What's new

FedEx Freight | "Significant number" of straight trucks coming to FXFE

Richard Cranium said:
RC said while most of us know what a douche bag is, what is a deuce bag?
Only thing we can think of is those team drivers that are on such a tight schedule that they have to poop in a plastic bag and heave it out the window.
Click to expand...

Maybe he got all jacked up on your special recycled lemonade again and forgot how to spell. :hide:
 
SwampRatt said:
I do have to agree on need, based on accessibility and safety concerns :1036316054:. Also correct, the pay scale was not mentioned... Yet.

Does anyone think there will be Class B and/or C drivers hired at the same scale as Class A drivers? What about non-CDL drivers? Or do you and Red contend that only Class A drivers will be hired? That solves that challenge, but at a cost. Unlikely, IMHO.

I disagree on the charge of fear mongering. Simply asking the uncomfortable questions. Questions that will eventually need answers. Answers needed, NOT for my benefit, but for the benefit of the Company AND those who may be affected. Again, smooth well sorted execution will be the key.

One would think, this has all been (or is being) sorted out. Until we know, we speculate... :idunno:
Click to expand...

Swamp,
I would think that "assuming positive intent" might be applicable in this sense, instead of focusing solely on possible negative aspects. While your concerns all seem valid, the positives seen to be absent from the discussion. Obviously e-commerce is increasing the number of the residential deliveries handled by the LTL industry. Would it not be in the best interest of the market leader (and its city drivers) to find innovative solutions for handling the low power line, culdesac laden, areas to which we will be delivering appliances and other items to moving forward? As far as driver wages, the efficency of a straight truck will never match that of a pup or van, due to weight capacity, so would systematic and complete replacement make sense? Why would the push be on for 33 footers, instead of smaller units that do not require a CDL, if more volume was not more efficient? Would it not be an ideal situation for our driver apprentices? I would think it would provide valuable additional .education, that may alleviate some of the concerns of those on here that refer to them as "steering wheel holders".
Certainly valid discussion points on both sides, but we cannot fear change driven by the market, as we have seen the organizations that resist change become weak and perish.

Carry on.......
 
aflifer said:
Swamp,
I would think that "assuming positive intent" might be applicable in this sense, instead of focusing solely on possible negative aspects. While your concerns all seem valid, the positives seen to be absent from the discussion. Obviously e-commerce is increasing the number of the residential deliveries handled by the LTL industry. Would it not be in the best interest of the market leader (and its city drivers) to find innovative solutions for handling the low power line, culdesac laden, areas to which we will be delivering appliances and other items to moving forward? As far as driver wages, the efficency of a straight truck will never match that of a pup or van, due to weight capacity, so would systematic and complete replacement make sense? Why would the push be on for 33 footers, instead of smaller units that do not require a CDL, if more volume was not more efficient? Would it not be an ideal situation for our driver apprentices? I would think it would provide valuable additional .education, that may alleviate some of the concerns of those on here that refer to them as "steering wheel holders".
Certainly valid discussion points on both sides, but we cannot fear change driven by the market, as we have seen the organizations that resist change become weak and perish.

Carry on.......
Click to expand...
Interesting input. Challenging considerations...

Assuming positive intent: Well played and valid critique, to a point. The company's intent is clearly positive, due to evolving customers' demographics and all the reasons you note, Absolutely true. The potential to reduce pressure on the wages, while also good for the bottom line, may very well provide a negative effect for current drivers. As a driver, I can't ignore that.

Again, all of this applies to the industry as a whole, not just FedEx Freight.

Efficiency: In case this tidbit got lost in the noise, I'll repeat . " A 24' straight truck can theoretically do 85% as much work as a pup. According to Bureau of labor statistics, in the Charlotte NC area (Just to pick a random location:idunno:), a typical straight truck driver makes/costs only 74% of what a Class A driver makes."

Seems clear that 85% of work for 74% of cost is an appealing metric, on the surface. Weight capacity is only rarely a concern, in the city. Certainly other considerations would have to be applied. Unit costs, limited usability/idle time, turnover rates, etc. Also worth mentioning, the premium upcharge for residential, liftgate, inside delivery, etc. would factor in. Likely NOT a HUGE profit bonanza, but perhaps significant. Without access to some critical numbers, it's tough to say with absolute certainty.

Couple of corrections: No one is predicting or making a case for "systematic and complete replacement" of the current equip. pool. Also, the push for 33' trailers is purely for line-haul efficiency. Not really applicable to this topic, IMHO.

Not fearing change, just trying to share awareness and understanding of it.

Edit: Don't be a stranger. You always add valuable perspective, and positive intent. :1036316054:
 
Last edited:
aflifer said:
Swamp,
I would think that "assuming positive intent" might be applicable in this sense, instead of focusing solely on possible negative aspects. While your concerns all seem valid, the positives seen to be absent from the discussion. Obviously e-commerce is increasing the number of the residential deliveries handled by the LTL industry. Would it not be in the best interest of the market leader (and its city drivers) to find innovative solutions for handling the low power line, culdesac laden, areas to which we will be delivering appliances and other items to moving forward? As far as driver wages, the efficency of a straight truck will never match that of a pup or van, due to weight capacity, so would systematic and complete replacement make sense? Why would the push be on for 33 footers, instead of smaller units that do not require a CDL, if more volume was not more efficient? Would it not be an ideal situation for our driver apprentices? I would think it would provide valuable additional .education, that may alleviate some of the concerns of those on here that refer to them as "steering wheel holders".
Certainly valid discussion points on both sides, but we cannot fear change driven by the market, as we have seen the organizations that resist change become weak and perish.

Carry on.......
Click to expand...

We use the NON CDL trucks now for about a year in some locations. We have now started to train some of the good ones for their CDL's . This is a perfect stepping stone for some to see if they want to get into trucking. They aren't spending thousands on CDL school and the companies get to see if they are worth training.
 
SwampRatt said:
Interesting input. Challenging considerations...

Assuming positive intent: Well played and valid critique, to a point. The company's intent is clearly positive, due to evolving customers' demographics and all the reasons you note, Absolutely true. The potential to reduce pressure on the wages, while also good for the bottom line, may very well provide a negative effect for current drivers. As a driver, I can't ignore that.

Again, all of this applies to the industry as a whole, not just FedEx Freight.

Efficiency: In case this tidbit got lost in the noise, I'll repeat . " A 24' straight truck can theoretically do 85% as much work as a pup. According to Bureau of labor statistics, in the Charlotte NC area (Just to pick a random location:idunno:), a typical straight truck driver makes/costs only 74% of what a Class A driver makes."

Seems clear that 85% of work for 74% of cost is an appealing metric, on the surface. Weight capacity is only rarely a concern, in the city. Certainly other considerations would have to be applied. Unit costs, limited usability/idle time, turnover rates, etc. Also worth mentioning, the premium upcharge for residential, liftgate, inside delivery, etc. would factor in. Likely NOT a HUGE profit bonanza, but perhaps significant. Without access to some critical numbers, it's tough to say with absolute certainty.

Couple of corrections: No one is predicting or making a case for "systematic and complete replacement" of the current equip. pool. Also, the push for 33' trailers is purely for line-haul efficiency. Not really applicable to this topic, IMHO.

Not fearing change, just trying to share awareness and understanding of it.

Edit: Don't be a stranger. You always add valuable perspective, and positive intent. :1036316054:
Click to expand...

Good feedback and strong supporting arguments.....

I can appreciate your concern, but like you said, I can't really see the widespread replacement of large CMV in our network. It will be an interesting tool, with the future showing promising growth for the area. But why would growth in one area necessitate a reduction/stagnation in another?
I think you overly discount the value 33s would provide in the city operation though......imagine how many stem mile trips back to the center 2-4 more skid spots on each pup in the city might save company wide.
I may be alone, but I feel that with a lot of the regs coming down from the federal govt, they will continue to keep professional drivers in demand, thus maintaining wages at a competitive level....

Stay safe.....
 
Last edited:
ltltrkr said:
We use the NON CDL trucks now for about a year in some locations. We have now started to train some of the good ones for their CDL's . This is a perfect stepping stone for some to see if they want to get into trucking. They aren't spending thousands on CDL school and the companies get to see if they are worth training.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of newer drivers cutting their teeth in a straight truck. Gives them an opportunity to learn how to do p&d without the stresses of a long trailer. Then when they get their CDL already know the operation.
 
citydog said:
I like the idea of newer drivers cutting their teeth in a straight truck. Gives them an opportunity to learn how to do p&d without the stresses of a long trailer. Then when they get their CDL already know the operation.
Click to expand...

So, the pipe dream then goes:

Dock < DDC < Straight Truck < Jockey < DDC < City < Road?

Goodness, our fresh road crew will be Grandparents! It's a good thing we're supposed to work until we're octogenarians to collect social security!
 
citydog said:
I like the idea of newer drivers cutting their teeth in a straight truck. Gives them an opportunity to learn how to do p&d without the stresses of a long trailer. Then when they get their CDL already know the operation.
Click to expand...

Fredrick could also single out a driver who had an accident or two ( How ever they felt that day ) and put them in a straight truck to recut their teeth. Drop their pay to the lower training rate .
With the 20/20 deal for shareholder value would the company work a lower rate of pay before the higher ? Whats to stop them ?
 
Cab Lizzard said:
Fredrick could also single out a driver who had an accident or two ( How ever they felt that day ) and put them in a straight truck to recut their teeth. Drop their pay to the lower training rate .
With the 20/20 deal for shareholder value would the company work a lower rate of pay before the higher ? Whats to stop them ?
Click to expand...

Lower starting wages equal lower top out. It reminds me of what UPS Freight attempted with LHD drivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top