Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, Tom, if you have a question for me just ask me straight out. I don't do third person inquiries. [/quote] Boy, talk about dense. I hope you can read questions better than this when it comes time to take your SAT's. FM's aviodance tactics are in full swing now. [/quote] OK, let's see if I can dumb them down enough for you. I'll only ask one at a time so I don't overload your mind. You stated in the original post that the BNSF charges a higher rate for captive shippers than they are proposing for the anticipated intermodal business from China. Now, this is the question: How does the rate that BNSF currently charges for intermodal service to existing customers compare with the rate for the potential new intermodal business? Sort of comparing apples to apples [/quote] No, it is nothing like comparing apples to apples. The framing of your question is illogical if you are basing that question on my previous post regarding the fact that BNSF (and all Class I's) charge rates for captive customers that are usually twice those of non-captive customers. So if the "potential new intermodal business" is of the same non-captive status as all other Asian import business, the rate for the new business will also be on the low side of the RVC equation. It's a given. You could have figured this out if you had thought it through. Why would you think differently? Do you have any evidence that this new import business from China will be a higher rate than other Asian import business? There is no way BNSF or any other railroad can make any Asian imports captive, because there are always other options available. BTW, why not try to ask questions of a more intellectual nature? Your last question was not "dumbed down" so much as it was just plain dumb, because the answer was so blatantly obvious. If you can't ask intelligent questions, then stop wasting my time. And if you can't ask a question without throwing in an insult, then don't bother. [/quote] I guess in your feeble, narrow minded Socialist view, there isn't a difference. To admit that the rates charged for different types of freight might be (shock of shocks) DIFFERENT would throw you "argument" right out the window. You're so intent on pushing a Chinese bigoted agenda I guess you wouldn't see that rates for current intermodal business would be compared to the proposed rates for new intermodal business for an acurate comparison. Since you can't answer the question placed before you, I guess you would consider it "dumb." You say yourself that the rates they charge for "captive customers" is different by a large factor compared to intermodal business. Since the potential new business is intermodal, the question was "why aren't you comparing current intermodal rates to proposed new business intermodal rates?" And if this WEREN'T an anti Chinese rant, why then would your title be "BNSF Prostrates Itself Before the Feet of it's Chinese Overlords?" rather than "BNSF Charges Excessive Rates to Captive Shippers?" As far as evidence of the new rates, you were the one that brought it up in the first place, but curiously, compared the existing rates for "captive shippers" to potential new intermodal business. The fact that they have different rates for different types of business is a given in all facets of the transportation business, not just railroads or just the BNSF. If BNSF is "prostrating itself at the feet of it's Chinese overlords" they would also be "prostrating themselves at the feet" of all their intermodal customers. Existing intermodal business compared to potential new intermodal business would definately be comparing apples to apples in terms of transportation rates. [/quote] I am concluding that it is impossible for you to have insult-free conversation. Well, no one can say I didn't go out of my way to give you that opportunity. So because my topic is titled provacatively, that makes me an anti-Chinese bigot? A classic far left tactic to try and demean the POV, yet if you looked at the title carefully, you will see that there is no explicit or implicit degradation of China or it's people, rather I do explicitly demean that great American corporation known as BNSF. Therefore, you would have every right to call me an anti-BNSF bigot based on the topic title. What I am regarding China is opposed to their lack of civil and religious liberties, their constant threats over Tawian, etc. That is beside the point of this topic. What is relevent is that comparative rates for US captive goods moving from plant to US port are higher than rates for overseas goods being hauled from US port to US consumption markets. This is reflected in the relative RVC ratios, where the highest RVC's are for US produced goods, while the lowest RVC's are for international double stacks. BTW, the grain hauling market is hardly tapped out, otherwise why would grain hopper orders be tending toward more and more delays. The demand for moving grain is exceeding the willingness or ability of the railroads to meet that demand. Since grain offers some of the highest RVC ratios, you would think the railroads would use those excess profits to expand capacity to move that grain. But instead they use their excess domestic profits to expand capacity for import intermodal. I'll set you straight on one of your tangents: There will be no difference in the rates being charged now for Asian imports and the "new" business proposed from China. There is ample competition for the movement of overseas goods to US consumption markets, and competition is what keeps rates down. No Chinese exporter would be so dumb as to allow a captive movement of those US imports. It was a dumb question to begin with.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag