Anyone see better negotiations after overlap eliminated?

Our termimal is currently working out new maps for contractors to eliminate overlap. Anyone been through this already and see better pay by X. Or does X just say your money will come with more volume in your area due to no overlap? I mean X will be saving lots by not paying multiple contractors to service one area right? Lol
 
So were you able to cut down on labor and employees to make up for that reduction? And what I meant by more volume is if we sevice a town with HD only volume would pick up cause we would be running ground packages as well. More stops in same amount of area
 

12yearsaslave

Well-Known Member
In a scenario where no buying/selling happens, overlap will not increase stop volume significantly. You would be gaining ground but you would be losing some of your hd volume to the person who used to run said ground. It is intended to be a 0 sum game with gained density. We are experiencing >20% growth right now so for us any productivity gains are just helping to keep up with the growth.
 

NYCFXG

Well-Known Member
No. Especially in areas that haven't fully co-located yet. Last time I checked delivering two packages to the same stop isn't two stops... it was when you were running two trucks. Not when you're running one. They will make the argument that you will be more efficient. With the size of the boxes increasing, good luck figuring out how to take trucks off the line.
 
No. Especially in areas that haven't fully co-located yet. Last time I checked delivering two packages to the same stop isn't two stops... it was when you were running two trucks. Not when you're running one. They will make the argument that you will be more efficient. With the size of the boxes increasing, good luck figuring out how to take trucks off the line.
The oversize boxes are getting outta hand..The scale at the end of the belt is my friend..Thrown a few up only to see over 150..Sorry not taking that:)
 

sadmanhere

Well-Known Member
No. Especially in areas that haven't fully co-located yet. Last time I checked delivering two packages to the same stop isn't two stops... it was when you were running two trucks. Not when you're running one. They will make the argument that you will be more efficient. With the size of the boxes increasing, good luck figuring out how to take trucks off the line.
Reduction of 10-15% in revenue is expected due to increased density. There should be no volume increase.

so for example say two contractors had the similar geographic area at scale one for hd the other for gd
say hd grossed 600,000
gd grossed 800,000

so combined fedex was paying them 1.4million to cover the area gd/hd
when they combine for overlap and say volume is the same...fedex is going to pay how much to cover that area? 1.2million?
 

12yearsaslave

Well-Known Member
so for example say two contractors had the similar geographic area at scale one for hd the other for gd
say hd grossed 600,000
gd grossed 800,000

so combined fedex was paying them 1.4million to cover the area gd/hd
when they combine for overlap and say volume is the same...fedex is going to pay how much to cover that area? 1.2million?
There are some variables, but yeah thats the idea. It's more like this: they would've payed you 1.5-1.6 for next year dependent on natural growth, inflation, w/e else; so now they will pay you same 1.4 or 1.3 again it will vary.
 

Exec32

Well-Known Member
You should be charging for a combination of cargo space and weight.
FedEx does this very effectively to its customers. This will almost completely eliminate your exposure to lost revenue. This is how 99% of the independent contracting services in the transportation industry charge. Wait a minute you guys don't have any say on the means of compensation? Weird, I wonder why?
This would enforce efficiency on X behalf, something that is completely absent under the current scheme.
 
Top