Originally Posted by G/MAN

What is ridiculous about it? It is realistic with why the fsc is more important to some than others. When you run for cheap rates the fsc is much more important to your bottom line than when you are getting a higher rate. I don't consider $2/mile a really great rate, but it is much better than $1.40. But, I will play along. Which would you rather have, a flat rate of $2/mile or a line haul of $1.60 and fsc of $0.40?

Per your example based on my original post of the carrier paying 75% linehaul 100%fsc the $2/mile would only pay $1.50/mile to the driver while the breakout would yield $1.60.

Originally Posted by gravdigr

I'm basing this off a carrier that allows a leased driver to get his own loads. Would the carrier adjust the FSC to it's own formula regardless of what the broker offers?

Diger, you have to look at each situation on a case by case basis. When looking at leases you have to use real lease percentages and fixed costs vs made up numbers that are used as examples. I could give you numbers that look real that support both cases.

So that this discussion in not completely academic I ran all the spot market loads that my drivers ran for the past 3-months. Less than 10% had FSC broken out (95% of the direct freight had FSC as a line item). I pulled these loads into a spreed sheet and ran an assumption of paying an FSC on loaded miles (as calculated by PC-miler in my dispatch software). In order to do this I would have to charge an additional 3% in my lease. This would not be a good deal for my drivers.

"This would not be a good deal for MY drivers."

But for some it would be better running with a company created FSC and getting less percentage (like if you ran high miles on a weekly basis).

All these things need to be taken into account with REAL numbers not just a bunch of numbers all us keyboard Rambos want to make up. Because based on who we are trying to discredit or what our opinion is we could all come up with convincing numbers to prove our case.