BNSF prostrates itself [bow] before the feet of it's Chinese Overlords.

[Bergie]

I'm locking this so the flamefest doesn't get completely out of control.

Bergie

[oltmannd]

Bonk!

P1: Ouch! Why'd ya hit me? I came here for an OA agruement!

P2: Oh, sorry, it's "getting hit on the head leasons", here.

P1: How can I tell the difference?

...with appologies to Monty Pyton.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Lotus, why do you refer to guns so much? Do you view them as a power symbol? Consider this....any woman can pull the trigger. Do they make an otherwise weak little boy feel tough? A scared person hides behind a gun (barring military and people actually defending their lives and sportsmen).

Shee, is everything in life that complicated for you? I just have a fascination with weaponry the same way I do with trains. You know guns are referred to as great equalizers, so no it isn’t because I am pretending to be a man. You are the one who seems to think you are some high and might authority over me; you are the one who has to prove you are tough.

QUOTE: In fact in a toe to toe situation with you and a person who can defend themselves without a weapon, you doubtfully would use the weapon and proceed to get your little butt beaten.

Don’t bet your life on it!

QUOTE: Your little computer geek likeness of me is cute, made me smile. Now stop playing with the computer so much and start looking at girls and establish yourself as a boy.

Glad you have a sense of humor. Man, where do you guys get off thinking you know all of what I do? Maybe I chase girls, maybe I don’t; what skin is it off you nose, anyways. I thought you wanted me to stop with the guns, no it’s the computer, make up your mind.

QUOTE: Kid, you badly need to get into a non weapon oriented altercation......

Like railroads maybe! Maybe it comes from watching too many cowboy movies, maybe I inherited it, maybe it doesn’t matter to the topic of this thread a hill of beans.

James, now look what you did

[nanaimo73]

Futuremodal,
BNSF management works for the shareholders, and their job is to make BNSF stock rise. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work ?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979

If I'd have known this was going to turn into a barbeque, I would have brought ribs.

Just brought another batch of popcorn over from the Diner, hope it doesen't go as fast as the last batch.

Randy

Careful Randy, I think either Limitedclear or Mookie have the current popcorn concession. [:D]

I brought my own popcorn, I just used the machine!! Honest!!

Randy

Open Access Popcorn![:O]

[Anonymous]

No problem, with this thread I'm on to marshmallows anyhow. Plenty of flames to toast 'em here...lol...

LC

[rvos1979]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979

If I'd have known this was going to turn into a barbeque, I would have brought ribs.

Just brought another batch of popcorn over from the Diner, hope it doesen't go as fast as the last batch.

Randy

Careful Randy, I think either Limitedclear or Mookie have the current popcorn concession. [:D]

I brought my own popcorn, I just used the machine!! Honest!!

Randy

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979

If I'd have known this was going to turn into a barbeque, I would have brought ribs.

Just brought another batch of popcorn over from the Diner, hope it doesen't go as fast as the last batch.

Randy

Careful Randy, I think either Limitedclear or Mookie have the current popcorn concession. [:D]

[rvos1979]

If I'd have known this was going to turn into a barbeque, I would have brought ribs.

Just brought another batch of popcorn over from the Diner, hope it doesen't go as fast as the last batch.

Randy

[Anonymous]

Lotus, why do you refer to guns so much? Do you view them as a power symbol? Consider this....any woman can pull the trigger. Do they make an otherwise weak little boy feel tough? A scared person hides behind a gun (barring military and people actually defending their lives and sportsmen). In fact in a toe to toe situation with you and a person who can defend themselves without a weapon, you doubtfully would use the weapon and proceed to get your little butt beaten. Your little computer geek likeness of me is cute, made me smile. Now stop playing with the computer so much and start looking at girls and establish yourself as a boy. Kid, you badly need to get into a non weapon oriented altercation......get your little butt kicked in and learn some humility. I strongly doubt you pop off to your peers face to face without the cover and anonimity of the internet. It would be a charachter building excercise for you. Man up kid.

[daveklepper]

Considering the resentment among many USA citizens about the amount of consumer products used in America but manufactured overseas, perhaps the best thing BNSF could have done would have been to downplay and not trumpet this expansion of their business. Of course they do want to look successful, and that is the basis of their PR in this case, but they have lots of other successes to point to and might have not made such a fuss over this one.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I beg to differ, you're the one who started the insults.

So refering to them as "Chinese overlords" is NOT degrading?

And saying BNSF "prostrates itself" is not demeaning?

The grain hauling market is hardly tapped out BUT very seasonal. The railroads payments for financing and purchasing the specialized rolling stock for grain shipment is NOT seasonal, they have to pay year round for assets that are used at the most half the year. Based on this one fact, they SHOULD charge a higher rate when the shipping actually takes place. Rolling stock that sits idle for such a large percentage of the year is hardly as good an investment of assets as compared to rolling stock that moves freight year round. So yes, it's easy to see WHY BNSF, (or any railroad for that matter) is reluctant to expand their capacity to haul grain. The RVC figure you quote is based on when the grain actually moves, and does not include the losses incurred by having to make payments on rolling stock that sits idle for so long. The railroads will be looking more at the return on investment when deciding what type rolling stock to purchase.

THANK YOU, I see in your final paragraph you've finally answered the first question. BNSF will be charging the same rate for all intermodal business. This is the "apples to apples" comparison I was talking about. That wasn't one of "my tangents," that was the question as to why you didn't compare these two rates.

As far as the "Chinese allowing themselves to be captive to movement" this is the nature of the international freight movement. Intermodal is the prefered method of shipment, and not just from China. No other intermodal shipper, regardless of country of origin, is captive, so the Chinese shippers are simply following established shipping procedures, not being "Overlords" to BNSF, or any other shipping company.

What you haven't explained is how "BNSF has prostrated themselves" by pursuing new business that is a steady, year round income, which will be coming to this country wheter BNSF move is or some other shipper does.

Seems more a "getting the jump on the competition" type thing to me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I am concluding that it is impossible for you to have insult-free conversation.

FM, you insult our intelligence EVERY TIME YOU POST...

Your very existence is an insult to every thinking person reading this board.

LC

[arbfbe]

I do find it amazing that all these vetted business gurus on the railroads are spending tremendous efforts in increasing the volume of their low return business as in intermodal when the railroads major problem for the time being is their limited capacity to handle the volume they have now. Both the UP and the BNSF have tracks and yards so plugged with traffic they can hardly move trains at times and the trains that do move are days behind their schedules. So the top level managers, all those guys with the big picture view of the company are out looking for more volume at low profit to add to the mess they now have on their hands.

I suppose a business trip to China is far more exotic than another trip to Gillette, WY to solicit traffic..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Dave,

I don't understand either. How exactly are the US shippers captive, and the Chinese ones aren't? What exactly do you mean by a captive shipper, or this an open access problem? While Tom may not be correct on his thinking, his question seemed valid; without this knowledge how do we know who is a “captive” shipper. Could you enlighten us dummies to the answer of that question?

CURE defines rail captivity based on the STB's 180% RVC standard, wherein rates where the RVC is above 180% are considered captive. For a general definition, rail captivity occurs wherein a rail shipper (those whose product moves logically by rail, e.g. chemicals, mt of coal or grain, et al) has a physical connection (e.g. a spur or siding) to only one Class I, and/or where certain areas of the country have only one Class I available within a medium to short truck haul to the nearest railhead, e.g. a captive intermodal terminal.

Your part of the Great State of Idaho is captive to UP both physically and geographically. If a grain shipper wants to move a thousand tons a month to Portland and doesn't like the rate being offered by UP, he has no other choice. Trucking that much grain would be too expensive. If one of those proposed coal fired power plants are actually built in Southern Idaho, they will be captive to UP and will end up paying a rate that is twice that of coal plants with competitive rail access.

Overseas importers are for the most part immune to US rail captivity, because most of the major US seaside ports have more than one Class I to provide service. Furthermore, most US consumption markets are also in areas with access to two or more Class I's as well as barge and shortsea shipping. I'm not completely sure, but I think the only major US consumption market that is captive to one Class I is the Phoenix-Tuscon area, which is now captive to UP if it's true that BNSF no longer has a branch down to Phoenix. Okay, I guess you can count Boise if you want to call your area a major US consumption market, but I don't think the Boise-Caldwell corridor is considered a major US consumption market by most marketing professionals (otherwise you guys would have a professional sports team or two!)

Therefore, it is basically impossible for overseas imports into the US to be subject to captive rates, while most captive rail customers are US producers, and all captive shippers in the world are located in North America. No where else in the world do you see the monopolistic tactics being exhibited by the US railroads, such as differential pricing, bottleneck gouging, paper barriers to shortlines, etc.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

Popcorn, Beer, ..Pretty soon the gloves will come off and the duel will start....Popcorn, Peanuts![(-D][(-D][oops] Time to trot out the boxing gloves.

All right vsmith that's it. Gloves shcmoves, break out the dueling pistols.

Vic...I'll gladly be your second on this one......besides I've got more time firing black powder than he's been alive.


Dan

HHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA [(-D]

Dan thats funny, thanks for the offer...How about giving the little punka$$ a good spanking and sending him to bed without his supper! and no allowance for a month![;)]

The thing these guys dont understand is that for me, this is like watching "Beavis and B_tthead" , where your not laughing along with the main characters because their funny or witty, no, your laughing because their such idiots and do and say such stupid things that you cant help laughing AT them.[(-D]

Nice set of pistols though!
Early American dueling flintlock's, 50cal likely, walnut stocks. Cooool, keep your assault rifle ***-extenders, I'll take a Kentucky long rifle anyday of the week, actually that Sharps Ed mentioned also sound really interesting. I like early American firearms up to the close of the frontier, like to get a Sharps dropbolt carbine, the early Calvary version, but I got into model trains instead. Less expensive.[8)]


Com'on Lotus buddy, be our Beavis and say it for us ...
".. I AM CORNHOLIO, I need TP for my Bunghooool...."[D)]

LMAO in LA Vic[(-D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[daveklepper]

Thge Chinese don't teach people a religion that makes them want to fly airplanes into buildings.

[Anonymous]

Dave,

I don't understand either. How exactly are the US shippers captive, and the Chinese ones aren't? What exactly do you mean by a captive shipper, or this an open access problem? While Tom may not be correct on his thinking, his question seemed valid; without this knowledge how do we know who is a “captive” shipper. Could you enlighten us dummies to the answer of that question?

[spbed]

Me thinks you have never worked in a steamship line therefore you have no idea how rates are established between a RR & the steamship line to move both the import & export containers inland once they either arrive in the USA or at the inland city in the USA to go export overseas.

While Walmart bashing is in favor these days all I will say is you are way, way, way off based base with your theories that you posted in this thread.
[:(]

Originally posted by futuremodal
[

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply