Comments on: Could This Contract Stop Cargo Rollovers & No-Shows?

By: Jared Vineyard

Jared Vineyard — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:09:31 +0000

Great to hear from you, Gary! We love your comments.

Your experience is certainly better than the experience described by shippers in articles like the Loadstar one shared. While the research cited on shippers’ losses comes from a trusted source, my second paragraph feels a little hyperbolic in hindsight as you point out this is not every experienced shippers’ experience.

I have to think BCOs have a better time of it than medium to small shippers. While the shipper who commonly experiences rollovers quoted in the article is big enough to be a BCO with 170,000 TEU, the research about money lost by shippers due to carrier unreliability doesn’t appear to be specific to the size of the shippers losing money. It just lumps them all together.

The problem definitely exists in general or there would be no need for a company like the New York Shipping Exchange to exist. But I guess the real viability of the company will be seen with time.

I do like your client’s quote. The arrival of the goods is the absolute most important thing. That’s why professionals like yourself and the team here at UC are successful. We make sure shippers get their imports and exports reliably delivered no matter what challenges the industry faces.

By: Gary Ferrulli

Gary Ferrulli — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:00:48 +0000

Any of you ever have your laptop “crash”? need to be rebooted? Updates coming in and need to restart? Then envision highways loaded with driver-less trucks using the same technology. I just want notice when and where they are so I can avoid those roads.

By: Gary Ferrulli

Gary Ferrulli — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:14:41 +0000

I’d love to debate the loss by BCO’s stated in this piece, having represented 12 shippers over the years who move between 11,000 feus and
30,000 feus a year globally.
We have put mutually measurable clauses into contracts since 2006 which define the minimum commitment from both sides on a lane
by lane basis, literally week by week (usually in 8 to 12 week segments) with serious enough penalties applying equally to both sides
if they fail to provide the volume or service. In that time frame we have had one major fall down by a carrier who in peak season could not
cover 75 feus a week in a specific lane and we had to find an alternative and did. There have been some skipped sailings but we get two
to four weeks notice and agree to options and solutions before it happens. Anyone who is surprised by their carrier it is because they don’t
have the right relationships – or they are using the wrong carriers. By the way the carrier who “failed” to live up to the lane commitment paid
the shipper $250. per container for the shortfall (and that is same penalty that shipper would have paid for shortfall on volumes) and at the
next years contract talks, we dropped that carrier.
The biggest issue is that BCO’s are virtually unwilling to commit to anything until you get to top level people in the company with a very detailed
rationale as to why it is necessary. They can come up with ten good reasons not to do it, but if there is an open and honest discussion and
trust in what you are doing, it is doable. As my one clients CEO said to me when we discussed the concept “Whenever we meet I will complain
about costs, but if the freight doesn’t get here on time to sell it, you are fired”. Simple and elegant phrasing and we worked exceptionally well together.
The last issue is that carriers have “educated” a generation of logistics management that rates, mqc’s, chassis, free time etc are all on the table at
all times, signing the contracts is just where you start negotiating a few days later, and that is just plain stupid – but most carrier management is just that,
read their financial reports.