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

[Anonymous]

Dave, it's over. Stop agruing with the furnitrure. They don't have any facts never will.

[zardoz]

[V][:(][sigh][zzz][zzz][zzz][soapbox]

C'mon guys, this supposed to be (I thought) a place where we could come to share our common interest in railroading, relax, and have fun.

Not too long ago, I almost got caught up in a political blabering session, but I quickly tired of the constant bickering, and just gave up.

Politics is what it is; and do you not agree that perhaps we would be better off here on the TRAINS forums without it, unless it is truly relevant to the topic at hand.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Lotus098

You really ought to stop putting on headphones and listening to tapes of Rush Limbaugh while you sleep. It will cause your brain to atrophy... from left to right.

So that's why it's called the fastest three hours in media. [:D][zzz] At least I hear both sides of the story.[;)]

B O T H sides of the story from Rush. You have to be kidding ! ! !

Man have you been brain washed.

Rush is NEVER wrong, just ask him.

I think David Gunn's comments about this administration said it all the other day, you know, the one Vic quoted. [;)]

[edblysard]

The original M16 in production had a cruddy barrel, and a plain, non chromed receiver...jammed quite easily from powder fouling with a standard cartridge, was too light for it's firepower, (see the post about climbing) and had a short, composite one piece front stock.
The barrel tended to warp if you used it a lot in continuous firing...
Later mods included chromed receiver, (and a better powder, cleaner/cooler powder in the ammunition) built in cleaning kit in the rear stock/butt, and a two piece plastic coated aluminum front stock, with a tension rod, quick change barrel.
Later mods include the 3 bullet burst, to conserve ammo.
The AR15 was released, with all the above mentioned faults, before the M16, as a test bed for civilians...production ceased with the military orders...and resumed for a few years after, in some instances the excess stock of the military version was de rated to a civilian version...close checking of the serial number will let you find out if you have a M16 set up as a late model AR15...
Many, many mods exist for the AR15, from some superb barrels, to a smoother ejector, and a kit to change the top carry handle to an excellent scope mount.
For a target gun on the less expensive side it is a excellent weapon, if you hand load, then perfectly flat 100 yard shots in a two inch group are quite easy with the stock peep sights...as a hunting gun, its ok, but not as good as I like in brush...give me my old 30-30 or the Springfield for shooting through brush...the Springfield’s bullet is slow, but when it hits something, you can count on it going down hard.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Actually James,
The AR15 is not the same as a M16...I know, I own one of the original AR15s, with the stubby composite front stock, and one of the later ones with the full stock.
Also have a M16, and 1861 Springfield 45.70 trapdoor Carbine, several Model 1911 Colt Commanders, and number of original black powder weapons...well, enough guns to fill two gun safes and a chest.

But I did get want I needed from your response...so thank you for being so prompt.

Ed

Man, I wish I had those. What's the difference between an AR, and an M-16, is it just that the M-16 can fire three rounds with one pull of the trigger? Just what did you want from my response?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098
So that's why it's called the fastest three hours in media. [:D][zzz] At least I hear both sides of the story.[;)]

B O T H sides of the story from Rush. You have to be kidding ! ! !

As you can see, he didn't say he got both sides of the story from Rush. Even the most ardent listener of Rush's show can admit that he is coming soley from the side of conservatism. I think what Lotus is refering to is getting the left side of the issue from the usual suspects aka ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NPR/NYT/et al, and then balancing that with Rush/FoxNews/Hannity/Medved/ et al. That's actually what most of us conservatives do, we take in both sides to get the complete picture, then make our own independent decisions regarding the issues of the day.

I seriously doubt any of the lefties on this forum do the same.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098
So that's why it's called the fastest three hours in media. [:D][zzz] At least I hear both sides of the story.[;)]

B O T H sides of the story from Rush. You have to be kidding ! ! !

As you can see, he didn't say he got both sides of the story from Rush. Even the most ardent listener of Rush's show can admit that he is coming soley from the side of conservatism. I think what Lotus is refering to is getting the left side of the issue from the usual suspects aka ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NPR/NYT/et al, and then balancing that with Rush/FoxNews/Hannity/Medved/ et al. That's actually what most of us conservatives do, we take in both sides to get the complete picture, then make our own independent decisions regarding the issues of the day.

I seriously doubt any of the lefties on this forum do the same.

You THINK?!? MY GOD!! My kids said the sky was falling, but they did just come back from watching that new Disney flick...perhaps I discounted it too quickly. FM thought...

Watch out folks, we may be witnessing the end of the world...LOL...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

[V][:(][sigh][zzz][zzz][zzz][soapbox]

C'mon guys, this supposed to be (I thought) a place where we could come to share our common interest in railroading, relax, and have fun.

Not too long ago, I almost got caught up in a political blabering session, but I quickly tired of the constant bickering, and just gave up.

Politics is what it is; and do you not agree that perhaps we would be better off here on the TRAINS forums without it, unless it is truly relevant to the topic at hand.

I agree. When we are reduced to discussing the merits of the AR-15 and the M-16 with 14 year olds on the TRAINS forum and the "merits" of Rush Limbaugh and his Liberal counterparts we have strayed WAY too far from the purpose of this forum.

LC

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Is it just me or did we "lose" Futuremodal?

Maybe he couldn't argue with my "liberal" comment.

3 for 3

We just ain't that lucky. He got what he wanted, a good p-ss-n contest.

He makes up a few "facts" and "statistics" then you call him on it, he calls you an idiot and gives an answer that has nothing to do with the question. You call him on that and he runs and hides.

Talk about him being full of BS

Tom,

This is why you are an extreme leftist, not a *moderate*. You have been provided plenty of references for my statements, yet somehow you completely ignore them and make the libelous contention that I make them up. There is no hope for you, you are a lost soul. I notice you've never provided a single reference for your absurd statements. You are the epitome of BS.

The only reason this post and others degrade into a p i s s i n g contest is that folks like you and the pup make it so. I provide a topic of discussion, and instead of providing reasoned sound rebuttals you right away slip into true leftist mode aka name calling, insults, etc.

Once again, here is the gist of the topic: BNSF is spending the revenues it receives from it's captive US customers (whose rates are well above the STB's RVC ratios), and is spending that revenue increasing capacity for it's foreign customers (whose rail rates are well below the RVC standard). This is well documented. Only a complete moron would allege that such a statement is made up. You could very well argue that it is taking things out of context, or that there might be an exaggeration here or there, but you absolutely cannot refute the basic truth of the statement.

Neither you, the pup, or anyone else slightly to the right of vsmith and Big Boy has offered a single rebuttal of this argument. Not one.

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again. Is there any sound reason for BNSF to subsidize the importation of Asian goods on the backs of US producers, given that the US producers provide the bulk of the income for BNSF, while the importers sap revenue from the railroad?

I'm waiting patiently for someone from the left to be a worthy debate foe. Apparently, it's gonna be a long, long wait.

You're so extreme rightwing you're starting to come over to the left.

First, you NEVER answered a simple question of numbers about how a simple 65% breaks down. You admitted you pulled the breakdown out of your butt (not what I consider a valid reference), so I stand by the statement "you have no idea what you're talking about," and you continue to prove it in each post. Maybe you should actually read what you write and see if it has any semblence of answering the question placed in front of you.

So I'm an "extreme leftist, not a moderate?" Seems like you're the one doing the name calling here. As narrow minded and mixed up as your views are, it would seem more like you are the lost soul.

And exactly which "statements" of mine do you need references for? The fact that companies use profits and assets on hand to expand business into new areas? The fact that a transportation company should pursue new business? The fact that the business will be here whether BNSF takes it or it's left for one of their competitors to take it? The fact that BNSF doesn't give a rat's butt whether you think the business is legit or not? The fact that they're not providing this service at a loss to the company?

Funny, I thought we had a Capitolist economic system.

You seem to be the complete moron by arguing with yourself here. At no point did I say that the rates for the transport of the potential new intermodal were the same or higher than the rates charged for any other type of freight. What I did say (now try to read this S-L-O-W-L-Y so you understand it this time) is that you failed to prove that BNSF is providing this service at a financial loss to the company. Different types of freight have different rates dependant on many factors, amount of handling the RR provides, switching, point of origin and point of destination on a heavily or lightly traveled line, whether it's handled as unit train or individual carload, just to name a few. They can afford to charge less per ton on some freight because of the high volume of that freight. It's called the economy of scale.

As far as "any sound reason for BNSF to subsidize Asian goods," you are implying that they are providing the service at a loss. THIS you have failed to prove and have avoided answering this question.

You're right about one thing, this hasn't even become a debate. You keep restating the original news release with your narrow minded views, and never answer a direct question posed to you on the subject. This is like arguing with a parrot. I'll see if I can find another parrot to give you a worthy debate.

[Anonymous]

I found this on the Model Railroader forum.
Here is my analysis of us.
Big-Boy 4005: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/godfather.htm
Vsmith: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/filibuster.htm
Ironken: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm
Tom: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
Put them together: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/cybersisters.htm
Dave: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/rottweilerpuppy.htm
Murphy Siding: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ent.htm
Me: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/capitalista.htm
Old Timer: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/kungfumaster.htm
Mr. Geek: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/propellerhead.htm

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

I found this on the Model Railroader forum.
Here is my analysis of us.
Big-Boy 4005: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/godfather.htm
Vsmith: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/filibuster.htm
Ironken: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm
Tom: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
Put them together: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/cybersisters.htm
Dave: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/rottweilerpuppy.htm
Murphy Siding: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ent.htm
Me: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/capitalista.htm

Sorry James, but that title you gave to me belongs to Futuremodal. He's the one with an inability to even answer a question about his original post.

[Anonymous]

You just won't excpert any answer but what you want to hear. I should have given you this one. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/pinko.htm

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

You just won't excpert any answer but what you want to hear. I should have given you this one. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ego.htm

What would be a pleasant change would be if Futuremodal would actually answer the question posed to him. Unfortunately, casting us as cartoon/video game characters shows that you're still pretty much a teenager.

Futuremodal's problem is that he takes offence at being asked a question, like we're questioning his opinion. In his narrow, concrete minded opinion, this is probably how he sees it since he can't come up with original thought and can't explain the one's he's heard from others.

Questions can also mean:

2. Your statement was incomplete
3. Your statement wasn't clear
4. Your statement piques my interest, but I'd like to know more

He immediately goes on the defensive rather than take an opportunity to educate.

PS: Possibility 1. is Questioning his opinion

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

You just won't excpert any answer but what you want to hear. I should have given you this one. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ego.htm

What would be a pleasant change would be if Futuremodal would actually answer the question posed to him. Unfortunately, casting us as cartoon/video game characters shows that you're still pretty much a teenager.

Futuremodal's problem is that he takes offence at being asked a question, like we're questioning his opinion. In his narrow, concrete minded opinion, this is probably how he sees it since he can't come up with original thought and can't explain the one's he's heard from others.

Questions can also mean:

2. Your statement was incomplete
3. Your statement wasn't clear
4. Your statement piques my interest, but I'd like to know more

He immediately goes on the defensive rather than take an opportunity to educate.

PS: Possibility 1. is Questioning his opinion

Tom -

You are too kind to FM. He is simply afraid. He is afraid all of us will learn he doesn't know very much at all despite his wide dissemination of his claims of expertise. He only plays one tune "OA, OA, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, FM Land... because it is the limit of his repertoire....

Those of us in the industry and those who have a brain know well the fallacy of FM's views. I often get sick of listening to his sludge (thus my occasional jabs at him). In reality he isn't worth the effort. He lashes out at anyone who doesn't immediately take his side because of his unreasoning fear, in some cases panic, because he has no real response or thought capability that would enable him to accept any idea not within his tunnel vision of reality.

LC

[Anonymous]

I don't agree with his ideas of what BNSF is doing either, you know. I think BNSF is smart enough to make good investments, however. It would make you wonder why; if what Dave said is true, they are expanding into a lower profit business, than otherwise. I don't know, but you have yet to dispute his facts about the income of US freight vs. intermodal. Let's get back on track, and be civil; or Bergie is just going to have to clean up this place Monday Morning. A couple of question I have been wondering.
When Dave said this on page 2.

QUOTE: As usual, most of you who defend BNSF's actions have missed the point. What BNSF is doing is taking money made from captive US shippers (where revenues can be as high as 200+% of variable costs), and using those monopoly profits to invest in the import intermodal business (where revenues are usually as low as 106% of variable costs). The STB defines revenue adaquacy as revenues that are 180% of variable costs.

Are these numbers accurate, and if so why is BNSF not expanding into a higher paying exploits? I am not agreeing with the above, quote far from it. These may be the key factors to this debate (war?). Instead however both sides began getting wrapped up in the last post almost forgetting what we were talking about.

I had the opportunity to talk to my economics teacher yesterday after school. He said that wages were a big part of the reason for outsourcing, though government regulations, and taxes are big too; he went on however to explain that some jobs are not profitable to outsource. Such as High-tech, jobs that need to be done in a timely fashion, and others. I have mentioned this before on these forums I worked for a print shop that was investigating doing a large job, so the manager looked into the cost of gasp outsourcing, and we discovered that once you ordered enough it was cheaper to have a company in Texas print them that the Chinese companies. Don’t forget that it does take people to unload the ships, and ship the goods, that’s where BNSF comes in. My teacher also mention something else you might find surprising, if you account for all the copyright/trademark infringement (i.e. Theft of intellectual property), there is would be no trade deficit. We should look to history for an example; there was a time when everyone was afraid that cheap British goods would pu***he American goods of the market (outsourcing). I notice that didn’t happened so I would not be too concerned it now.

P.S. The cartoon charter thing was merely a joke, to try and lighten up the thread.

[Kurn]

This is getting absolutely ridiculous.BNSF is a business.Businesses solicit other business to make money.In today's topsy turvy economy,sometimes ya gotta dance with the devil.There are a lot of factors concerning the Chinese.In the plastic injection mold manufacturing business,they will underbid and even take a loss to get the mold making business from the major plastic manufacturers.We cannot compete at all with them.And the big companies(just like the average consumer)wants to pay less.But we want to keep the jobs here,but we won't and should not work for minimum wage or less.So it seems to be a big conundrum.And I am a small businessman,and 80% of the freight I hauled was molds.Now it's about 20%.So it effects everybody in some way.As far as BNSF goes,more power to 'em.Maybe one of their shareholders will profit and open a business or something,and put some people to work.
Now back to the Right Wing Militia Forum...................................

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: In the plastic injection mold manufacturing business,they will underbid and even take a loss to get the mold making business from the major plastic manufacturers.

If my memory serves me right, that would be the monopolistic tactics, not what BSNF is doing. Back in the day Standard oil would undercut the price of hometown oil dealers to put them out of business then jack up the price.

[Kurn]

They probably did take a page or two from the railroad and oil baron playbook.............

[jeaton]

James

Your econ teacher raised some good points about outsourcing. I will add healthcare as another factor or element of labor costs that impacts our competitive position with other countries, including Canada.

He may well be on the mark about the cost to our economy of theft of intellectual property.

By the way, if you keep the tone of your posts to what you have shown above you will get some respect. There is more experience and knowledge floating around this forum than might be appearant. Anyone who goes with the attitude of I am right and everybody else is wrong is going to get slammed around pretty hard.

Jay

[espeefoamer]

This thread is not long for this world.it is soon to be removed from the consist,set out on the RIP track,waybilled for the scrapyard.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Again, vsmith, when has Rush ever lied? The best you can up with is his unfortunate addiction to pain killers which resulted from his loss of hearing? And that's your example of a Rush "lie"?

The mice that roared, that's vsmith and Big Boy.

Its called Sarcastic Wit... but I guess it went right over your head. There's an old saying "Never have a battle of Wits with an unarmed person." Oscar Wilde I beleive...maybe its time to put the sarchasm mines back in the box.

If you actually read my post you'll see it posed that in the form of a question, I was ASKING about whether he had lied prior to his admittal or was just hiding behind that river in Egypt ...that is not stating it as a fact. You jumped to gun.

The second part is mearly my heart-felt opinion of Rush Kill All The Druggies Except ME Limbaugh. I dont care if you dont like my opinion of Flush, that doesnt matter anymore than I care about your opinion about anyone else.

BTW if you ever actually saw the movie "The Mouse That Roared" with Peter Sellers, just remember, the Mouse won! Squeek Squeek, ROAR![;)]


Get off me Cheese, Grommit![:D]

[Anonymous]

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.

[andrewjonathon]

Wow, there is sure is a lot of name calling and accusations flying back and forth in this thread. Putting that and all the left/right politics surrounding this topic aside, it is easy to accuse the Chinese of all kinds of things. However, are the Chinese forcing anyone to buy their goods? As far as I can tell the only time the Chinese sell anything to anyone in the US is when an American (or may be an illegal immigrant [:)] ) makes a conscious decision to buy it. Is it fair to blame the Chinese (or BNSF for that matter) for decisions made here by American consumers? I don't think so.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

I don't agree with his ideas of what BNSF is doing either, you know. I think BNSF is smart enough to make good investments, however. It would make you wonder why; if what Dave said is true, they are expanding into a lower profit business, than otherwise. I don't know, but you have yet to dispute his facts about the income of US freight vs. intermodal. Let's get back on track, and be civil; or Bergie is just going to have to clean up this place Monday Morning.

They are expanding into what he seems to think is a lower profit margin business (which it is on a price per ton-mile basis) because the ones he lists as higher profit margin have no more shipping business to offer the railroads. Even though they make less per ton-mile on the intermodal business (I noticed FM did not compare current intermodal rates to the proposed new business intermodal rates. Hmmmm, I wonder why?) the sheer volume of the new business will contribute more to the corporate "bottom line" at the end of the fiscal year than the small quantity of the higher profit margin business. He also didn't define what he meant by BNSF "subsidizing" the business. Simply because shipper A, with a small quantity of freight is charged one price and shipper B, with a LOT of freight to ship receives a lower rate doesn't mean that the rates charged to shipper A is subsidizing the rates for shipper B. The same thing happens in the trucking business. You pay more per ton-mile of LTL freight than for a full trailer load. Again, it's the economy of scale. Many business, not just transportation, will offer lower rates for high quantities of business, be it services or products.

FM seems intent on comparing US carload freight rates with the proposed new intermodal business of shipping goods from China. This brings two questions to mind: 1. Why isn't he comparing the rates for the new intermodal business to the rates for existing intermodal business? (like the old expression, comparing apples to apples) and 2. Why isn't he complaining about the rates charged on ALL intermodal business as compared to the carload rates? A round-about way of expressing his anti-Chinese prejudice?

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

Wow, there is sure is a lot of name calling and accusations flying back and forth in this thread. Putting that and all the left/right politics surrounding this topic aside, it is easy to accuse the Chinese of all kinds of things. However, are the Chinese forcing anyone to buy their goods? As far as I can tell the only time the Chinese sell anything to anyone in the US is when an American (or may be an illegal immigrant [:)] ) makes a conscious decision to buy it. Is it fair to blame the Chinese (or BNSF for that matter) for decisions made here by American consumers? I don't think so.

Well said. The deeper issue is that in most cases there are not domesticly made alternatives. American manufacturing jobs have moved off shore due to high labor costs, and our economy turns from production to service. Ultimately, we are the ones paying the freight, and the Chineese have to give back a small amount of what we gave them.

BNSF is not sending dollars to China. They are recovering a few dollars form the Chinese products we consume, and putting it back into the US economy. American consumers and businesses are the guilty parties.

We can't have it both ways people. Cheap goods come from cheap labor. The American standard of living is too high, and something has to give.

[Anonymous]

Well, Tom, if you have a question for me just ask me straight out. I don't do third person inquiries.

[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.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

You just won't excpert any answer but what you want to hear. I should have given you this one. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ego.htm

What would be a pleasant change would be if Futuremodal would actually answer the question posed to him. Unfortunately, casting us as cartoon/video game characters shows that you're still pretty much a teenager.

Futuremodal's problem is that he takes offence at being asked a question, like we're questioning his opinion. In his narrow, concrete minded opinion, this is probably how he sees it since he can't come up with original thought and can't explain the one's he's heard from others.

Questions can also mean:

2. Your statement was incomplete
3. Your statement wasn't clear
4. Your statement piques my interest, but I'd like to know more

He immediately goes on the defensive rather than take an opportunity to educate.

PS: Possibility 1. is Questioning his opinion

Tom -

You are too kind to FM. He is simply afraid. He is afraid all of us will learn he doesn't know very much at all despite his wide dissemination of his claims of expertise. He only plays one tune "OA, OA, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, FM Land... because it is the limit of his repertoire....

Those of us in the industry and those who have a brain know well the fallacy of FM's views. I often get sick of listening to his sludge (thus my occasional jabs at him). In reality he isn't worth the effort. He lashes out at anyone who doesn't immediately take his side because of his unreasoning fear, in some cases panic, because he has no real response or thought capability that would enable him to accept any idea not within his tunnel vision of reality.

LC

You're right LC, it is obvious. He certainly can't stand up in the light of the truth and is expending more energy at giving nonanswers to questions and outright avioding them than it would take to actually answer them. Probably because, as you say, lack of thought capability, he's just parroting what he hears in some far-rightwing source.

[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

[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

[Anonymous]

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.