7/7 # Roehl ?

I know what they claim to pay and how to figure it out, but I want to hear it from somebody that's been there done that. I read one post that said he works for Roehl making $28k on the 11/3 fleet so how would you make 31k on 7/7 ? All trucking companies sound great if you figure it out that way, I guarantee you won't come close to 31k working 7/7 I've learned not to give trucking companies the benefit of the doubt

 

7/4 7/3 makes right around 28-30K a year so 7/7 is more realistic around 25-27K a year.

 

I'm running 7/7 now for about 2 months....ALOT better than running national 11/3, which usually turned out to be 13/1 (I wanted to keep my days off on the weekend, so if they got me home saturday instead of friday, I just went back out on monday)

They still struggle to get me home on time, only happened once, but I'm usually back at the yard by noon the following day, and actually home by 4, and with 6 or 7 days off it's not that bad.

I should say that the insurance is higher. Yes you get full coverage, but with our new insurance plan, I'm going to pay $29 per week.

My average take home check, after taxes, but including re-embursements, is usually between $700 and $900. But remember thats for two weeks. I'm currently talking with my DSR about becoming a trainer, which should bump that weekly check up at least $200 when I have a student.

I dont' slip seat, right now I have my own truck, but they keep telling me that they are going to either put me in someone's truck, or put someone in mine, but they haven't, and I'm ok with that.

From what I've been told, if a hometime driver and national driver are both sitting in the same spot, a load will go to the hometime driver first, and from what I've seen I'd have to agree. I very rarely have to wait to get a load after I'm empty, and usually have a preplan before I get to the consignee.

If you don't need huge $$$ (and who actually gets huge $$$ driving over the road anyway) then I'd suggest looking at a hometime plan, much better than national.

 

It is better, but I nearly went broke on it.

 

Roehl indeed has these as well as the region, national, and lease program. I worked for them for a year and left only after I had a problem with a FM. These are great programs if you are semi-retired with the main draw back being slip seating and older trucks. They are slowly trying to replace the trucks so one problem will slowly go away. Yes, I have had to wait a couple of days for loads on occasion and if they don't have enough drivers you will find your 7/7 being a 8/6 or 9/5. If you have a good FM then no problems but I had two, one great one and the other just the total opposite. This FM problem unfortunately is one the whole industry suffers from.

 

This thread is nearly two years old.

 

If your point is that this thread is too old to be of any benefit I beg to differ. Had you taken the time to read the entire thread from the very first post by Choo Choo Train back on April 6, 2008, --- you would have discovered that this thread was begun close to 3 1/2 years ago. It seems you only read as far back as post #36 by Spinpsychle, posted on December 10, 2009. If so, you missed reading more than 30 posts that are still relevant today. The information, advice and insights aren't out of date and the posts contain no misleading or incorrect information that could cause the readers grief. Actually, the age of a thread or post could be an indicator of sorts of any changes or modifications to an original concept.

If one tends to ignore older threads and/or posts assuming that their contents are no longer pertinent, I suggest they're mistaken. If one only reads a few of the final posts in a thread before forming an opinion as to it's worth, chances are good that one will underestimate the value.

 

My point was simply that he responded to a thread that hasn't seen activity for nearly 2 years as though he was responding to the OP. You also could have gotten your point across in two sentences but I suppose making it long and drawn out makes you look smart amongst all us dumb truckers. Condescension doesn't become you.

 

Ok, I think I understand now.
You've shot the messenger
and ignored the message.
What I still don't understand is, what difference does it make how a poster responds to the OP, or ANYone for that matter? As long as they remain civil, of course.

I suppose you could be right.
I get mixed comments about makin' it long and drawn out. Mostly they're positive comments encouragin' me to continue and express their appreciation. Considerin' I'm here primarily for my own entertainment, to know there are those who find what I write worth readin' and will admit it, well, ............ feels kinda nice.
Come here to be entertained and find out I'm entertainin'.
Go figure.

As for knowin' what I look like "amongst all us dumb truckers"?
This is the internet.
Here, ..... we're all just hieroglyphics on a contrasting background. As such we have no "look" to see. Only letters arranged into words that are read by others. From there, we can fathom an image in our minds. I do that (and BTW, ..... y'all look marvelous in my mind's eye).

"Dumb", per se, can't be seen.
But it can become apparent in writin'.
I'm thinkin' it's preferable to be thought to be dumb
Rather than to write somethin' stupid
and remove all doubt.
How "dumb" is that?

Nor you.
Who, for that matter, does condescension become?

If you're implyin' that my post in question contained condescension, it wasn't written with that intent.
Who read it to you?
Now see, that's condescending.
Just makin' sure we're talkin' 'bout the same thing.

Would it be condescending for me to mention my doubts that you actually read my entire first post? My point was and is that those who seem most bothered by older and/or longer threads and/or posts, --- don't usually read 'em anyway.
Maybe skim through, -- convinced enough to form opinions, -- which are known to prove a point.
Case in point ---
In my first post I pointed out an error in your post.
Nothin' real serious. A miscalculation indicating that you hadn't read the OP's first post, which was, and remains, my point.

You, quite possibly, made my point by not correctin' your error.
You either didn't read it or you chose to ignore it and continue providin' inaccurate time frames. And since the subject involved time, that just might be a good point to ponder.
Instead you dwell on what?
Condescension?