pcawfootball
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
How many are we getting ready to see?
XPO | FAC closings
- Thread starter pcawfootball
- Start date
What gives you the idea there are going to be more closings? The re-engineering phase is done. You can only close so many and still maintain service levels. I seriously doubt you are going to see any more closings in the foreseeable future...
I will go out on a limb here....once the economy rebounds it is probable CW will start additional construction projects. We are now covering larger territories with fewer barns. If freight levels go up (contingent on the health of the LTL industry and the financial strength of other carriers) we will be struggling to keep up.
The days of the 40 door barn are over. They are just too small for the larger areas we are covering. Larger barns allow for more efficient handling of freight, easier crossdocking, and the ability to more efficiently build LH trailers that can utilize specific lanes.
Additionally, the more we use sub-service carriers the larger the barn must be. The LHers I work with tell me some of the FACs are loading quite a few sub-service trailers...these all take additional docks and the space to accomomdate the freight.
It seems we are in limbo at the present...waiting to see what falls out of the trees in the industry before making any additional adjustments.
Just my opinion...
Rat :loser:
PS...Look at this...
http://www.con-way.com/en/about_con_way/newsroom/press_releases/Jan_2009/2009_jan_14/
I have no info on how many, if any, F.A.C.'s might be closing. If I had my druthers, I would close them all. Go back to loading all trailers direct to destination, without re handling at an intermediate facility. As I recall, we got our inbound freight earlier, and without near the damage/lost shipments that we see today. Every time you handle the customers freight, you increase the risk of damage and/or losing part or all of it. If the company really wanted to decrease claims, they would knock off all of the re-ship cross docking.
Just load direct to destination, even if the trailers aren't packed to absolute capacity every dispatch. It gets the freight to destination earlier, and with considerably less damage.
But, that isn't going to happen. The Palace is sold on the F.A.C. model of operations, their careers are banked on it. To back down now, and change the method of operation, would cause them to loose credibility and have to ask them to admit that it was wrong. A very, very difficult thing for the massive egos that have to be in place, to allow someone to accept that job, at that level to begin with.
Just load direct to destination, even if the trailers aren't packed to absolute capacity every dispatch. It gets the freight to destination earlier, and with considerably less damage.
But, that isn't going to happen. The Palace is sold on the F.A.C. model of operations, their careers are banked on it. To back down now, and change the method of operation, would cause them to loose credibility and have to ask them to admit that it was wrong. A very, very difficult thing for the massive egos that have to be in place, to allow someone to accept that job, at that level to begin with.
imported_BoxBoss
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
Please go to Yahoo Finance and read the transcript from our call the other day...Wall Street asked about this very subject, and Doug S. stated that there are no more plans in place to close anymore service centers, that cutting the 40 that we did was not the beginning, it WAS the cut...
imported_BoxBoss
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
I'm sorry, let me correct myself...The subject was FACs...whether you open, close or shift FACs from service center to service center is different...Business levels and service standards drive that decision..
I did. Thank you for the link. Doesn't change my premise however. I don't think we could/should close any centers. I think the F.A.C. concept was ill conceived, and simply doesn't work. Load a trailer at origin, and don't touch the freight in that trailer again, until it gets to it's destination, where ever that may be. Move the equipment, not that which it contains. The con-way style of FAC operations, is being copied now, due to economics. But the original discussion was over reducing customer complaints/claims. If you handle the freight fewer times, you cause less damage, and can't possibly lose any of it. Don't handle the freight, move the equipment from origin to destination and Don't Touch it until it arrives.
It won't happen. I know that. They will stay with the FAC type of operation until the company closes, they have to, it is their baby. But, if I was a shipper, and cost wasn't the biggest issue, I would want the carrier i shipped with to get my stuff to my buyer, without losing it, or destroying it. I might even be willing to pay extra, to insure that it does so.
The more you handle the freight, the more opportunities you have to damage and/or lose it, that is undisputed.
We don't need to close any centers, we need to stop the FAC non-sense, load direct trailers to destination, freight will arrive earlier and with fewer claims........
That's what I think.
Go ahead.....i am ready....
imported_BoxBoss
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
I did. Thank you for the link. Doesn't change my premise however. I don't think we could/should close any centers. I think the F.A.C. concept was ill conceived, and simply doesn't work. Load a trailer at origin, and don't touch the freight in that trailer again, until it gets to it's destination, where ever that may be. Move the equipment, not that which it contains. The con-way style of FAC operations, is being copied now, due to economics. But the original discussion was over reducing customer complaints/claims. If you handle the freight fewer times, you cause less damage, and can't possibly lose any of it. Don't handle the freight, move the equipment from origin to destination and Don't Touch it until it arrives.
It won't happen. I know that. They will stay with the FAC type of operation until the company closes, they have to, it is their baby. But, if I was a shipper, and cost wasn't the biggest issue, I would want the carrier i shipped with to get my stuff to my buyer, without losing it, or destroying it. I might even be willing to pay extra, to insure that it does so.
The more you handle the freight, the more opportunities you have to damage and/or lose it, that is undisputed.
We don't need to close any centers, we need to stop the FAC non-sense, load direct trailers to destination, freight will arrive earlier and with fewer claims........
That's what I think.
Go ahead.....i am ready....
Not at all...no target needed...there is a ton of merit in what you say...the problem lies in creating too many partial schedules and the cost associated with it..every single service center, big or small, should be trying to load as direct as possible every day...some do this well, others, well, not so well..
B
Bankrupt
Guest
I did. Thank you for the link. Doesn't change my premise however. I don't think we could/should close any centers. I think the F.A.C. concept was ill conceived, and simply doesn't work. Load a trailer at origin, and don't touch the freight in that trailer again, until it gets to it's destination, where ever that may be. Move the equipment, not that which it contains. The con-way style of FAC operations, is being copied now, due to economics. But the original discussion was over reducing customer complaints/claims. If you handle the freight fewer times, you cause less damage, and can't possibly lose any of it. Don't handle the freight, move the equipment from origin to destination and Don't Touch it until it arrives.
It won't happen. I know that. They will stay with the FAC type of operation until the company closes, they have to, it is their baby. But, if I was a shipper, and cost wasn't the biggest issue, I would want the carrier i shipped with to get my stuff to my buyer, without losing it, or destroying it. I might even be willing to pay extra, to insure that it does so.
The more you handle the freight, the more opportunities you have to damage and/or lose it, that is undisputed.
We don't need to close any centers, we need to stop the FAC non-sense, load direct trailers to destination, freight will arrive earlier and with fewer claims........
That's what I think.
Go ahead.....i am ready....
This approach would greatly reduce or nearly eliminate the use of sub-service carriers.
It would be interesting to compare the costs of running partial schedules vs. damages/losses and productivity related to moving the freight numerous times unnecessarily, including the cost of using sub-standard service. I'm sure the company has done this but is not willing to release that information to us peons.
Yeah.......I guess we just don't see...."The Big Picture".......
anyway, we have jobs, this week anyway.......
I think.
:rockon:
Was told today that URD (Redding, CA) FAC is closing. Service center is not closing just the FAC operations. From what i'm told it was a small FAC that was basically the staging place for the Pacific Northwest trailers. Not sure how or who it will affect as of now.
imported_BoxBoss
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
It was an FAC with 8-10 guys a night on it, but the tonnage wasn't supporting it..
Mr. Good Wrench
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
The basic principle of trucking is to haul full trailers. Any time we run empty or partial we loose money. We don't get paid for empty space in trailers?
Damages and claims are preventable (or at least can be greatly reduced) if everyone does what what they are supposed to do...
Damages and claims are preventable (or at least can be greatly reduced) if everyone does what what they are supposed to do...
NorthTXcon-way
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
About 99% of all claims are preventable. All you have to do is use common sense.
B
Bankrupt
Guest
Common sense is too often ignored for the sake of policy conformation.
And no where in our policy book does it use the words "common sense". Or at least that's the way I imagine it as I've not seen a policy guide in many years.
Maybe then kind sir, you can explain to me why we run sub-standard service on loaded lanes within the same region. I understand using the jippo's if there is an empty lane in one direction but if both lanes are running loaded to and from the same service centers they should not be hauling the freight. We, meaning Con-way Freight, should be running it. I'm am anxiously awaiting anyone's truthful answer to this. It is happening now and will only get worse. I for one am tired of being LIED to by our untruthful so-called leaders.
When we strip pups to load 53 footers there is a problem. Right now the main focus is to pull as much freight as possible off of pups and load up those long boxes. I don't know why this wasn't implemented sooner because their service is impeccable. Um.....could someone get me a ladder? I need to come down off my soapbox.
con-loser2
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Av8tor hit the nail on the head. Let's move the freight every 200 miles, then damage it some more. Back in the days we use to run empty's up and down the highway and still made icp. By the way, don't forget about the numbers game. you know, when you take a "pup" that's full to the gills to another service center and the supervisor wants it up to the dock. "But it's full" . Supervisor: " I know, but I'm going to swing it into a long box so I can get credit for the tonnage." That one always cracks me up . The numbers game.........