T&K Trucking

[jimlookup]

'

Excellent point Tomtom. The business model doesn't have anything to do with these people getting what is owed to them. It is comical that those who knock what has come to be known on this site as the "multi carrier format" are individuals who are paranoid about this dreaded "business model" cutting in to their action and want to demonize it at every turn. Even the president of a well known transportation co. could not help but describe some start ups as "multi carrier companies". The funny thing is these organizations are sovereign entities. They are not "multi" anything. If an owner operator of a van takes freight from two or more carriers he or she is running "multi carrier" It has nothing to do with who books the freight.

I also have notice a growing prejudice against multi-carrier operations. The multi-carriers are portrayed as fly by nighters who are primarily thiefs and as soon as they shaft enough people they will close, move, and find some more people to shaft. Sure, there are a few like this, but there are in every profession. Look at wall street, or law and politics and banking? What about doctors who steel from tax payers with Medicare and Medicaid fraud? What about large trucking companies with their leasing and training scams.
The multi-carrier drivers are portrayed as stinky, unkempt, people with foriegn accents who drive in yellow Penske trucks. I'll try to enlighten the ignorant people who believe ths. You're going to find a few stinky people wherever you go. If foriegn accents upset you, get over it, and start studying Spanish. As far as the Penske trucks; that's just a buisness decision. The fuel milage and load capacity are terrible but the entry point is lower.
The majority of start-up businesses fail in every industry. This doesn't mean the owners were crooks. It just means they were'nt quite good enough at it. Businesses are going belly up everywhere and that includes trucking, expediting, and the multi-carrier business model.
A big complaint against multi-carriers is "they skewer the number of trucks available in a area because of multible postings. Sure they do. And that's because load boards won't install software or entry level data to solve the problem. The load boards are responsible for what's on the load board, not the multi- carriers. If they can't post the trucks correctly, don't post them at all. Just post the loads.
Time to retire and start dodging arrows from those people that have the big advertisement at the bottom of their posts.
Letzrockexpress, you may have a few coming your way too.

 

[Murraycroexp]

I don't have an opinion either way, but I have a feeling the vilification of the "multi-carrier model" started with the carriers that are NOT operating in the "multi-carrier mode".

 

[BillChaffey]

Politics? Are you implying our elected officials are less then 100% honest. With our country's best interest's not the only thing on their minds.

 

[jimlookup]

Politics? Are you implying our elected officials are less then 100% honest. With our country's best interest's not the only thing on their minds.

I'm a member of the 85% that feel this.

 

[jelliott]

Excellent point Tomtom. The business model doesn't have anything to do with these people getting what is owed to them. It is comical that those who knock what has come to be known on this site as the "multi carrier format" are individuals who are paranoid about this dreaded "business model" cutting in to their action and want to demonize it at every turn. Even the president of a well known transportation co. could not help but describe some start ups as "multi carrier companies". The funny thing is these organizations are sovereign entities. They are not "multi" anything. If an owner operator of a van takes freight from two or more carriers he or she is running "multi carrier" It has nothing to do with who books the freight.

Letz, as we can only guess who you are speaking of....LOL. Feel free to pm me and I will be happy to share many more details as to why I feel the way I do and the illegal and improper things that we have dealt with and seen. I have never been one to hide and my signature and logo are proudly displayed. I have thick skin as most know and have posted here for years. Are all carriers on this model bad, NO. Some will work this model well to succeed and some will take the effort and time to do it right. Many of them are very frustrated at how others have so tarnished or abused this model. But this model has a fair share of issues that I personally am no fan of.

 

[Murraycroexp]

Letz, as we can only guess who you are speaking of....LOL. Feel free to pm me and I will be happy to share many more details as to why I feel the way I do and the illegal and improper things that we have dealt with and seen. I have never been one to hide and my signature and logo are proudly displayed. I have thick skin as most know and have posted here for years. Are all carriers on this model bad, NO. Some will work this model well to succeed and some will take the effort and time to do it right. Many of them are very frustrated at how others have so tarnished or abused this model. But this model has a fair share of issues that I personally am no fan of.

John, If its illegal, PLEASE air those illegal actions (without names) so we can all avoid being associated with any illegalities. We all (I assume) want to remain legal operators. But it sounds like 'some succeed & some fail' at the multi-carrier business, much like every other business out there. Although this model seems to better describe the driver and not the carrier.

 

[jelliott]

The most common one we have seen is improper (thus really no) insurance coverage. Very few insurance companies TRULY cover the expedite industry. Shelly at CIS did a great series on here describing this that is a must read in my opinion. Also we have seen carriers who will provide us with a certificate showing 1 million liability and $100,000 cargo coverage as required in our contract that they sign. Then SOME of these same carriers will go and not require the units running under their authority to knowingly not meet those requirements. Pretty fraudulent in my book. The "model" is troubling for us as a carrier. To try and partner with these companies we have no way to validate the insurance of the unit that wants to pull freight for us. With a traditional model carrier the certificate supplied to us naming us generally takes care of this as it is a fleet policy. In this model the company is not truly insuring and covering the fleet.

 

[Murraycroexp]

Ah ha, yeah. Insurance has to certainly have all the dots connected to not be worthless to the load. Thanks.

 

[jelliott]

Another good example. A carrier last week was still soliciting freight, yet had it's insurance cancelled and then it's authority revoked today. They are another good size player in this business model. I can only hope that the drivers hauling for this one will get paid and the carrier will fix the operating and insurance situation. I don't name names as it is never my style, but the information is all public on safersys.org and no matter what model carrier you run for it is good business practice to review this periodically.

 

[Murraycroexp]

Great tip, John!! Easy check!!

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/CompanySnapshot.aspx

 

[davekc]

And there you have it. It is a matter of risk verses reward. Over the years, many of these outfits have failed and ripped off the driver only to reopen months later under another name. Or....operate under many different names.
Must be hundreds of posts identifying these shortcomings.
With the insurance issues and many severely undercapitalized, that risk has to be considered.
It would be a more viable option if they paid considerably better, but the reality is, they don't. We have hauled for quite a few over the years, but we stay leased to a carrier to minimize unwanted exposure with regards to collections and insurance issues.
Much like other industries, they breed in a market that is oversaturated with vans and drivers that lack the knowledge that they are being taken advantage of until it is too late. Doesn't mean it can't work, but history and current posts tells us different.

 

[jelliott]

I agree Dave. Risks needed to be taken into account in any business situation. I think the model is just a little more likely to have issues due to the low barrier to entry. The lower the barrier to entry the higher the failure rates are likely to be. I think this is true in any business segment. Does it mean some good carriers running this model are out there....yes it does.

 

[roadeyes]

While I don't agree with some on here that believe it should be Sylectus' responsibility to police the carriers that are members to ensure that each vehicle in the carriers fleet is genuine and not duplicated in another members fleet, I would argue that sylectus' policy of only allowing board access to carriers with a minimum of 10 units is in fact responsible to a large degree for perpetuating the multi carrier model and as a result duplicate units. If this policy is in place to give some sense of security that the 10 unit carrier is somehow a more bonafide and legit entity than the single o/o with their own authority, we have seen on many occasions that this is indeed not the case.

 

[RedBird]

While I don't agree with some on here that believe it should be Sylectus' responsibility to police the carriers that are members to ensure that each vehicle in the carriers fleet is genuine and not duplicated in another members fleet, I would argue that sylectus' policy of only allowing board access to carriers with a minimum of 10 units is in fact responsible to a large degree for perpetuating the multi carrier model and as a result duplicate units. If this policy is in place to give some sense of security that the 10 unit carrier is somehow a more bonafide and legit entity than the single o/o with their own authority, we have seen on many occasions that this is indeed not the case.

I have agree here. If a small independent o/o has the financial stability and is legal with insurance and authority it does not matter how big your fleet is, you should be allowed to join Sylectus.

 

[roadeyes]

One could take the argument even further by claiming that in a roundabout way, sylectus' 10 minimum requirement is what is responsible for driving down rates. Let the small o/o or fleet access and they won't have to support the multi carrier leasing model anymore and won't have to fudge vehicle identification numbers to qualify.

The small carrier will no longer have to say to potential owner ops " yes I will take you on so I can qualify for Sylectus but I don't have enough business to keep 10 units busy so you better find another carrier to lease onto as well".
10-4? ;-)

 

[jelliott]

Interesting argument. I think part has to do with a what size/revenue point it is profitable for Sylectus to have as a customer. They had a small carrier program in the past. The really small carriers did not get an ROI out of it as most thought they were buying access to a freight board vs a complete dispatch software. Generally someone with a few units does not want or need a large complicated TMS. Same thing with TMW or McLeod. You need a certain size to generally see an ROI and to have it make sense.

 

[Murraycroexp]

Wasn't that why "Alliance Connect" got popular for a few years? After '08 I think everyone had to really watch ROI on even Connect, but it only took "us" about two loads a month (brokered either way) to pay for it. But that was before the per-truck charges and rate increases. And there's a WORLD of difference in cost between Connect and Pro. An owner shared with me last year what his monthly bill is for it. 100 trucks and Sprinters. It's a GREAT product, and very well "moduled", but Pro is not for ANY small carrier for sure. IMHO.

 

[jelliott]

To many think Sylectus is like an NLM or freight board. The concept of we wouldn't need multiple carriers says you are looking at it as a freight source vs having your own customers. While it does have an internal load posting section, that is not the main purpose of it. The original concept was it was a software that easily facilitated the exchange between carriers that HAD and NEEDED freight, not a one way situation.

 

[Murraycroexp]

Yep. It's best utilized as a full solution software. All but payables, I think. Carriers need their own freight. Whether its enough or not. And I can't haul it all, like the crates with plane wings in them, so THAT'S where Sylectus has helped a ton. Customer happy, truck happy, carrier happy, we're happy. Total solution.

 

[RedBird]

When I operated Blue Jay Delivery Service out of Atlanta, I had no need for load boards or Sylectus, or NLM, or Alliance. I had a customer base. And from there my reputation spread by word of mouth.
I'd get up early in the morning put a shirt and tie on and knock on doors of businesses. If I got a trip. I'd hustle home change clothes swap vehicles and be on my way! I was the sole employee! One time I used an independent to cover a load I couldn't because of equipment issues (he had a cube truck). He screwed up miserably to the point I did the job myself using a rented truck.
I guess the moral of the story is. I never went and hired unnecessary help just to say I had a big fleet. If a customer needed me and I was unavailable, I simply lost that load! As I grew then I added help, but added the equipment as asset based and not via o/o's. Once clients knew I added a cube. Business really boomed and my dad took early retirement to help. At one point we ran 4 vehicles. 1 Isuzu 16ft box truck, 2 cargo vans, 1 station wagon. Oh and my impala for small boxes too!
I did alright and kept busy! The key to my success was having a customer base. And whenever I traveled vacations, etc... I researched what industry was in the area and made sure to drop off a brochure and my business card!