Folks, I know that this has been discussed lately, but this is the first time I have actually seen the sentiment expressed in a headline (maybe I need to get out more). But, is this true, is it really as serious for truckers as the headline suggests, and if so should I assume that trains will fill some or most of the void? For example, jet freighters will hardly step up to the plate because they consume inordinate amounts of fuel per ton moved.
Comments, please.
-Crandell
No...almost all shippers pay fuel surcharges which often more than compensate for the rise in fuel prices. However, due to the slowing economy there has been more supply than demand for over a year now, and that has driven rates down.
Most truck freight involves hauls of 300 miles or less. From every standpoint...business, economic, price, and environmental...trucks are the better way to go for these short hauls other than unit train commodity type moves like from mine to utility.
selector wrote:Folks, I know that this has been discussed lately, but this is the first time I have actually seen the sentiment expressed in a headline (maybe I need to get out more). But, is this true, is it really as serious for truckers as the headline suggests, and if so should I assume that trains will fill some or most of the void? For example, jet freighters will hardly step up to the plate because they consume inordinate amounts of fuel per ton moved.Comments, please.-Crandell
It's a mixed picture. Railroads produce about 4 times as many ton-miles per gallon of fuel than trucks, so their costs are less impacted than trucks as fuel price increases. On the other hand, rising fuel costs decrease overall economic activity. As Ulrich pointed out, trucking predominates in short hauls where the high initial and final terminal cost for railroads make them less competitive, and where most shippers and receivers are not rail served in the first place.
The big picture is that rail market share will continue to increase. From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). That doesn't mean we will see dramatic shifts in market share, but I think we will see steady growth in rail traffic.
RWM
Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM What mode of transportation lost all that marketshare?
I am pretty sure it was a combination of the pack mule and carrier pigeon.
gabe wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM What mode of transportation lost all that marketshare?I am pretty sure it was a combination of the pack mule and carrier pigeon.
Water and air...
LC
John R.
Limitedclear wrote: gabe wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM What mode of transportation lost all that marketshare?I am pretty sure it was a combination of the pack mule and carrier pigeon.Water and air...LC
Water and pipeline, actually. Air market share is volatile because it's so small but it averages out to a growth rate in between truck and rail. Air market share is expected to shrink considerably, however, for domestic freight, due partially to fuel cost and partially to changes in logistics and improvements in trucking that make trucking much more competitive with air.
Pipeline loss of market share testifies to our steeply declining domestic oil production -- the commodities they carry are not moving by rail or truck with the notable exception of ethanol. Ethanol is a refined petroleum substitute and at present does not move long distances by pipeline.
Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.
When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
Beware the hyperextended trend! If gasoline or diesel fuel goes up by twenty cents this week, does that mean it will be over $7.00 a gallon by July? I doubt that very much.
IMO it is irresponsible for a mass-distribution blog (or newspaper or magazine) to post such a scare headline. It makes opinion sound like a cold hard fact that an entire job category and segment of American transportation is inevitably headed toward oblivion. It isn't true, it isn't honest, and it isn't right.
This does not mean I think everything is hunky-dory with American trucking. I feel for those being squeezed, particularly the indepedent owner/operators. Actually, the squeeze has been on for some years. It may or may not get worse. It is probably prudent to expect it to get worse. It might be accurate to say that the number of l-d tractor-trailers on the road next year will be fewer. OTOH nobody can forecast the future with such accuracy. If they could . . . well, the government could run everything and we'd all be content under socialism, wouldn't we?
Bucyrus wrote:When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
Yes, but the trash haulers usually have a contract or franchise with a city, which allows them to pass on such costs. No competitors untill contract is up for renegotiation...
Independent owner operators are bidding for business...and there is competition. Even with large trucking firms, those who are already on the edge, possibly because of over expansion or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, may decide to hang it up.
But they wont all go out of business...when there are fewer to compete, the rates will go up enough so a few will be able to survive...and the price will be passed along to the consumer, assuming they still have money to buy whatever the item is.
I have seen trucking make sufficient noise to shut down the USA via cb radio way back when desiel was 1.99 a gallon. If it broke the magic 2.00 we would park it all.
It was a very bad time back then. We would carry 300 gallon tanks or more and 2.00 was very serious money every thousnad miles or so (Anywhere from 24 hours/team to 2 days single or.. up to 5 days regional including 8 hours idle time per rest) that is about 4 miles to gallon more or less and 20 years ago.
My last truck on 9-11 paid 4+ dollars PER gallon and still got 6 miles to the gallon, we were a team reefer set (Husband and Wife) and had way too many loads in demand. Our job was to grab late loads and whisk them in off single drivers we still carried 300 gallons of fuel and filled once every 24/hours regardless of fuel state.
Take note: Those tanks got filled with good cetane desiel regardless of the price on that pump. IF it was 10.00/gallon tough... we take a fill up. Company can deal with it. If they at any time say dont fillup because it was too expensive... why we are unemployed and serving no useful purpose... time to go home any way we can.
Way back when food for breakfast, a complete meal was 4.50 for everything. So much food it takes several plates to hold it all. Now that same food is one plate for 12.00 plus extras. We had a complete kitchen in the sleeper and cooked our own on the move skipping the truck stop completely. We would buy apples in Yakima Warehouses direct at .30/pound instead of walmart at 1.00 per pound.
Now those apples are 1.40 or more per pound.
Folks, there is only one solution. Have the shippers pay the price of freight and make it happen. The customers will pay for the food they need and everything else will stop selling so much.
Eventually the cost of diesel will exceed income and bills and stop the truck.
Tough. No trucks no shippie.
I think they will start to try and work around this by shipping the apples 200 miles at a time across the USA using many trucks to Atlanta for example. Outrageous.
Some time ago in these forums there was a special train that was produced. One that ran from Yakima to Albany NY for transloading onto trucks to the markets.
That friends, is the key to our national ability to survive our food needs. Train it over and truck it down the street.
Oh no... no rails? No rail docks? No choo choos? No room on the transcon?
Well, tough. We need to make it happen.
Oh my! No food?
Now that is tough and not too pretty.
I think the economy will strip the public of the ability to buy sufficient food per week leaving the rest to rot on the shelf.
There will still be trucks. but they will not go very far and boy will they be expensive. If I was a owner operator now with a 600 CAT 379 Pete getting 6 miles/gallon I wont turn a wheel for less than 2.00 per mile and shipper pays fuel surcharge both ways.
It's amazing how that two dollars get underfoot.
Pay a truck, pay insurance, pay fuel, pay tags, pay the maintaince, pay the driver or drivers, pay the 10% fund required to protect catastrpohic breakdowns etc. I think 10 years ago you needed 1.10 per mile to turn a profit.
Now you need GPS mileage to account for all miles from A to B and make it all payable none of that HHG mileage crap.
One day I fear the trucks will stop in the USA. When they do, Gas first gone, food next and important supplies such as medicals third. Everything else will dry up within a month.
Whose fault is that? The people who ripped up the railroad from all those nice warehouses? The people who stack everything into JIT and lie awake at night when one important part moves too slowly? The people who sent jobs over seas to China and Mexico that can work on much less cost? But now the west coast is filling up with shipping sitting at sea unable to unload for a time?
HAH. We deserve it.
OK Guys
Living in a New England state and in the sand and gravel buisness trucks are a necesity. The past couple of months has seen a drastic reduction of sales and production. Most of our independant truckers have either sold their trucks or just parked them. They just cant make any money right now. Its sad to hear a flat tire could lose all the profits for a month. My company has 20 trucks hauling each day and goes through 4 thousand galons of fuel each day between trucks and loaders and other equipment. Fuel cost is the greatest expense next to tires and maintenance. If the cost goes up on fuel what are you going to sacrifice to pay the extra? I have nothing against companies making a profit but do oil companies have to make that much profit at the expence of the average joes just trying to live?
Exon/Mobile $360 BILLION profit for 2006. To me thats just greed and they cant justify the increase of refined products.
Just blowin off steam
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Bucyrus wrote:Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
Costs are passed on as long as the consumer is willing to pay. Eventually the consumer (1) buys less of whatever it is; (2) substitutes a different product to fill the need which has lower included transportation charges; (3) substitutes from a different source which has lower included transportation charges; (4) runs out of cash altogether and quits buying anything.
Some consumer needs are fairly inelastic and the consumer will absorb significantly higher prices: energy, health care, groceries, and transportation to and from the job are very inelastic. Some consumer purchase patterns are highly elastic: newer and bigger houses, new cars, new TV sets, dinners out, vacations, etc. Most of these have a significant trucking cost built in. When people quit trying to upgrade their houses, the construction business dives, the trucking that supported it stops, and the people who were engaged in that trucking business see if they can move into some other trucking line and engage in price competition with the established operations in order to attract the business. High-cost operations are driven out of business, those with poor cash flow are starved out, and many people who remain find that profit margins or wages are so low that they can do better working at a 7-11, or just quit working altogether and live off their spouse's salary or whatever pension they might have from the military or some other prior occupation.
JSGreen wrote: Bucyrus wrote:When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business. Yes, but the trash haulers usually have a contract or franchise with a city, which allows them to pass on such costs. No competitors untill contract is up for renegotiation...Independent owner operators are bidding for business...and there is competition. Even with large trucking firms, those who are already on the edge, possibly because of over expansion or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, may decide to hang it up. But they wont all go out of business...when there are fewer to compete, the rates will go up enough so a few will be able to survive...and the price will be passed along to the consumer, assuming they still have money to buy whatever the item is.
What I am saying is that the trash haulers have no competitors who are not equally affected by rising fuel prices whether they are contracted with the city or are independent. Mine is independent, but I could not go to one of their competitors to escape the fuel induced rising rates because their competitors are raising their rates for the same fuel increases.
However, I do have one escape from the rising trash hauling cost. I can find an alternative to that service. It is not easy in the case of trash disposal, but the same principle applies to all consumer goods that will be rising in price due to fuel price increases. This is one factor that will definitely put truckers out of business. As prices rise, consumers will cut their consumption wherever they can. That means less things get hauled, so fewer haulers are required.
Railway Man wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business. Costs are passed on as long as the consumer is willing to pay. Eventually the consumer (1) buys less of whatever it is; (2) substitutes a different product to fill the need which has lower included transportation charges; (3) substitutes from a different source which has lower included transportation charges; (4) runs out of cash altogether and quits buying anything.Some consumer needs are fairly inelastic and the consumer will absorb significantly higher prices: energy, health care, groceries, and transportation to and from the job are very inelastic. Some consumer purchase patterns are highly elastic: newer and bigger houses, new cars, new TV sets, dinners out, vacations, etc. Most of these have a significant trucking cost built in. When people quit trying to upgrade their houses, the construction business dives, the trucking that supported it stops, and the people who were engaged in that trucking business see if they can move into some other trucking line and engage in price competition with the established operations in order to attract the business. High-cost operations are driven out of business, those with poor cash flow are starved out, and many people who remain find that profit margins or wages are so low that they can do better working at a 7-11, or just quit working altogether and live off their spouse's salary or whatever pension they might have from the military or some other prior occupation. RWM
Bucyrus wrote: Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
RWM,
I posted the previous before seeing your post here so I have inadvertently duplicated some of what you have said. I think you have detailed the scenario well.
There is just one problem with your million Truck scenario mr Trainshop...
For every truck on the road today there is about 10 people working in a variety of departments to keep it rolling.
Tire boy
Tire Manager
OSD Manager and crew
Logs checker
Log archive manager (Usually a trailer in the back for 6 months worth of logs PER driver.)
Pallet Boss
Tarriff and Billing
Dispute and Drug Testors
Comchecks and Money Officers
Driver Enforcers for problem workers
Managers of orientations
Handlers of recruits
Trailer/Truck outfitter and crew
Shop mechanic or two
Shop Boss
Permits person
Saftey Boss
Recruiter
Dispatcher
Night dispatcher
Janitor
Problem Solver
Road trip Tester
Officers of Company
The Secretaries of the officers and managers
Fuel Boss
Gaurd Shack people
Jockeys
LCL Boss
Bosses of all departments
Board, Admin, Safety, Dispatching, Purchasing, Breakdowns
Hell way more than 10 people to keep a truck going and we aint hit the truck stop workers yet.
Sure stop a million trucks but be prepared for 10 million unemployment claims.
Consider JB Hunt. There are 14,000 trucks rolling each day.
If that JB Hunt Stops... walmart WILL stop overnight, intermodal next day.
I dont see a way to profitability.
Not under the current system, especially when one considers the amount being charged off to expenses of running that business to dear old uncle sam.
Falls Valley RR~~very well put subject matter. We have had to deal with this as you state. Our 379 /w 475 kitty Had a pair of 200 gal tks., xtnd. cab had all the comforts of ( home) . Meals on wheels was better than some slop chutes.As you know , you and her made better time cuttin' a few corners ~~ namely cheater brokers . But there is always a trade off. Repair costs raises and so forth. Right now, Brown trucks with LTL are going good. The little yellow trucks red lettered are leaving soon for the home land. Once again greed will prevail. Ya'll take care now
Respectfully, Cannonball & Hurricane ( ret.)
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Falls Valley RR wrote: There will still be trucks. but they will not go very far and boy will they be expensive. If I was a owner operator now with a 600 CAT 379 Pete getting 6 miles/gallon I wont turn a wheel for less than 2.00 per mile and shipper pays fuel surcharge both ways.It's amazing how that two dollars get underfoot.Pay a truck, pay insurance, pay fuel, pay tags, pay the maintaince, pay the driver or drivers, pay the 10% fund required to protect catastrpohic breakdowns etc. I think 10 years ago you needed 1.10 per mile to turn a profit.
Why would a trucker need a 600 HP engine?
Anyway, if you didn't turn a wheel how would you make your truck payment? They might not be making any personal income, but they can stay in business by running at low rates - at least until they have that catastrophic breakdown. That's all these particular truckers are running for now - trying to hang on and keep their trucks.
To put things in perspective, the USDA reports that last week the highest rate on a truckload of produce from Santa Maria, CA to Chicago was $3,400. That's $1.57/mile for 2,161 miles. Highway fuel is around $3.55/gallon. At six MPG he'll burn about $1,280 worth of diesel fuel, which is 37.6% of his gross. (And that does not include the fuel he'll use in the TK keeping the produce at the right temperature.) There is no way these guys can stay in business over the long term.
And there is no way people are going to go without this food. Which means it's going to go either to rail movement or be imported by ship. (The truck rates could go up enough to make trucking viable, but rail will come into play first.)
Long haul movements, such as California produce, should never have diverted from rail to truck. They did so largely because of asinine Federal Government regulation of rail rates on produce. (Truck rates on produce were never regulated.) Now the railroads are going to have to reequip themselves to move this food. If they don't we won't get our veggies (or our pork chops for that matter.)
locoi1sa wrote: Exon/Mobile $360 BILLION profit for 2006. To me thats just greed and they cant justify the increase of refined products.
ExxonMobil's profit margin is lower than BNSF; British Petroleum's profit margin is about one-half of BNSF.
Are you saying the railroads are greedy and damaging the economy and the consumer?
Isn't profit supposed to be a good thing?
That 600 horse engine will not conume so much fuel per hour working hard upgrade. When you come down from the Rockies and get into the Nebraska/Kansas/Texas.. those winds blow and finally when you get to the little bitty rolling hills, you can haul down tourque and keep it steady without the drama of going up and down your high range.
If the fleets would just sacrifice 700 pounds of gross and make APU's madatory to provide hotel power, engine standby heat good down to -50 and 110 Volt Marine grade house power that will eliminate the idle and provide teh driver with options outside of the truckstop.
I understand that Petro and some others provide engine off live support to the cab with heat, air con, cable tv etc... for about 2 bucks an hour. Give me a break.. I can save that 2 dollars per hour and just idle.
If the recievers understand that all trucks lose BAD and endanger other shippers in the area by excessive sloth in unloading or sticking to plus or minus 15 minutes of required on time delivery (Or you get told to go away and get a new appointment tomorrow) things will be better.
Parking is another problem. When I stopped driving, I remember leaving The GWB prepared to drive all the way down past Knoxville, Raliegh or Charles town before even thinking of trying to park for the night when out of hours.
Ive had it up to here with 5 day lost time lounging around the bullpen of a meat plant out in ... garden city or similar then being told that if I dont get the beef to Salinas in 40 hours (Before 9 am monday) I will be out of a job and the company out of an account. This isnt the time to be weak and wussy.
Trains can stop when dead on the law and get a new crew. Truckers must dig down, find some oorah and endure 2400+ miles at once to try and be sure Salinas will have meat to eat early in the week.
I can complain and moan all night and never run out of issues that rob truckers, company and shippers/recievers of lost time, money, oppertunities etc.
Here is one more. No matter how little money is offered for a load... some starving trucker somewhere will take it. because of this... no one can set rates that benefit all.
Falls Valley RR wrote:If the fleets would just sacrifice 700 pounds of gross and make APU's madatory to provide hotel power, engine standby heat good down to -50 and 110 Volt Marine grade house power that will eliminate the idle and provide teh driver with options outside of the truckstop.
Not sure if you would need 700 pounds for the APU (though you're more likely to know than I would), but the idea of an APU does make a lot of sense. You might be able to get similar benefits with a Li-ion battery pack plus a small diesel fired heater to keep the engine warm. Either way would beat idling the main engine.
How about a lower speed limit? How would that affect trucking costs? These environmentalists say re-imposing the 55 MPH speed limit is "low hanging fruit" when it comes to ideas for how to save the earth from annihilation from CO2. If 55 MPH is low hanging fruit, wouldn't 45 be lower hanging fruit?
Full story here:
http://drive55.org/content/view/39/1/
Speed does not matter.
Plan a trip from LA to Freehold and you will average 35 mph as a single and about 50 as a team.
Alot of these trucks are casterated as they are anyhow. Some trucks have incorrect governer settings and inadequate power curve setttings where they cannot maintain cruise speed in a strong wind without downshifting and losing 4 mph.
The two lane interstates from the 60's are not working and the three laners have bad accidents almost daily. Split speed limits really excaberate the problem. No one will be at 55 mph when cars are flying up to thier ICC bumper at 70+ Decapitation is a possibility.
We are already late. How slower do you want the freight?
We all might have to go 24/7 teams just to beat the slower speed limits at great cost to the drivers who must share one revenue source out of the truck each week.
Another problem:
People have no issues waiting on China to make the widget. Then waiting a month for that widget to sail the great wide pacific sea at 20 mph. As soon as it clears customs they want that widget yesterday.
I have been on both sides of the speed problem. One company put computers and enforced 55 mph with instant no questions firing at 69 mph. That 55 mph in the south made me a very sleepy, slow and lethargic worker. I had lots of trouble waiting for cars to smash into my bumper.
So I said screw it and quit that company.
On the other side I was running a true dollar truck that was just amazing all around. 110 mph eastbound on 80 across PA was not hard at all except milesburg. Going the other way you climbed milesburg in the left lane at 70+ mph loaded and it felt like a fast elevator with power to spare.
I quit that company too because I was still late and had lost way too much time in the docks getting loaded. Plus the tickets were eating into the fat paychecks.
After that cooled off...
Speed is always going to be a problem. No one is happy. I myself is waiting on UPS this morning for parts from Ontario CA. Those parts have cross every mile of the southwest at 60 mph Ive waited three days for these parts. UPS has proven to me that they can make the delivery happen in three days. Im proud of them. Teams and doubles all the way.
I would have had the parts flown overnight and in hand friday if I understood the vendor's order system a little better.
Next time I will make that happen. Forget the truck. Have em Fly it.
Finally but not last...
I spent the last years of my driving solely at night. The only time you can get out and roll to make any kind of distance.. 5 or 6 hundred miles in hours is at night between 9 PM and 7 AM.
Everyone is asleep and the only problem remained was to either finish the delivery or find a safe spot to hole up to sleep while everyone else endures bad commute and roadrage.
The trouble is the simple fact that the Trucking industry is WAY TO OVERCAPCITY. Ever go to Ontario CA there will be drivers sitting there for days trying to get a load out of there for the same company why to many trucks coming in not enough coming out at high enough rates. Also shippers refuse to pay anything to have us haul it tehy think that it is still 1977 and Carter is in the Whitehouse. Truckers haul freight today for the same rates they got paid in the 70 yet all their costs went up by 300% they are forced to make cuts in somplace. Fuel does not cost 50 cents a gallon anymore try close to 4 Bucks a gallon anymore also IRP and taxes and Insurance are alot higher. I did a look at the Revenue of what I did in 2000 and compared it to what my dad did in 1982 guess what only increased 10% yet the costs were 90% higher FOR ME.
People wonder why we are shipping things in from China anymore it is because no company in the US can produce it for what the Retail stores like Wal-Mart Target and the other Big Box stores will pay.
I would like to thank all those who contributed to the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts and the time you took to provide me with some input. It seems time will tell how it all unfolds. Folks still want their catalog purchases in a few days, and if that is a leather sofa, it will still want to go by an 18 wheeler in most respects.
The Trucking (Independents)., need to come together., long as they will cut each others throats over a load., they will be like this 10 years from now., my philosophy, is if you cant make any money., dont do it, pretty simple., believe a lot of truckers are just that., but not good with the business skills., just my opinion., but have you ever noticed., about everything we use in day to day existing is brought to you by a Truck!
People talk as if Exxon's profits are somehow destroying America. Folks, Exxon is owned by YOU and ME. It's not a cabal of evil men sitting around laughing at our misfortunes. No, America's economy is intricately interwoven with Exxon and the other oil companies. What WILL hurt America is if Hillary or Obama (edited by selector) decides that they should steal (and I mean STEAL) from these companies in order to make life "fair". We should all be concerned about their long, sticky fingers.
As for the rising fuel costs, I believe it will all shake out in the end. For one thing, if costs go too high, won't the slowing economy eventually drive prices down again? Also, the free market is a wonderful, wonderful thing when pressured into action; men and women with genius IQs are burning the midnight oil (pardon the pun) to come up with alternative energy sources. I truly believe that we will see a huge increase in battery-operated vehicles, including big trucks, in my lifetime (I'm 35). I think we'll see nuclear energy come back into play. Windmills are producing significant amounts of power and are being built like crazy in the USA. While oil still may be king of the hill, don't think that it is irreplaceable.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.