Prime- only newbies sing the praises 2

notarps4me · Oct 18, 2009

DirtySideDown said: ↑

Yeah. It is so wonderful...

I guess it will be good for me though... the more guys you run off from applying at Prime, the more miles there will be for the guys that are happy there.
Click to expand...

All 2 of them...

ironpony · Oct 18, 2009

billsgirl said: ↑

Cactusjack, I for one along with Bill appreciate all you post on this thread. Keep up the good work
Click to expand...

Except that all cactusjack is doing, is regurgitating a pile of Bravo Sierra...

- If I recall correctly the OOIDA lawsuit was one of many they filed a few years back concerning the disposition of escrow accounts. OOIDA sued almost every company with a lease program - some successfully others not. There are very specific rules set by the DOT concerning the disposition of those accounts and paying interest to the leasee. Many like CRE and Stevens to name a couple were mishandling the disposition and not paying interest. Prime is one of the ones who were doing things correctly, as far as I know.

- That long post about not allowing a truck to make more than 0.89 per mile is ####. The dispatchers are paid a small base, and the rest is based on MAXIMIZING the productivity of each truck on the FMs board. Limiting the productivity of a truck at Prime is a good way to starve if you're working in dispatch.

Look... Prime is not perfect - no company is. It's better than a lot of them, and is working for me right now as a company driver. I get a little bent at the #### that gets posted here that is completely at odds with my experience with the company. If Prime was such a bad place to work as a company driver, I wouldn't be with them still - it's just that simple.

ironpony · Oct 18, 2009

notarps4me said: ↑

All 2 of them...
Click to expand...

There's more of us than that...

notarps4me · Oct 18, 2009

ironpony said: ↑

There's more of us than that...
Click to expand...

Not from what I have read. There was 3. Steve and lo. Banned for recruiting. Then cactus posted one of their threads from another site. They no longer sounded happy.

ironpony · Oct 18, 2009

notarps4me said: ↑

Not from what I have read. There was 3. Steve and lo. Banned for recruiting. Then cactus posted one of their threads from another site. They no longer sounded happy.
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me a whole lot...

I know quite a few L/Os who are still doing ok. Most of them who were solo have gone to training or running as a team to keep the cash flow up - but that's a result of freight volume and rates... which suck everywhere.

But that being said, anyone who was leasing last year and using their settlements like a paycheck have gotten shaken out of the business simply because you can't do that. There has to be enough cash reserves to get through the bad times, and you have to pay yourself a fixed salary - only way that stuff works. And even in the good times, there were drivers blowing all of their profits out of the exhaust stack, and not knowing what their operation costs were so they could make a good decision on whether to take a load or not... either you approach it like a business, or you're going to fail.

Look... its a free market as we're all fond of saying. If a guy signs on to haul freight leasing a companies' equipment, and says he can do it for x percentage or y cpm, then he has an obligation to himself to figure out a way to do it. We can't always hold the company that offers the equipment and freight to blame for our own short sightedness. Sometimes you make a killing on the free market, and sometimes the free market eats you for lunch! The free market brings the possibility of greater profit than you'd make as an employee, but also brings you the ability to fail miserably. Lotsa profit, and things are great. Fail miserably, and it always seems to be the evil truckin' companies' fault.

kwray · Oct 18, 2009

I think cactus and ironpony need to agree to disagree. One person's experience with a company may be totally at odds with another's and that's just the way it is.

cactusjack · Oct 18, 2009

attorney for appellant attorneys for appellee
Richard J. Dick Richard A. Young
Samuel L. Jacobs Eric D. Johnson
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_______________________________
No. 89S01-0206-CV-351

Loretta Baca,
Appellant (Plaintiff below),
v.

New Prime, Inc.
Prime, Inc. and
Independent Contractor
Operators of Springfield,

Appellees (Defendants below).

_______________________________
Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court 1, 89D01-9804-CT-14
The Honorable P. Thomas Snow, Judge

_______________________________

On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 89A01-0108-CV-304

__________________________________

June 23, 2004

Shepard, Chief Justice.

After an accident in eastern Indiana involving residents of multiple states, the ensuing litigation has necessitated deciding certain choice-of-law questions. Because we issued an important decision on choice of law while this case was pending, we remand for further consideration.

Loretta Baca was riding in a truck driven by her husband Christopher Baca when Christopher collided with another vehicle. The accident occurred on Interstate 70 in Wayne County, Indiana. Loretta sustained injuries in the accident, and Christopher died. The two had recently married. Christopher was a Colorado resident at the time of the accident and Loretta was a South Carolina resident, but she was on her way to Colorado to establish residence.

Christopher was employed by Independent Contractor Operators of Springfield, a Missouri company, and he had entered into an employment contract with New Prime, Inc. in Missouri. He was driving in the course of his employment when the accident occurred. New Prime owned the truck that Christopher was driving.

Loretta brought suit against New Prime, among others, asserting vicarious liability for the injuries she sustained. She alleged that Christopher had been "careless and negligent while driving the trailer in the scope of his employment." New Prime asserted as an affirmative defense that Indiana law would support a claim for injury due to wanton or willful behavior but not due to ordinary negligence. By cross-motions for summary judgment, Loretta and New Prime joined the issue of whether Indiana's tort law should apply.

The trial court held that Indiana negligence law governed and granted New Prime summary judgment. Loretta appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed. See Baca v. New Prime, Inc., 763 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). We granted transfer.

While this appeal has been pending, we have decided another choice-of-law case on certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Simon v. United States, 805 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2004). In the course of doing so, we re-affirmed our leading case on lex loci delecti, Hubbard Manufacturing Co. v. Greeson, 515 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 1987), and indicated that we had elected not to adopt the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971).

Also significant for purposes of this case, we considered for the first time whether Indiana choice-of-law doctrine embraces dépeçage, the process of applying separately the law of different states within the same case. We declined to adopt dépeçage, saying we would not "separately analyze and apply the law of different jurisdictions to issues within each claim" of a suit. Id. at 802.

This holding in Simon will not necessarily lead to a different resolution than the one reached by the trial court and the Court of Appeals in this case. The plaintiff argued and briefed this case in substantial reliance on the Restatement (Second), however, and neither party took into account the applicability or inapplicability of the doctrine of dépeçage. We think it appropriate to give the parties and those courts a chance to brief and consider the issues with benefit of our recent decision.

Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for consideration in light of Simon v. United States.

Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Click to expand...

see more at>>>>>>http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/06230401.rts.html

cactusjack · Oct 18, 2009

kwray said: ↑

I think cactus and ironpony need to agree to disagree. One person's experience with a company may be totally at odds with another's and that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

I have never intended to agree or disagree with anyone on here ...... i am just posting the facts ... some folks can not handle it.... my question to you and anyone else that reads this is why would someone who is obviously ignored . Still defend prime like I or any one else cares....
I will still do my thing so I hope that whatever the deal with the oposition that they just get over it....
Nothing that they can do or say will change what i will do or say and since this is missouri's thread ," that i brought back because the original got locked because of the cheerleaders" If he asked me to slow down or have some collective criticism for me then i would consider that!
All anyone in the cheering section can do is nay say... and only the newbies sing the praises!

cactusjack · Oct 18, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARRIN W. HUBBARD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CIV-06-356-S
)
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, CATHY DOREEN LAMBERT, )
and NEW PRIME, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court for its consideration is the Defendant
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
This case stems from an accident which occurred on U.S.
Highway 75 near Calvin, Oklahoma on July 28, 2006. Plaintiff
claims he sustained personal injuries as a result of that accident
and defendants are responsible for his injuries. At the time of
the accident, New Prime, Inc. was insured through a liability
insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
STANDARDS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary Judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ( C). See also
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
Case 6:06-cv-00356-FHS Document 42 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 7
2
The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue of fact. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325
(1986). If this initial burden is satisfied, the nonmoving party
then has the burden of coming forward with specific facts showing
there is a genuine issue for trial as to elements essential to
the nonmoving party's case. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Bacchus Indus.,
Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991).
The nonmoving party cannot rest on the mere allegations of the
pleadings, but must go beyond the pleadings and "set forth
specific facts showing there was a genuine issue for trial as to
those dispositive matters for which [it} carries the burden of
proof." Applied Genetics v. First Affiliated Securities, 912 F.2d
1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990).
"A fact is 'material' only if it 'might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law,' and a dispute about a
material fact is 'genuine' only 'if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'"
Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 486 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In this regard, the court examines
the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Deepwater Invs.
Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp, 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). This court's function is not "to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there
is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. With
these standards in mind, the court turns to the merits of the
defendant's motion.
Case 6:06-cv-00356-FHS Document 42 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 7
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with
defendant Lambert on or about July 28, 2006. The accident
involved a tractor-trailer being operated by defendant Lambert and
plaintiff's automobile. Defendant Lambert is an employee of
defendant New Prime, Inc. New Prime, Inc. is a Missouri
corporation with its principal place of business in Springfield,
Missouri. New Prime, Inc. operates as an interstate contract
motor carrier registered with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
New Prime, Inc. operates under Interstate Commerce Commission
number MC 140665. This registration authorized New Prime, Inc. to
operate in multiple states, including Oklahoma. New Prime, Inc.
does not operate its motor carrier operations pursuant to an
Oklahoma Motor Carrier License. At the time of the accident, New
Prime, Inc. was insured by a policy of insurance issued by Liberty
Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
Plaintiff's cause of action is based upon diversity
jurisdiction. As a result, the law of Oklahoma is to be applied
in determining the substantive rights of the parties to the
action. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). The
common law system of remedies remains in full force in Oklahoma.
Ricks v. Exploration Company, 695 P.2d 498, 504 (Okla. 1984).
Unless a statute expressly creates a remedy not existent at common
law none will be found to exist. Id.
Oklahoma has two statutory provisions which have been
previously interpreted to allow direct actions against an insurer
of a motor carrier. 47 O.S.A. Sec. 169 applies to motor carriers
Case 6:06-cv-00356-FHS Document 42 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 7
4
of household goods or used emigrant moveables and provides that no
certificate or permit shall be issued by the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission ("OCC") until after such motor carrier files with the
OCC a liability insurance policy or bond covering public liability
and property damage. The provisions found in 47 O.S.A. Sec. 169
(c), pertaining to proof of liability insurance filing with the
OCC as a prerequisite to issuance of a certificate, apply only to
carriers whose principal place of business is in Oklahoma. It is
undisputed New Prime, Inc.'s principal place of business is in
Springfield, Missouri. Thus, the court finds this provision is
not applicable in the case at bar.
The Oklahoma Motor Carriers Act has permitted a direct action
against the insurer of a motor carrier who has registered and
filed a certificate of insurance with the("OCC"). 47 O.S.A.
230.21, et. seq., also known as the Motor Carriers Act of 1995.
The provisions of 47 O.S.A. Sec. 230.30 apply to motor carriers
who are issued a license by the OCC under the Motor Carriers Act
of 1995, 47 O.S.A. Sec. 230.21 et. seq. Obtaining a license
"means the license (was) issued under authority of the laws of the
State of Oklahoma to motor carriers and private carriers." To
bring a direct action against an insurer under the Oklahoma Motor
Carriers Act, a plaintiff must allege and prove that (1) he
suffered injury, (2) the injury occurred by the operation of a
motor carrier, and (3) the motor carrier was required to be and in
fact was insured pursuant to 47 O.S.A. Sec. 230.30. 47 O.S.A.
Sec. 230.30 and Mize v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 393 F.
Supp. 2d 1223 (W.D. Okla. 2005).
Defendant argues because it is registered with the state of
Missouri as an interstate motor carrier and not registered with
the State of Oklahoma, it did not operate pursuant to an Oklahoma
Case 6:06-cv-00356-FHS Document 42 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 05/01/2007 Page 4 of 7
5
motor carrier license. As a result, it was not required to file
an insurance policy with the OCC. Defendant argues that under the
federal Single State Motor Carrier Registration Act, the motor
carrier registers in the state of their principal place of
business. Under the single state registration system this license
permits the motor carrier to operate vehicles in numerous states,
including Oklahoma. See 49 C.F.R. Sec. 367.4 and 49 U.S.C. Sec.
14504. Defendant contends New Prime, Inc. operated as an
interstate carrier subject to regulations promulgated by the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Department of
Transportation, and not under any license issued by the OCC. As
such, defendant contends that New Prime, Inc. has the authority,
if desired, to operate in Oklahoma pursuant to the single state
registration filed in the State of Missouri, its principal place
of business. The Single State Registration Act does not require
that a motor carrier registered in another state also register
with the State of Oklahoma. The Single State Registration Act
provides that only a state acting in its capacity as a
registration state under the single state system may require a
motor carrier to file proof of insurance. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 14504
(C)(2)(a).
Plaintiff argues the issue before the court is whether the
Motor Carrier Act of 1995 requires New Prime, Inc. to carry
insurance. Plaintiff argues the Motor Carrier Act of 1995 applies
to any carrier. Thus, since defendant has admitted it was a motor
carrier in the State of Oklahoma it is subject to the act and is
subject to a direct cause of action. Plaintiff also argues that
49 U.S.C. Sec. 14504, the single state registration system, does
not eliminate the Oklahoma requirements imposed by 47 O.S.A. Sec.
230.30 but rather it fulfills it. Plaintiff contends that under
49 U.S.C. Sec. 14504 New Prime, Inc. obtained a license in
Case 6:06-cv-00356-FHS Document 42 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 05/01/2007 Page 5 of 7
6
Oklahoma pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act of 1995 by its actions
in Missouri. Plaintiff contends this is confirmed by the Missouri
IRP Apportioned Cab Card on the New Prime, Inc. vehicle which was
involved in the accident and is the subject of this lawsuit. The
Cab Card provides that this vehicle "has been proportionally
registered between the State of Missouri and other jurisdictions
shown below". One of those jurisdictions is Oklahoma. Plaintiff
concludes as such in accordance with 47 O.S. A. Sec. 230.30 and
Mize, New Prime, Inc. was required to be insured and, in fact, was
insured under Oklahoma law. Thus, defendant is amenable to a
direct action in Oklahoma.
Plaintiff's argument that by registering in Missouri, New
Prime, Inc. has satisfied the requirements imposed in Oklahoma
under 47 O.S.A. Sec. 230.30 is unpersuasive. The only support for
this argument is found in Mize v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (W.D. Okla. 2005) which this court
finds has limited value. It appears to have been decided on a
very limited set of facts. The issue presented in Mize related to
weight restrictions and did not address the larger question of
whether insurers of motor carriers operating in the State of
Oklahoma are subject to direct actions in Oklahoma.
The court finds that since the defendant motor carrier did
not obtain an Oklahoma license from the Oklahoma Corporation
Commissioner pursuant to 47 O.S.A. Sec. 230.23 (3) and did not
file with the Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner a liability
insurance policy or bond covering public liability and property
damage pursuant to 47 O.S.A. Sec. 230.30 (A), Section 230.30 is
inapplicable to the insurer. Further, a direct action against the
insurer is not authorized by federal law. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 387.15.
Furthermore, under the standard Form MCS-90 which is required of
Case 6:06-cv-00356-FHS Document 42 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 05/01/2007 Page 6 of 7
7
motor carriers' insurers, an insurer agrees to pay any final
judgment recovered against the insured motor carrier for public
liability resulting from negligence in the operation of a motor
vehicle. Since there is no judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant motor carrier, the plaintiff may not recover
directly from the defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
Accordingly, defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
is hereby granted summary judgment.
Dated this 1st Day of May 2007.
Click to expand...

see more at>>>>>>>http://www.websupp.org/data/EDOK/6:06-cv-00356-42-EDOK.pdf

cactusjack · Oct 18, 2009

05-04-2009, 04:57 PM
I am thinking about getting into driving and have been looking into company training programs. I see that Prime has one, then they expect you to become a lease operator. Is that a good idea? What are the pros and cons to that? They say you "make your own schedule" after the intial training..I know that is just something they say..how true is it? Sure, you can make your own schedule, but you won't make any moey..that is what I am thinking..and if you are locked into a truck lease you certainly need to be making some money. Do you also have to qualify for a lease, or is that guaranteed as long as you are working for them? I know you have to agree to be with them for a year in order to get the "free" training also.
This is really just the start of my research, but I wanted to get some feedback from the people that know.
Thanks for the help.

SR
GMAN
05-04-2009, 07:34 PM

You can find that much has been written on this forum about Prime and lease purchase. I can't think of anything positive about doing one of these fleece purchases. Some you can own after you pay all of your lease payments. Others, such as Prime are strictly leases which means that you make the payments and they own the truck. You are a company driver who makes truck payments and pays for all the costs of operating the truck. The way most of these programs are structured I don't see how anyone could make money with them. You don't need credit to qualify since they own the truck and will appreciate any payments you make for them. Most people who become involved in these fleece programs have little or no credit and no money. That is a bad combination, even in a good economy with a payment you can afford. These companies can make these programs sound really great. It usually only takes a few months to find out the truth. By then, you have less money than when you started and may also be behind in all your bills. Your credit is really messed up now and you are broke.

You will be much better off to find a decent company where you can drive a company truck and start to learn the business. In many ways this is a simple business. It isn't always simple to make a profit or survive. All of us who have been around this business for any length of time understand that there are good and bad times. Business is good and bad, depending on the time of year and economy. Right now things are not so good, even for company drivers.

Jumbo
05-04-2009, 07:55 PM

You can make your own schedule as long as your schedule is the same as Primes

SickRick
05-04-2009, 09:18 PM

Agree with Gman.

Why would you want to start out, fresh in a new industry - having to make a NUT every month (on top of whatever your REGULAR financial obligations happen to be) AND your bill for schooling.

When I decided to make the career change into the trucking industry - I was browsing all the truck manufacturers sites, trying to decide which BRAND NEW TRUCK I was going to buy when I got out of school.

Doing some "due diligence" on this, and other forums showed me I was WAY OFF BASE in my expectations.

If you're retired and independently wealthy (or at least have an income that covers your monthly overhead) and are getting into trucking for the travel and for kicks - THEN you can "make your own schedule".

If you're out there to put food on the table, then you take EVERY LOAD you can - so as not to piss-off your dispatcher and not get any loads AT ALL. I've heard too many horror stories of folks getting old trucks, paying too much for them, getting "starved out", and losing every penny they had into the truck - and walking away from a JOB, IN DEBT to the EMPLOYER.

Not THIS newbie. I'm taking the advice of those who've gone before me. I'm gonna drive for a few years as a COMPANY DRIVER, learn the biz, bank some $$ - THEN (and only then), if I choose to go O/O, I'll lease a truck from a LEASING COMPANY that has NOTHING TO DO WITH a trucking company, and lease on as an O/O - or get my own authority and go hustling for loads myself.

BAD ENOUGH to be a "slave" as a newbie driver, to whatever companies are HIRING US - until we get that year or two under our belts that are REQUIRED by the "better companies" - WITHOUT becoming a SLAVE to the TRUCK LEASE PAYMENT TOO...

Rick

--grande--
05-05-2009, 12:56 AM

I was looking into doing one of them there fleece programs. But after talking to a few of drivers that were doing these programs, I figured I was good with my $.38 a mile, no drama job :thumbsup: I am working on getting a raise, then I'll start putting away some change to get my own truck when things pick up.

I went into a pete dealer a while back and talked to them about buy direct. My credit is not the greatest, but I think they might work with me, then I will lease on someplace and make my own payments on my own truck. Im also pokeing around at used tractors Something will tickle my fancy, sooner or later :thumbsup:

I would stay way away from these programs, If you have the cash, look into a used truck.

tombestonebilly
05-05-2009, 01:56 AM

The reason these companies don't require credit is that if you go belly-up, they'll just take the truck back and re-lease it to someone else.
If you get on their bad side and aren't a "team player" and refuse too many low-paying loads, they'll starve you out.
That's why you should NEVER EVER enter into a lease-purchase agreement from the company that controls your freight.
There's no risk to the carrier in this situation.
But plenty of risk to you.

If you want to become a true owner operator then save up your money for a down payment on a good used truck.
Plenty of excellent used rigs available why on earth would you buy brand-new and at premium prices, to boot?
Learn some mechanical skills and do the preventative maintenance and routine repairs yourself.

I don't understand why anyone of sound mind would enter into a fleece-purchase scam.
You'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks.

Mpneypit
05-05-2009, 01:30 PM

Its not a LEASE PURCHASE you dont buy the truck when youre lease is up you can turn it back in and get a brand new truck. I wouldnt do the lease not even if the economy was booming. Just go be a company driver for a company and see if you like driving then save some money and get youreself a used truck.

SoulRacer
05-05-2009, 03:00 PM

Oh, I definitely was not LOOKING to become a lease operator..that is what their website shows as the "next step" after getting your CDL..I was just wondering if that was the way it was supposed to work and how much #### you'd put yourself into by going that route. I have no interest at all in being a lease operator OR an o/o. I just want to learn to drive and make some money without having any possibility of being stuck in a situation that I don't want. I assume Prime does have company drivers, but they certainly did not make it appear as if that was the path they preferred for their school grads.
I am looking into an independent school, but like the idea of company paid training..less money up front for me.

Syncrosonix
05-05-2009, 03:16 PM

they, c.r. england, swift, pride, and other carriers will push that lease-purchase thing like it's the greatest thing since velcro. you'll end up losing not only your real house, your ###, credit score, and any freedom you once had before signing up for something like that. go company and stay that way.

jd112488
05-06-2009, 03:17 PM

i don't see what is so great about velcro??

Jumbo
05-06-2009, 03:37 PM

Or sliced bread for that matter. I like my bread in one big hunk so I can eat it like an apple.

Syncrosonix
05-06-2009, 04:07 PM

i don't see what is so great about velcro??

just for your information, you don't put a question mark, or multiple, at the end of a statement.

find a ####### velcro product and i bet vince offer can sell that stuff faster than hotcakes.

GMAN
05-06-2009, 04:08 PM

Oh, I definitely was not LOOKING to become a lease operator..that is what their website shows as the "next step" after getting your CDL..I was just wondering if that was the way it was supposed to work and how much #### you'd put yourself into by going that route. I have no interest at all in being a lease operator OR an o/o. I just want to learn to drive and make some money without having any possibility of being stuck in a situation that I don't want. I assume Prime does have company drivers, but they certainly did not make it appear as if that was the path they preferred for their school grads.
I am looking into an independent school, but like the idea of company paid training..less money up front for me.

Becoming an owner operator or lease operator is not what most can or should do starting out. There is nothing wrong with becoming an owner operator, but it would be best to wait until you gain at least a couple of years experience and save a good amount of cash for a nest egg and for emergencies. From the lease programs that I have seen they are not worth the money that you pay out and certainly not worth the risk. Like any business, you first need to learn as much as you can prior to spending money. There are a handful of people who have started out with little or no experience and made things work. Those are in the minority. There are two things which cause most to fail in business, lack of experience and lack of capital. Most people seem to want to own their own business. Few are willing to do the ground work to learn what they need to know and to save for contingencies.

We learn through the experience of others or through our own experiences. It is much less costly learn from others. Once you get at least a couple of years experience behind you then you will have a little better understanding of what it takes to be successful in this business. It is still different when you are the one who is responsible for paying the bills.

I would stay away from any carrier who tries to push you into a lease purchase. The failure rate is extremely high. Take your time and don't rush into anything. When we get in a hurry we tend to make mistakes. You can always buy a truck. It will be much easier to buy and get financing when once you have at least a couple of years experience behind you. Requirements for entry has tightened with many carriers. I suggest you plan on staying with your first carrier for at least a year. Two or more would be much better. Job hoppers are beginning to find it more difficult to find driving jobs. The longer you stay with a carrier and the better you do your job will help you find the better paying jobs.

zipy46
05-08-2009, 07:41 PM

At Dart for instance...if your logs dont match the satellite you get 'zero' settlement.

Snowman7
05-08-2009, 09:21 PM

The Triple Crown:

Rent to Own furniture
Buy here pay here cars
Lease Operator

If you cant pay cash or finance at a low reasonable rate then do without. Unless you like paying 2-3 times the item's value and still have nothing to show for it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Skywalker
05-09-2009, 11:28 PM

The Triple Crown:

Rent to Own furniture
Buy here pay here cars
Lease Operator

If you cant pay cash or finance at a low reasonable rate then do without. Unless you like paying 2-3 times the item's value and still have nothing to show for it.

Awwww, cmon....why won't anybody lie to the guy...I've been thinking about snapping up a bunch of repo's and finding suckers....errr, I mean "drivers"/"BUSINESS OWNERS" to lease them and pay all the bills and eat **** every day....while the economy is in the toilet.... but when they are finished...the trucks will be mine free and clear....and it won't cost me a ###### penny....:smokin:
Click to expand...

see more at>>>>http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-37796.html

Just thought this was funny.....

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Find Trucking Jobs

Prime- only newbies sing the praises 2

DO YOU THINK PRIME TREATS DRIVERS EQUAL AND FAIRLY?

NOPE THEY TEND TO CATER MORE TO THE COMPANY DRIVER!

NO THEY CATER MORE TO THE LEASE OPERATOR!

EVERYONE IS TREATED FAIRLY!

EVERYONE IS ON THEIR OWN!

notarps4me Road Train Member

Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

Wait, employers can't reach you!

ironpony Road Train Member

ironpony Road Train Member

notarps4me Road Train Member

ironpony Road Train Member

kwray Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

Wait, employers can't reach you!

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

Find Trucking Jobs

Prime- only newbies sing the praises 2

DO YOU THINK PRIME TREATS DRIVERS EQUAL AND FAIRLY?

NOPE THEY TEND TO CATER MORE TO THE COMPANY DRIVER!

NO THEY CATER MORE TO THE LEASE OPERATOR!

EVERYONE IS TREATED FAIRLY!

EVERYONE IS ON THEIR OWN!

notarps4me Road Train Member

Wait, employers can't reach you!

ironpony Road Train Member

ironpony Road Train Member

notarps4me Road Train Member

ironpony Road Train Member

kwray Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

cactusjack Medium Load Member

Wait, employers can't reach you!