Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 12-13-2008, 09:56 PM
::matthew's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 594
the article doesn't say that the profit is gross, net, a number he pulled out of a hat, or whatever else...It also doesn't mention what, if any health care expenses or maternity leave he pays.

but a net profit of 50K seems like a fairly low return on 35 trucks.

Government at all levels has heavily subsidized trucking for many years. 90% of damage to interstates and federal highways is due to commercial trucking; which is a cost that is paid by all taxpayers, not just those who benefit from the goods being transported. As government budgets get tighter and the true environmental costs of transport begin to get factored into the cost of products sold, I imagine we will see a lot less of the cheap plastic crap that comes in through long beach or whatever port and gets put on trucks.

People are going to be put out of business by increased environmental regulations and it's not always a bad thing at the macro level. Ron Faulkner might do fine with a dozen 2012 Volvos for his fleet...it's not like it's just him that's having to buy new trucks or have his current ones re-fitted. Maybe he’ll score some low cost financing from the government to help him come into compliance.

__________________
1985 300D cali 190K

http://mercedes.thatchermathias.com/mw300d.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-13-2008, 10:38 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ::matthew View Post
the article doesn't say that the profit is gross, net, a number he pulled out of a hat, or whatever else...It also doesn't mention what, if any health care expenses or maternity leave he pays.

but a net profit of 50K seems like a fairly low return on 35 trucks.

Government at all levels has heavily subsidized trucking for many years. 90% of damage to interstates and federal highways is due to commercial trucking; which is a cost that is paid by all taxpayers, not just those who benefit from the goods being transported. As government budgets get tighter and the true environmental costs of transport begin to get factored into the cost of products sold, I imagine we will see a lot less of the cheap plastic crap that comes in through long beach or whatever port and gets put on trucks.

People are going to be put out of business by increased environmental regulations and it's not always a bad thing at the macro level. Ron Faulkner might do fine with a dozen 2012 Volvos for his fleet...it's not like it's just him that's having to buy new trucks or have his current ones re-fitted. Maybe he’ll score some low cost financing from the government to help him come into compliance.
Matt,
It is naturally assumed that if a trucking company has 35 trucks in its fleet...they are paying benefits and such. I have my commercial drivers license and I have been in the business for almost a decade. Who are you to say or anyone for that matter especially the government how Ron can run his business. He should be able to run 100 trucks if he wants to. I can also verify that if 50,000 was gross, he definatly would not be in business. That doesnt even cover cost of fuel for a year for one truck. You missed my point entirely. After EVERYTHING is paid at the end of the year....insurance, CHP certificates, licenses, driver physicals, tolls, and everyones salary...he puts 50,000 dollars into a bank account that the company has at its' desposal next year.
I totaly agree with you that transportation is the most heavily regulated industry around...that is why it is so expensive to opperate the business.
__________________
68 250s SOLD
78 300d non turbo SOLD
1980 240d manual SOLD
1981 300SD 360,000 miles I think she's doomed for a parts car but has a good engine SOLD the engine to spamman
1977 300d non turbo SOLD
1985 300SD california car
1978 240D Manual
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:07 PM
::matthew's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 594
I don't think I missed your point. But obviously there is not enough information in that article to tell us what he is including/excluding in his profit number.

I didn't say that transportation is the most regulated industry around, nor would I.

What I did say is that the government heavily subsidizes commercial trucking by paying for the infrastructure that is utilizes. Soon, government will have to "pay" for the environmental impacts of commercial trucking which is why they are starting to get tougher with emissions regulations.
I wouldn't be surprised if the max weight/axle is decreased too in an effort to limit the damage to roads.
__________________
1985 300D cali 190K

http://mercedes.thatchermathias.com/mw300d.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels View Post
On the good side -- this will mean that Mack, Freightliner, Peterbuilt, etc will be selling a lot of new trucks
one way to jumpstart the economy.sounds like pelosi at work here!!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:26 PM
pelon's Avatar
Up through the hawespipe.
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Valencia, NM
Posts: 218
Everything....

EVERYTHING you eat, wear, and use comes on a truck at some point.
Maybe you would be better served if you drove to CA for veggies, to Houston to fuel your car, etc.... trucks pay a LOT of taxes for roads.
The roads are not built for what they are allowed to carry. They cause enormous damage to trucks that are serving you. Yes, lower weights would help the roads, but also increase the total number on the road.
Putting hard working people out of work is not just stupid, it's "california stupid". The older trucks will be gone in a few years due to wearing out.
These laws are just mean.
__________________
1985 300SD
1998 Jetta TDI
Previous: lots of diesel VW's, MB's, KW's, Pete, Freightliner


Walking isn't a lost art: one must, by some means, get to the garage.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:28 PM
Hatterasguy's Avatar
Zero
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Milford, CT
Posts: 19,318
Environmental Gestapo.
__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:31 PM
bustedbenz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Valle Crucis, NC
Posts: 2,283
And like everything else that happens like this, the pie-in-the-sky idealists will be happy because it sounds like a wonderful thing they've done, the large companies who can afford the expense of this thing will be unhappy but they will survive, and countless un-voiced little men who were just trying to "get by" and can't afford truck replacement or retrofit will get run over without a thought.
__________________


~Michael S.~
Past cars:

1986 300SDL
1987 300SDL
1982 240D
1982 300SD


Current:

1987 300SDL
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:33 PM
::matthew's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 594
most industries seem to be able to shift their increased costs on to the consumer. I don't see why trucking can't do the same.
__________________
1985 300D cali 190K

http://mercedes.thatchermathias.com/mw300d.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:34 PM
bustedbenz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Valle Crucis, NC
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ::matthew View Post
most industries seem to be able to shift their increased costs on to the consumer. I don't see why trucking can't do the same.

That works until you "shift" so much cost that the little-guy consumers can't afford to buy it anymore either.
__________________


~Michael S.~
Past cars:

1986 300SDL
1987 300SDL
1982 240D
1982 300SD


Current:

1987 300SDL
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:37 PM
Palangi's Avatar
L' Résistance
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Republique de Banana
Posts: 3,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ::matthew View Post
most industries seem to be able to shift their increased costs on to the consumer. I don't see why trucking can't do the same.
Sounds remarkably like another tax.....
__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:40 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ::matthew View Post
I don't think I missed your point. But obviously there is not enough information in that article to tell us what he is including/excluding in his profit number.

I didn't say that transportation is the most regulated industry around, nor would I.

What I did say is that the government heavily subsidizes commercial trucking by paying for the infrastructure that is utilizes. Soon, government will have to "pay" for the environmental impacts of commercial trucking which is why they are starting to get tougher with emissions regulations.
I wouldn't be surprised if the max weight/axle is decreased too in an effort to limit the damage to roads.
If you have ever driven commercialy you would know that its not about the MAX axle weight being lowered...it has to be enforced.....And though the CHP and the california DMV handbook will tell you that the MAXIMUM weight per axle is 10,000, 15,000, 25,000 per axle(depending on the vehicle you are operating) that is not the maximum. There definatly things in this world that weight more than that and they are transported over the road.....do you want to know how? The CHP allows overweight vehicles to travel across interstate highways by immposing a toll....so to speak. the more it weighs the more it is going to cost the trucking company. If you ever travel at night you will see huge convoys of trucks and CHP escorts. Cal trans is not worried about over weight vehicles because the are being payed for it and the more overweight vehicles are the more money they have. And when all these big trucking companies go out of business because of heavy fines, taxes....you name it....you will be hard pressed to find food on your table, diesel in your mercedes, and clothes on your back.
__________________
68 250s SOLD
78 300d non turbo SOLD
1980 240d manual SOLD
1981 300SD 360,000 miles I think she's doomed for a parts car but has a good engine SOLD the engine to spamman
1977 300d non turbo SOLD
1985 300SD california car
1978 240D Manual
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:42 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelon View Post
EVERYTHING you eat, wear, and use comes on a truck at some point.
Maybe you would be better served if you drove to CA for veggies, to Houston to fuel your car, etc.... trucks pay a LOT of taxes for roads.
The roads are not built for what they are allowed to carry. They cause enormous damage to trucks that are serving you. Yes, lower weights would help the roads, but also increase the total number on the road.
Putting hard working people out of work is not just stupid, it's "california stupid". The older trucks will be gone in a few years due to wearing out.
These laws are just mean.
AMEN! I saw a bumper sticker that says "If you have it...a trucker brought it to you."
__________________
68 250s SOLD
78 300d non turbo SOLD
1980 240d manual SOLD
1981 300SD 360,000 miles I think she's doomed for a parts car but has a good engine SOLD the engine to spamman
1977 300d non turbo SOLD
1985 300SD california car
1978 240D Manual
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:45 PM
::matthew's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palangi View Post
Sounds remarkably like another tax.....
more like charging something closer to the true cost of a product.

Next up will be use taxes or increased material costs to cover the full lifecycle of a product. All that cheap plastic crap from china doesn't just disappear for free once it's broken and discarded.
__________________
1985 300D cali 190K

http://mercedes.thatchermathias.com/mw300d.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-13-2008, 11:48 PM
Palangi's Avatar
L' Résistance
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Republique de Banana
Posts: 3,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ::matthew View Post
Next up will be use taxes or increased material costs to cover the full lifecycle of a product. All that cheap plastic crap from china doesn't just disappear for free once it's broken and discarded.
Sounds remarkably like another tax......
__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-14-2008, 01:13 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ::matthew View Post
most industries seem to be able to shift their increased costs on to the consumer. I don't see why trucking can't do the same.
There's this funny thing called a 'demand curve'. Demand for a product isn't static - it depends on a number of factors. Including price. And guess what - if price goes up, demand drops.

What the truck companies have to do is try and optimize the price based on the demand curve. Yes, the price they charge goes up, but it can only do so to a point before the demand drops off enough that they lose money again. While the revenue is higher, the profit from that new price point is lower than the old one, which means they don't net as much profit as they used to.



I will say, as boneheaded as I think the emissions rule CARB has implemented is, I do applaud them for the rule they're simultaneously applying about tires and fairings. That, at least, is a step in the right direction.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page