it.
In any case, if you've taken three short runs like that and then turn down a load or two, it's not likely to negatively affect your acceptance rate to the point of putting you down below 67%. If it does, it's not because you've been getting crappy load after crappy load. More likely it's because you've been turning down a lot of non-crappy-but-not-primo loads recently, or if you've miscalculated how the math gets done and you're turning down these loads at the wrong time of the month.
On the other hand, those who like to stick close to the "freight lanes" in the Midwest because they are closer to home, they are likely to be offered a lot of crappy loads for short miles and low FSC, because that's what rules in what I lovingly refer to as "Midwest Hеll". But that's what this business is, and it's even more true of the Midwest, where it can get old criss-crossing the state from Wooster to Chilicothe to Van Wert to Warren to Grand Rapids, and finding yourself at each delivery at #9 on a 3-a-day board.
Because the customer could care less how many miles the driver gets, and the carrier is in business to service the customer. The driver is supposed to be in the same business. The carrier accepts loads that don't make them big bucks, because it's part and parcel of the business. If the driver can't balance the business of great loads, good loads and not-so-good loads, they don't belong in the business, because they don't understand it.
Absolutely
No, not really. While there can be many interpretations of what constitutes "Forced Dispatch," a carrier keeping track of your rate of acceptance isn't one of them, especially when the point system is clear-cut and transparent. It is part of the cooperative agreement between you can the carrier, where you agree to lease you and your equipment to the carrier for their use. If it turns out that you get offered a lot of less-than-desirable loads, what with that sometimes being the nature of the industry, and you continuously resist that nature to the point of no longer being reliable to the carrier who relies on you and your equipment to conduct business, then it's your decision to get to that point.
The carrier instead could not have a transparent point system, and just simply dispatch around you, never saying a word to you about it. Is that forced dispatch?
Keeping track of your acceptance rate may very well be considered "forced dispatch", but it's a stretch and is without a doubt the most benign form of it I know, since for the most part it is within your control. A more sever form would be dropping to the bottom of the board with each refusal, or being placed OOS for a time because of a refusal, or having your contract voided for a refusal. Those who like to cherry pick will certainly see things differently, I'm sure.
Both.
There are some carriers who say there's no forced dispatch, and then promptly punish you when you refuse a load. Those are the ones on a slippery slope, since all it would take is for someone with a little time and money on their hands to push the issue. In court cases where the issue has been pushed (usually in worker's compensation cases), independent contractor status gets changed to employee status, or the forced dispatch suddenly disappears.
Bottom line is, if you don't want any responsibility whatsoever of acceptance and reliability to a carrier, then you need to have your own authority, where the only people who will keep track of your acceptance rate and reliability are you and the paying customer. Or your broker, of course.
MayfieldExp
Seasoned Expediter
You hit the nail right on the head Dave.