Where is The Freight? - Cass Reports a Slowdown

The Cass Freight Index report for July 2012 was somewhat anti-climatic for those of us who follow freight and knew we were in the depth of the great slowdown of 2012.  The "phone bank" report (which measures the direction of phone calls from a fictional transportation manager's desk) reported far more incoming calls from carriers looking for freight than outbound calls searching for trucks and this has been true for at least two months now.

OK, I admit that is not a scientific index however if you are close to the business and have a grasp on that general topic it is a highly effective predictor of freight.

Cass Freight Index - July 2012

We see from this index that essentially expenditures have leveled off really since June of 2011 with just a little bump at the beginning of Q2 in 2012.  I attribute both years' early bumps as price / volume "hype" and not reality.  Each of the last two years has begun with a "great hope" of where rates and the economy is going only to become disappointing by summer and a steadying of rates.  A good and experienced transportation manager will see this trend and ensure they do not buy into the early year hype every year.

At the beginning of every year the transportation company sales people will show up with all sorts of data to tell you "this is the year" where we will hit a massive capacity crunch so you better "pay up now" to be taken care of later.  A great story which makes for great industry journalism however the empirical evidence suggests it is, in fact, all hype and those who remain calm in the face of the story will be better off.

A key question though is how can all these companies (shippers) report great earnings, the market is very high ( Dow at 13,175.64 as of this writing) and yet the shipments and movement of goods is stagnant?  I have a few theories (I freely admit these are theories however the data is showing this to be more and more true).

First, the economy is a more services and financial economy than it is a "things" economy.  While we still consume the manufactured goods we generally do not make them.  This means an entire portion of the former economy shipments is gone and that is inbound to manufacturing.  The outbound is still there however the inbound is gone.  The inbound freight is in China and Mexico and other low cost countries.  Those who say they love being in trucking because their jobs cannot move overseas are wrong.  The inbound jobs have moved overseas along with the inbound freight.

This of course follows the manufacturing base so if manufacturing truly does return to the United States (the jury is out on this) then the inbound will follow back.

Second, the great work on sustainability, minimizing packaging, routing efficiencies etc have all led to being able to move the same amount of goods with lesser number of vehicles.  This movement is good for all of us in the world however it does decrease the raw demand for trucks.  Just think of televisions. If the economy sells a million T.V.s this year (a made up number just to illustrate the point) they are all about 1" thick.  10 years ago if 1 million T.V's were sold they all were about 3 feet deep (packaged).  That is a lot of trucks.  

There is not only minimization of the product size but there is also the elimination of the physical product (think e-books. iTunes for CDs etc.).

So, my conclusion is you cannot compare the GDP numbers of today relative to prior year GDP numbers as if there is a straight correlation between the level of GDP and the amount of goods moving in terms of cube size (which is the driver of number of boxes needed). Clearly there is some kind of correlation but it is not as direct as it would have been 10 - 15 years ago.  The economy can grow with less physical product moving.

Finally, the lesson learned of the last two years is clear: "Be Not Afraid"! at the beginning of the year.  Don't buy the hype, be patient, watch the data and let the economy play out.  You get no credit  (regardless of what the sales person tells you) for being an early mover on rate increases.

Looking at Transportation The Way We Look at China's Economy

I have read a lot recently about how you get the real GDP numbers out of China.  Don't bother with the government statistics rather just go look at the piles of coal at the electric power plants.  As China has said their economy is doing fine, observers of coal piles have seen them grow and grow.  Why is this important?  The growth of the coal piles signifies a massive slow down in the demand for electricity which, in turns, means factories are idling.  When factories idle, you have lower GDP.  Voila!  It may not be scientific however doing econometrics with raw data which is flawed is a waste of time.

So, I thought I would use this way to look at transportation and I did not like what I saw.  Driving through Chicago yesterday passing by the big intermodal yards I saw stacks and stacks of 53' containers which clearly had been "mothballed".  They were not at the yard "in transit" rather they were in the yard and parked.  They were stacked high and tight.  This indicates carriers are parking containers which clearly indicates a massive slowdown in freight pretty close to the time where it should be gearing up for the holidays.

All indications are the economy has softened dramatically and this is just another indicator.  I may patent this methodology, go to Chicago every week and take a picture, compare them against previous weeks like you would a bar graph.  My guess is this would be just as good as some of the other "analysis" I have seen.

Natural Gas - A Different View

One of my colleagues sent me a very interesting post which was the opening statement of David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory to a committee looking into the uses of Natural Gas.  While I am a big supporter of natural gas in transportation I think it is always good to get a balanced view to any topic.  I have a saying I live by: "Nothing is ever as good as it seems and nothing is ever as bad as it seems".  This is almost always true when there is a "gold rush" into anything.  It was true of the Internet boom in the late '90s, turned out to be true in a devastating way with real estate and now, most likely, it is true in the natural gas boom.  Here are a couple of points:

• Those who think NATGAS will remain wildly below the world price just because it is drilled here in the US may need a lesson in global economics.  Fuel / Oil is a very fungible commodity and because gas can be liquefied it can and will be exported if there is an arbitrage opportunity. 

• In order to keep up with emissions requirements and total GHG reductions, the entire infrastructure (if built) for NATGAS would need to be dismantled by 2050.  I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this statement however it is right in line with what I have heard before which is NATGAS is somewhat of a "bridge" fuel.  It does not satisfy our overall objective to get to sustainable fuels and renewable energy.  But, and this is a big but, how long / far will the "bridge" be?  If you assume 2050 as this article does then it probably does not make sense to build it.  However, if you assume longer then it should be built.  This requires forecasting, a crystal ball and a bit of luck.  None of which I can do very well or possess. 

• The differences in energy in NATGAS v. Diesel means a wholesale transition is highly doubtful.

The conclusions of the article are right in line with what I have been advocating all along:  Conversion to alternative fuels, such as NATGAS, are engineering questions and should be dealt with in this fashion.  A shipper needs to identify specific locations, specific applications and then decide type of fuel, truck etc. etc.  

The future is going to be highly complex as there will not be a "one size fits all".  Unfortunately, that takes 10X Thinking and we, as a species, tend to see the future through a rear view mirror.  We want a new fuel source to replicate the structures of oil and that, I can forecast for sure, will not happen. 

The Highway Bill - Is it Re-regulation in Disguise?

For many who have read my postings you know I personally believe there is a quiet re-regulation of the transportation (mostly full truckload) industry going on in the United States.  Interestingly enough, this is mostly being led by the trucking companies themselves both indirectly and directly.  As regulations have increased the profitability of the trucking companies has increased as well.  It is as if they all just decided competing in an unregulated and highly efficient market was just too much to take.  It is easier to publish a unified tariff and move on.

A stark example of this is in the new highway bill.  In an article written in Logistics Week Bill Graves, the ATA President hails this bill for doing the following:

• Requiring electronic on board recorders for hours of service compliance
• Establishing a central clearing house for Drug and Alcohol testing
• Establishment of standards for systems to provide employers notification of moving violations
• Mandatory testing of new carriers coming into the business around safety (Read: Increase the barrier to entry)

There was a day when any transportation executive would be appalled at the above mainly because it increases regulation, decreases competition and creates barriers to entry to the industry.  This will all result in bad news for shippers as the carriers will use these "new regulations" as an excuse to raise rates.  The savvy shippers will remember who actually put these regulations in place in the first place: The trucking industry. 

One thing the new Highway bill does not do:  Fund infrastructure repairs so our roads and highways become less congested and more conducive to transportation. 

Next up I will deal with how this is being paid for and here is a little hint:  If you think you are getting a defined benefit pension plan, you just contributed!

Impact of Mega Trends - Design for Logistics

As transportation rates and capacity go through a major change one trend which is clearly developing is what I have called "Design for Logistics".  This "mega trend" ensures the logisticians are involved in the design of the product at the very early stages of development and the reason for this is mostly cube utilization.

We have known for quite some time a critical way to reduce spend is just to consume less.  Seems very logical to me and really passes for being a truism in our industry.  However, what has not happened until recently (on a large scale) is people thinking about this before the product is actually designed and built.  As we all know, once the tooling is in place to make the product the goal of the manufacturing group is to run the tool to death; at that point a change in design becomes very costly and almost impossible to execute.

The solution therefore is to get the logistician involved on the front end.  Of course, we do not want to build any "Aztecs" here (really ugly products which were made ugly to make manufacturing and logistics more efficient).  First and foremost, the product has to meet customer needs and, in most cases, actually "wow" the customer.  However, once we identify the critical components of the product which create that emotion with the consumer, we then take the rest of it and design the hell out of it for efficiency in logistics. This usually means cube utilization.

I heard a high level executive for a major truck stop firm say his fuelings were down by 15% and he was attributing it to more "stuff in the back of the trucks" and therefore less trucks.  I am not sure he had real data to support it however given my experience I believe he was right.  And this trend will continue.  The logical and ultimate conclusion is to eliminate shipments completely (aka, Nook/Kindle e-books and iTunes stores).  We know not everything can be digitized however things can be made smaller, packed tighter and assembled at the point of use versus at a factory (Think IKEA furniture).

If you have not instituted this process in your company, and transportation costs are meaningful to your business, you should immediately think about this important topic.  It is far more complex than I have written here and there are clearly ways to be successful at this and ways to screw it up however you should start it now.

The EPA May Have Got it Right

For the last 4 - 6 years we have heard many people grumbling about the need to clean up diesel trucks from an environmental  perspective.  All the same arguments heard whenever new goals are set were rolled out:  "It will cost a fortune", "It will never work", "The technology doesn't exist"... etc. etc.  Same comments made by the automotive companies when the initial clean air act was passed and now we hear them again when it comes to Natural Gas. Now, in an article entitled, The Emissions Dividend in Fleet Owner Magazine, we find out the EPA may have been right.  Thank goodness they stuck to their guns.

What is even more fascinating about the data in the article is it seems to suggest now that all these changes may actually end up in reduced costs for the carriers.  Engines are lasting a million miles, drain intervals are being extended  and other operating costs are improving.  Yes, the acquisition costs of the engines may be higher but it appears there is evidence the total cost of ownership (Generally figured by adding: Acquisition costs+ownership cost-residual revenue) may actually be lower.  It is certainly improving and this is verified by a presentation I was at where a very large trucking company confirmed this phenomenon.

As a shipper it has to make you wonder what all this talk is of "increased costs"?  Yes, there are increased acquisition costs but it is TCO I am concerned about.  If TCO is decreasing that is a good thing isn't it.

This reinforces why, as a shipper, you have to understand the costing model of transportation as well or better than anyone in the industry.

Could you imagine what LA would be like from a smog perspective if the EPA had not stuck to its guns all these years?  It would have been a disaster.  Now, it looks like the same success is coming to the actions concerning diesel trucking.  Congratulations EPA... and my future grandchildren thank you.

Alternative Energy and ACT Expo in Long Beach

A week ago I attended the ACTexpo in Long Beach and I came away more excited about alternative energy solutions than I was before the event.  The lessons learned and the excitement around alternative energy (Mostly CNG and LNG) were fantastic.

The first item I was genuinely excited about was the transition to these fuels will not be government subsidy driven.  Rather, the pure economics of the conversion will take precedent and those who see the value will convert on their own.  We will truly do "Good for the planet while doing Good for our companies"

The second item and the clear overarching lesson is when a company is going to move to alternative fuels it truly is an engineered solution.  By far, the biggest question was: Is it LNG or CNG for the future? Most respondents would make blanket answers as if it was an all or nothing.  I continue to say you have to think of this as akin to a stock portfolio: Some bonds, some cash, some stocks. And you adjust based on the economics and your personal situation.

Alternative fuels are exactly the same: Some LNG, some CNG, a lot of diesel, maybe some hybrid (we will see where this goes - the hybrid discussions were the most disappointing).  A company thinking of an alternative fuels strategy needs to do deep and INDEPENDENT analysis on what their applications are now and anticipated to be, the pros and cons of each application, the economics and then start putting the program together.  My feeling is those who just jump in because it is "cool" and it makes them look like they are doing "something" may find their portfolio all upside down and it will be tough to correct.

I highly encourage this conference.  A great place to learn a lot.  Just keep your thinking cap on and understand a lot of people are there to sell what they have.  The true answer is analyzing what the shipper wants and then finding the right mix.

Driver Wages - Really Going Up or "Signaling"?

An interesting article trying to quantify what driver wages would have to hit to be at the equilibrium point.  However, this data is meaningless unless you determine what the target price is for transportation services?  At what point to shippers move to substitutes to offset transportation increases?

Some may think substitutes are only in the mode of transportation however that is the least efficient way to substitute.  Shippers are always tweaking around the edges with mode transfers etc. however the most efficient and biggest impact areas for shippers to evaluate are activities such as mfg site selection, load ability, inventory trade offs etc.

At what point do transportation rates get so high that the shipper changes their operational methodologies?  Until you know the answer to this question it is hard to determine what wage rate will be the equilibrium / market clearing wage rate.

Apple and iPad 3 Put Strain on Airfreight Rates and Capacity

As is being reported by multiple sources, airfreight rates are going up if you can find the capacity at all.  This, mostly, is due to Apple and the launch of the iPad 3. 

Amazing that one company and just one product can do this but when it is Apple anything is possible.  My sources tell me this could continue for 3 - 12 weeks depending on sales.  Given that sales are already being pushed out if you order on line (indicating they are already in a backorder situation) my guess and money is on the bigger number.

Fuel Prices

The idea of limited oil is an idea which needs to be reevaluated.  As drilling technology gets more advanced it appears oil and natural gas reserves will continue to grow. 

So, why the fuel price increase?  It does not appear to be a result of what normal economics would drive.  It is far more about speculation and fear which is the reason fuel must be managed.  If you are unwilling to take an active role in managing fuel you will generally be subject to the "whipsaw" effect of the marketplace. 

Keep an eye on fuel drilling capacity, production capacity and the import/export imbalances to decide if there truly is a fuel shortage.  Right now the United States is exporting a lot of refined petroleum products.  I am sure this increase will cause the continued move to intermodal and rail movements.  It should not be an all or nothing move however.  A good "multi modal" strategy is one which protects capacity and allows for adaptations to the current economics. 

December Cass Index report shows signs of improvement but points to slow Q4 growth overall - Article from Logistics Management

As I have predicted for a while, freight was very soft in Q4. Shippers have reset inventory levels at very low points and unless they see a large swing in macro economic indicators, I doubt they will increase volumes (Don't pray for a "restocking" initiative).

I believe also shippers are starting to take advantage of improved technology driving actions such as back haul sharing, co loading and other joint initiatives. This, of course, takes sophisticated software. There may be a convergence going on: Sophistication of software and the willingness of shippers to accept a bit more complexity to offset the higher per unit costs. Key metrics to measure will be:

Loaded revenue per mile, revenue per tractor / trailer and the amount of idle equipment.

While everyone is complaining about the driver shortage, no carrier that I have seen has been willing to raise wages. The "windfall" of revenue due to tightened capacity appears to be flowing to company bottom lines and not to the driver.

December Cass Index report shows signs of improvement but points to slow Q4 growth overall - Article from Logistics Management

The Coming Capacity Crunch. Y2K All Over Again? UPDATED: Added Former Government Officials

I must admit I do believe there is a capacity crunch coming but I am also starting to get very skeptical.  Does this sound like the "Y2K" scare all over again?  There is a cabal of vested interests in creating this scare.  Too many people are profiting from the scare. Here is my quick inventory:

1) Carriers:  By scaring the hell out of people they are trying to raise rates in advance of costs.  Carriers will say they want to raise rates to "protect capacity" but then when you look to see what is being done with that money, it is essentially being pocketed.  Driver wages have not moved one bit.  I might understand if the money was going to driver wages but it is not.  Where is it going?

2) Consultants:  Lots being built on this just like the consulting of Y2K.  Create a crisis then charge a lot of money to help solve the crisis. 

3) Leasing Companies:  The story goes that the capacity crunch is on and so you will want to look more to dedicated fleets. Voila!  We have a solution for you if you will just lease these trucks for 5 years. 

4) Trade organizations:  Their story is in order to stay in front of the capacity crunch you have to join and pay fees to attend special seminars like "What to do when the capacity crunch hits".  There are thousands of these seminars and they do not amount to much.

5) Former Government Officials:  This is the best part of the entire cabal.  There are former government officials (Link is provided as an illustration of the revolving door between government appointee then consultant.. I do not personally know Mr. Burnley) who are directly complicit in forming the laws which most likely will cause an artificial capacity constraint (i.e, tinkering with the HOS rules).  They then leave government and make a lucrative career out of consulting on how to deal with the problem they helped create in the first place. 

Unlike Y2K where the narrative was a technical issue (turned out not), this issue is purely economics.  The key question is at what point will capacity come back to the market and what will be the market clearing equilibrium price for services.  Further, what will be the alternatives and when will the costs get to the point where alternatives are used by the shippers. 

I am not saying this is not real but like most things it probably is getting very over-hyped as an entire industry appears to be building around the anticipation of the event rather than the actual event.  

I also wonder, from an antitrust standpoint, how much of this is the carrier base "signaling" to their competitors of intentions.  They clearly are publicly signaling their intention of decreasing capacity and raising rates.  Something perhaps someone should look in to.  

Price of Fuel Going Down as Supply Increases? Don't Bet on It.

It is arrogance to assume the US can control the worldwide price of oil and refined petroleum products (PP).  It is also delusional to think the oil companies will do anything other than what is in their best interest.

Practically, what those two statements mean is 1) Petroleum products, regardless of where they originate, will flow to the most economical location - it is fungible.  2) Oil companies could care less if the US is dependent on foreign oil or not (see 1. above).

We now have the interesting situation where US demand for petroleum products (i.e., gasoline) is lower than the supply.  The narrative has been when this occurs, prices will go down and that will spur more demand, a new "market clearing" price will emerge and all will be fine.  Of course, this assumes the US is a closed society and the only thing the oil companies can do (or want to do) is dump the excess oil /PP on the US market.  But, we learn, they have a second option.  They can export it to countries where demand is growing the price is higher.

This puts us into an odd situation: The US is now a net exporter of petroleum products.  The excess supply did NOT lower prices or wean us off of foreign oil.

So, if you are a trucker or shipper thinking all that shale gas and oil will ultimately lower your operating costs you may want to think about a "plan B".  It will merely get exported.

Thoughts on Economic Distortion

In transportation I have heard shippers say they do not want to negotiate too "hard" with carriers because they want to treat them as "partners".  I have always wondered what that meant.  What does "negotiating hard" mean and what does being a "partner" mean are key questions for both the buyer and seller of transportation services?

I submit they mean the same thing and tend to be emotional statements.  What I prefer is to work with transportation providers as an extended supply chain.  After all, unless one side is trying to get unfair or undo leverage on the other side we should be working together as a single entity for the common good of the ultimate customer.

What this means is there cannot be economic distortion in the discussions.  Economic distortion exists when one side has information pertinent to the discussion the other side does not have - some call this information asymmetry.  When economic distortion exists there is bound to be an outcome which is weighted to one side or the other in terms of value.  When that occurs the sub-optimum solution is obtained and it will ultimately lead to mistrust and a dissolution of the relationship.

I go from the premise that eventually all information will become known and will be available to both sides.  As soon as one side realizes they were disadvantaged by the other side not disclosing pertinent information the disadvantaged side tries to fight back and so begins the war of distrust and trying to "one up" the other side.

So my warning to the buyers is do not think you are somehow out maneuvering the transportation provider.  Ultimately, the real situation will be discovered and when it is you will be hit back and hard.  You may get a short term gain but at a long term price. To the suppliers / logistics providers: If you are thinking you have a long term sustainable business model by taking advantage of your customers by not disclosing proper information (costs, operational efficiencies etc) you are kidding yourself.  Sooner or later what you thought was secret will become known and when the customer realizes they have had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will dump you.

In the end, American business could save a lot of time, money and extraneous resources if this little dance did not need to be played out every time an arrangement needed to be made between buyer and seller.

This may not be a 10X idea but it certainly is a 10X program if properly implemented.  If a company and its suppliers really took this to heart I believe both sides would see dramatic improvement in productivity and efficiency thus driving the 10X change that we seek.  Lots of people talk about this, few if any actually do it.

Assume all relevant information will become available and save a lot of time by trying to take advantage of short term economic distortions.

US To Be A Net Exporter of Petroleum Products in 2011

For you transportation professionals who bought into the idea if we drill and produce more oil, prices will go down.  Think again.  This article in Seeking Alpha shows the US will end the year as a net exporter.  Yes, the prices are not going down, the fuel is just going out.

Final HOS Rule Released and Sec. LaHood is on Santa’s Naughty List! - Article from Logistics Management

Final HOS Rule Released and Sec. LaHood is on Santa’s Naughty List! - Article from Logistics Management

Dodged a few bullets but the total work hours are down from 82 to 70. What is interesting, quite amazing and important is this gets phased in over 18 months. That is a lot of time for shippers and carriers to get ready and for lobbyists to get it overturned. Ok, I am a bit cynical but as the article points out, if there really was a "crisis" of safety on America's highways would we wait 18 months to implement a resolution?

Learnings Through Logistics' Visits

I  had a great week visiting with many logistics providers and trying to get insight into just exactly what is going on in this business.  Some will tell you the business is collapsing due to low demand, some believe the transportation business is ripe for a great uptick in profitability due to constrained capacity (the jury is still out, in my mind, on whether this is artificial or not), some believe it is all just the same.. we are moving around the margins.

I get conflicting signals.  For example, everyone tells me the driver shortage is wildly acute and we run the risk of just not having enough capacity to service the industry because of a lack of drivers.  Many say if the GDP stays above 2.5% or greater then we will just not have enough capacity to service the shipper market.  However, using "Econ 101" this would tell me driver wages should be increasing.  That is not the case. Driver wages are flat.

The next question is whether the increase in intermodal actually is absorbing the otherwise demand for driver capacity?  This seems to be a plausible answer.  Container capacity is up 10% to 20% (depending on who you talk to) and this means those containers have to be filled.  They will not let them just pile up in a container yard.  Add to the fact that many shippers are lowering their point of indifference of choosing between trucks and IM (Indifference is the length of haul in miles where a shipper sees the two as interchangeable) and more shippers are choosing IM on more lanes.  Obviously, this reduces the need for drivers on long haul runs.

So, data is really mixed.  The analysts are all saying most of these companies (public) are "fairly valued" and the industry should not be overweighted in a stock portfolio.  Projections for pricing have been reduced (early this year most were claiming a 4% price increase but that does not seem to be happening) and capacity has freed up.

The one caveat?  Last year we were saying this same thing and the market for trucks and transportation went on fire in the first quarter.  So, this post did not give you an answer (sorry) but may have provided some things to think about.

Home Construction Will Be Muted - Bad News for Logistics Providers

I think we have all learned over the last few years why home construction is always looked at by economists.  It is probably the single biggest indicator of the health of the economy.  When people buy homes all sorts of things happen:

1. Construction materials are bought
2. People are employed en masse
3. Peripherals are purchased (appliances, lights, drapes etc.)
4. Landscaping is performed...

I do not know the exact number but my guess is after someone buys a $200K house they most likely, over the next year, spend another $20K at least on "stuff".

This drives all sorts of logistics activities - warehousing and most importantly, transportation volume.  Transportation is inbound into the manufacturing plants which gear up for the activity and outbound finished goods going to all those new homes.

OK, now we know why this is so important.  This is also why it is depressing to hear home construction will be muted for a while - most likely 5 -8 years. The inventory is just too high and there are still a lot of adjustable rate mortgages to reset in 2012.  Not a good sign.

For those of you who say, "Yes, but those staying in a home will remodel" I would say this "rule" (if it ever was one) does not hold up anymore.  The reason is most people, intuitively, know they are now living in a depreciating asset and not an appreciating asset.  Remodeling makes sense in the latter as it is much like a bank account.  However, in the former remodeling is like buying a consumable product which has no sustainable value.  People know this intuitively and will not, in total, increase dramatically their major remodeling (assuming they are sane and rational).

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Logistics Report Out

I have read the new report on the "state of logistics and I have a few thoughts.  First, we have to figure out how to make the report more relevant.  The logistics' industry is under tremendous change right now and to have a report on 2010 come out in the summer of 2011 is tough.  All the verbiage around what is happening in the transportation industry is almost not worth reading beyond just good history.

Second, it does forecast for 2011 correctly but it probably is a bit late in its prediction.  The report says rates will change dramatically in late 2011.  Well, we have gone through a cycle already in 2011 where rates changed a lot in Q1 and now the economy has put the brakes on thereby changing the capacity / demand equation just in the last few months.  I think however capacity has finally come out faster than demand has slowed resulting in a still favorable environment for carriers.  Intermodal is still on fire.

Real estate is still very weak.  It is not hard to find great warehousing deals but, of course, who the hell wants a warehouse!

Overall, if there were a measurement of whether the "shipper" or the "carrier" are in control, I would say it definitely is favoring the carrier at this point.  Shippers will need to ensure they have a good strategy in place to manage carriers and also work with good regional carriers.  I have found a lot of value in the regional carriers and the value they can provide.  Do not always just default to the "big 5".  There are other great players out there and as the "big 5" regionalize their operations they lose the competitive advantage against the local players.

More to follow but it is very interesting times to say the least.

Impact of High Diesel prices.. Get Ready

Owner operators will exit the business, the "big 3" will get bigger, everything will cost a lot more. Get ready.

Impact of high Diesel prices.