Fuel Protest

[fatboy_slimslow]

gazza1970:
hate to say it ,but we should be like the french if a protest was to work, ive been stuck in a few over the years.

that’s the only way to do it! But no- ones got the balls in this country! block London, as in the city of, ports rail heads airports up and down the country and every motorway going! United we stand/ divided we fall! the French did it too perfection all in the union, weren’t bothered who they upset and cracked on with the job!

We’re to blame for buying in the first place from the forecourts! The cheapest way to burn off fuel is our vehicles! Don’t buy fuel at the pumps that backs upto the refineries which in turn backs up further so they can’t get it out of the ground! Then OPEC can’t set prices willy nilly! Unfortunately we all like £££££££££££££££££££££s too much so it’s put up or shut up! 23years I’ve been driving here and abroad and I can’t wait to get over to USA/ canada ASAP! United kingdom my backside or great Britain for that matter! Will the last one out turn the lights off? if only " WE " stuck together we wouldn’t be in the " MERDE! " rant over!

[pinkladytrucker]

DADDY LONGLEGS:
I can’t believe some of the comments on this thread either! why the hell should … awarded themselves too much far too often. And I’m NOT a commie either, I just think we are being taken for one of the biggest rides known to man.

Fatboy slimslow:

gazza1970:
hate to say it ,but we should be like the french if a protest was to work, ive been stuck in a few over the years.

that’s the only way to do it! But no- ones got the balls in this country! block London, … stuck together we wouldn’t be in the " MERDE! " rant over!

Too many have no Balls to stand together

+1 +1

Those who think that we should get smaller cars or walk, I suppose they already have such a perfect work / family life and all their bills paid on time, and also get a great holiday, Work Permanent not via Agency
Many Agency workers hope to be taken on after a short while at the company they contracted at, not have the pee taken out of them and the AWR ignored or have to do LTD or umbrella.
This country is in a State, never have the gap between the Rich and Poor been so wide, Why should I leave this country and live in a 3rd world country before you tell me to

[solly]

The government won’t do anything to ease or reduce fuel prices because they employ the “Divide and Rule” principle. As long as they have those who sit in the - “Economic comfort zone” - fighting those who are not, then their job is more than half done.
The population are distracted through the in-fighting between themselves.
Governments rely on this as they can turn round and say - “The people of the Britain generally accept that Austerity measures are a necessity”.
Anyone recognise this mendacious crap■■? Then if you don’t you should as it is repeated ad nauseum everyday.
Look people you have to accept that under successive governments - especially modern neoliberal leaning governments - and the Corporations and large business’ and financial institutions that fund and elect them -
You are not supposed to have money and they will do everything within their power to ensure you don’t have it..

Support the strikers and demonstrators against this injustice.

[billybigrig]

Vascoingles:
If you are running your business as you should be with thought and the advantage of experience the price of fuel should not be a problem.

When negotiating contract we take the price of fuel into account as per the Shell price on the 1st of January and apply a fuel surcharge/rebate at the 1st of every month depending on how the fuel price fluctuates it either stays as it is goes up by 1 or 2% or down by 1 or 2% and we have found that most customers accept this with no problems at all if it is explained to them correctly, this system has been in place now for 5 years and works quite well, at the beginning we lost a couple of customers to others who thought they could offer the same service at a lower price but within 6 months the customers were phoning up again.

2 years ago we mothballed 40 trucks of which 25 are now back on the road and a few more expected back on the road again shortly, no we are not a big multi-national we are a family owned company which started with 1 truck and has twice reached 100 trucks and has twice cut back to get us through crisis times, average age of the fleet at present is 4 years but fluctuates depending on the behaviour of each individual vehicle.

If you can´t pass your costs on then don´t load it, others will take up the slack for a while runnung under price but they can´nt keep it up for ever.

Exactly !!

We do similar. We have lost some customers to idiots, most have come crawling back after constant problems with the “cheaper” companies. Last year we were quiet as a result of the economic climate and muppets working for naff all. We left the motors parked rather than work at a loss. 3 competitors have gone under over the last 4 months as a result of there practices last year. Our phone is ringing off the hook this month allowing us to cherry pick the work that fits in with the companies that stuck with us and paid proper rates throughout, for which they continually received good service from us. When the boss gets asked for a rate and gets told we are to expensive and xyz will do it for much less his answer is “that’s our price no negotiation”. When they’ve been let down and call back in a month grudgingly agreeing to pay the price they then get told, if costs have risen, that the previous price is no longer relevant
Feeling the pain at the pumps means most customers understand when it is explained to them.

At the end of the day we are a business, not a charity, and all costs are passed on not absorbed.

If every transport company did this then ALL industries would suffer increased costs and begin to lever the governments hand

[carryfast]

billybigrig:

Vascoingles:
If you are running your business as you should be with thought and the advantage of experience the price of fuel should not be a problem.

When negotiating contract we take the price of fuel into account as per the Shell price on the 1st of January and apply a fuel surcharge/rebate at the 1st of every month depending on how the fuel price fluctuates it either stays as it is goes up by 1 or 2% or down by 1 or 2% and we have found that most customers accept this with no problems at all if it is explained to them correctly, this system has been in place now for 5 years and works quite well, at the beginning we lost a couple of customers to others who thought they could offer the same service at a lower price but within 6 months the customers were phoning up again.

2 years ago we mothballed 40 trucks of which 25 are now back on the road and a few more expected back on the road again shortly, no we are not a big multi-national we are a family owned company which started with 1 truck and has twice reached 100 trucks and has twice cut back to get us through crisis times, average age of the fleet at present is 4 years but fluctuates depending on the behaviour of each individual vehicle.

If you can´t pass your costs on then don´t load it, others will take up the slack for a while runnung under price but they can´nt keep it up for ever.

Exactly !!

We do similar. We have lost some customers to idiots, most have come crawling back after constant problems with the “cheaper” companies. Last year we were quiet as a result of the economic climate and muppets working for naff all. We left the motors parked rather than work at a loss. 3 competitors have gone under over the last 4 months as a result of there practices last year. Our phone is ringing off the hook this month allowing us to cherry pick the work that fits in with the companies that stuck with us and paid proper rates throughout, for which they continually received good service from us. When the boss gets asked for a rate and gets told we are to expensive and xyz will do it for much less his answer is “that’s our price no negotiation”. When they’ve been let down and call back in a month grudgingly agreeing to pay the price they then get told, if costs have risen, that the previous price is no longer relevant
Feeling the pain at the pumps means most customers understand when it is explained to them.

At the end of the day we are a business, not a charity, and all costs are passed on not absorbed.

If every transport company did this then ALL industries would suffer increased costs and begin to lever the governments hand

Get real.
If everyone took that argument to it’s logical conclusion the only ‘cherry picking’ that they’ll be left with is just all being cornered into doing the same local short distance zb work all paid at an ever decreasing job rate not a long distance mileage one.Everything else will then be cherry picked by the rail and air freight industries and what’s left will go to east european international and cabotage operations.Your idea is just what the government wants everyone in the British road transport industry to do.

[carryfast]

Solly:
The government won’t do anything to ease or reduce fuel prices because they employ the “Divide and Rule” principle. As long as they have those who sit in the - “Economic comfort zone” - fighting those who are not, then their job is more than half done.
The population are distracted through the in-fighting between themselves.
Governments rely on this as they can turn round and say - “The people of the Britain generally accept that Austerity measures are a necessity”.
Anyone recognise this mendacious crap■■? Then if you don’t you should as it is repeated ad nauseum everyday.
Look people you have to accept that under successive governments - especially modern neoliberal leaning governments - and the Corporations and large business’ and financial institutions that fund and elect them -
You are not supposed to have money and they will do everything within their power to ensure you don’t have it..

Support the strikers and demonstrators against this injustice.

There are mainly two reasons why the government wants indirect taxation like road fuel taxes.Firstly if it was all put on income tax instead the highest income groups would be paying a much larger proportion of the tax load and secondly,in the case of road fuel taxation,the idea is to force a lot more people and freight onto rail and air transport,than would be the case if there weren’t any road fuel taxes.

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:
Get real.
If everyone took that argument to it’s logical conclusion the only ‘cherry picking’ that they’ll be left with is just all being cornered into doing the same local short distance zb work all paid at an ever decreasing job rate not a long distance mileage one.

WTF are you on about ■■? Firstly, all our work, and Vas’s for that matter IS long distance. The logical conclusion is we do the work that pays best and fits in best with our core operations and customers. We have 10 times the “additional” work than we can handle right now so we “cherry pick” what suits and pays best. What is that other than sound business practice ■■
You have some romantic notion of long distance big paying mega miles trucking. Clearly from your constant and inaccurate references to the US and “double nickle” etc you’ve spent much time rubbing one out to Convoy, Smokey and the bandit and BJ and the Bear. Haulage is a business and the idea of a business is to make money. It’s no good doing work that doesn’t pay then bemoaning the loss of companies and your “idea” of the the job and what you’d like it all to be.

Everything else will then be cherry picked by the rail and air freight industries and what’s left will go to east european international and cabotage operations.Your idea is just what the government wants everyone in the British road transport industry to do.

Wrong, the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.

I say again stop fantasizing about an idiological trucking world long gone and which mostly didn’t actually exist anywhere except in your imagination. Back in the “good old days” companies went bump, rates got cut, cherry got used and tachos got fiddled to achieve this eutopian image you yearn for.
Take it from Vas and me and those not only in the thick of it but who have a lot of experience and success in all levels of road transport.

Oh and FYI “good buddy” in 2002 I was running a 454cu in chevvy pick up and paying $1.28 a gallon for gas, by 2006 I was paying anything up to $3.50 hence it’s replacement being a Diesel Ram. Did my or anyones income double in that time ■■ NO. Did my boss go under ■■ NO, in fact he expanded during that period. Want to know why or would you like to make up your own bollcoks as usual ■■ It was nothing to do with uniting, shouting, protesting, blaming Thatcher It was because companies put there prices UP to cover the fuel, plain and simple, and sound business practice. Those that didn’t perished, hoisted by there own petard of static incomes and rising costs. No need for anyone to come and give us a hug, subsidise anything or bring anything to grinding halt.

Words I fear all wasted on you. Clearly you know better than all those with real experience and genuine knowledge in these things

[carryfast]

billybigrig:
WTF are you on about ■■? Firstly, all our work, and Vas’s for that matter IS long distance. The logical conclusion is we do the work that pays best and fits in best with our core operations and customers. We have 10 times the “additional” work than we can handle right now so we “cherry pick” what suits and pays best. What is that other than sound business practice ■■
You have some romantic notion of long distance big paying mega miles trucking. the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.

I think that the contradiction contained in all that says everything about your logic considering the cost of sending a load by truck instead of by train at current fuel costs.

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:

billybigrig:
WTF are you on about ■■? Firstly, all our work, and Vas’s for that matter IS long distance. The logical conclusion is we do the work that pays best and fits in best with our core operations and customers. We have 10 times the “additional” work than we can handle right now so we “cherry pick” what suits and pays best. What is that other than sound business practice ■■
You have some romantic notion of long distance big paying mega miles trucking. the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.

I think that the contradiction contained in all that says everything about your logic considering the cost of sending a load by truck instead of by train at current fuel costs.

What contradiction ■■?

Come along Curryfart I await your wise words of explanation. I always enjoy a good laugh so bring it on…

[carryfast]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:

billybigrig:
WTF are you on about ■■? Firstly, all our work, and Vas’s for that matter IS long distance. The logical conclusion is we do the work that pays best and fits in best with our core operations and customers. We have 10 times the “additional” work than we can handle right now so we “cherry pick” what suits and pays best.

the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.

I think that the contradiction contained in all that says everything about your logic considering the cost of sending a load by truck instead of by train at current fuel costs.

What contradiction ■■?

Come along Curryfart I await your wise words of explanation. I always enjoy a good laugh so bring it on…

So you’re saying that all long distance operations would still be economically viable if all operators factored in all of the present road fuel costs/taxes and they would still be competitive with the same job being done by long distance intermodal operations in that case .

In the real world of trying to remain competitive,in the long distance sector of the road transport industry,with intermodal rail freight operations and air freight and east european road transport operations,I doubt that there’s many UK operators out there who would be able to relate to your world of having 10 times as much work as they can handle and being able to cherry pick jobs that pay more than enough to cover their costs (most of which are made up of road fuel costs) .

The contradiction is that in this case you’re telling long distance operators to do as you do in passing all of their costs on while at the same time admitting that rail freight has a competitive edge in that sector of the industry.So how the zb can those operators pass those costs on and still remain competitive in that sector .

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:
So you’re saying that all long distance operations would still be economically viable if all operators factored in all of the present road fuel costs/taxes and they would still be competitive with the same job being done by long distance intermodal operations in that case .

Where did I say that then ■■? What I said was. “the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.” So basically if when all costs are factored in, the train is cheaper then the train it is. Do you understand that ■■ or should we all pay more so it can go by road

In the real world of trying to remain competitive,in the long distance sector of the road transport industry,with intermodal rail freight operations and air freight and east european road transport operations,I doubt that there’s many UK operators out there who would be able to relate to your world of having 10 times as much work as they can handle and being able to cherry pick jobs that pay more than enough to cover their costs (most of which are made up of road fuel costs) .

“In the real world of trying to remain competitive” … CF there is no other world or way and when you aren’t competitive you cannot simply absorb costs to be competitive. When a sector of work becomes unprofitable then you don’t do it simples. Long distance long distance long distance, that’s all you go on about.
Firstly long distance has always been predominantly one of the least profitable areas of road haulage.
Secondly as the world changes true long distance is pretty much no more except for more specialised areas. These are the areas where other means such as containers or trains would be impossible to use. For example oversized loads, exhibition work, parcels, time sensitive or high value loads. Channel hopping produce work is another example which continues simply because of time and infrastructure constraints but when the infrastructure is in place then this too will be done intermodal. Simply because regardless of diesel price you won’t have the cost of multiple drivers and their vehicles all trolling down the same road. That’s before the issues of climate control and diminishing resources are considered and whether you believe in either of these issues or not they will be an issue at some point, especially in terms of business and public relations.

The trucking industry is so much more than your beloved and mourned for long distance.

The contradiction is that in this case you’re telling long distance operators to do as you do in passing all of their costs on while at the same time admitting that rail freight has a competitive edge in that sector of the industry.So how the zb can those operators pass those costs on and still remain competitive in that sector .

See above because, as I originally said, freight needs to go the cheapest way simple as that, not a contradiction but a plain and simple economic fact. If you’re the more expensive route guess which one won’t get used. You simply cannot work at a loss to satisfy a ■■■■■ for romantic long distance wanderlust Carryfast. Get over it FFS man

The world of transport is an ever evolving beast. You can either understand that and work with it or be King ■■■■ in your 6x4 bigrig yelling at the tide while getting wetter and wetter until you sink.

[ady1]

Rallyman:
Hi everyone once again were at that point again weve lost companies due to rising fuel costs and seen to many people reduced to poverty well enough is enough Fair fuel uk are lobbying for a 2.5p reduction in fuel which doesnt make much difference when the government wants a 3p rise fuel is already rising its gone up this week already as uve all seen on the news and at the services its sitting at £1.57 a ltr. I am part of a nationwide group against rising fuel costs and we are staging a serious of protests at Stanlow oil Refinery and Grangemouth Oil Refinery every Friday at 7pm we are also putting together a mass nationwide Protest where you will see a return to 2000 when there was go slows and panic buying etc, weve all had enough we want the Government to make fuel equal to europe where it is about £1.10 to £1.15 a ltr instead of lining there pockets. We have the support of the public now and also have the public and other group joining us, were looking for more support from more hauliers and other groups to make this successful so that were not paying through the nose and loosing our Industry to foriegn Companies theres to many foriegn trucks on our roads so join us and make a difference

sacked another 3 drivers last week for pinching fuel,seems to be 2 a week at the moment,poles,english,agency,my mate said its turning into a epidemic,unless someone does something about the price it will only get worse,the vast majority are poles,99%,always struck me as very honest folks,so if there resorting to it in droves,risking the sak,being sacked ,times are getting desperate

[carryfast]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
So you’re saying that all long distance operations would still be economically viable if all operators factored in all of the present road fuel costs/taxes and they would still be competitive with the same job being done by long distance intermodal operations in that case .

Where did I say that then ■■? What I said was. “the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.” So basically if when all costs are factored in, the train is cheaper then the train it is. Do you understand that ■■ or should we all pay more so it can go by road

In the real world of trying to remain competitive,in the long distance sector of the road transport industry,with intermodal rail freight operations and air freight and east european road transport operations,I doubt that there’s many UK operators out there who would be able to relate to your world of having 10 times as much work as they can handle and being able to cherry pick jobs that pay more than enough to cover their costs (most of which are made up of road fuel costs) .

“In the real world of trying to remain competitive” … CF there is no other world or way and when you aren’t competitive you cannot simply absorb costs to be competitive. When a sector of work becomes unprofitable then you don’t do it simples. Long distance long distance long distance, that’s all you go on about.
Firstly long distance has always been predominantly one of the least profitable areas of road haulage.
Secondly as the world changes true long distance is pretty much no more except for more specialised areas. These are the areas where other means such as containers or trains would be impossible to use. For example oversized loads, exhibition work, parcels, time sensitive or high value loads. Channel hopping produce work is another example which continues simply because of time and infrastructure constraints but when the infrastructure is in place then this too will be done intermodal. Simply because regardless of diesel price you won’t have the cost of multiple drivers and their vehicles all trolling down the same road. That’s before the issues of climate control and diminishing resources are considered and whether you believe in either of these issues or not they will be an issue at some point, especially in terms of business and public relations.

The trucking industry is so much more than your beloved and mourned for long distance.

The contradiction is that in this case you’re telling long distance operators to do as you do in passing all of their costs on while at the same time admitting that rail freight has a competitive edge in that sector of the industry.So how the zb can those operators pass those costs on and still remain competitive in that sector .

See above because, as I originally said, freight needs to go the cheapest way simple as that, not a contradiction but a plain and simple economic fact. If you’re the more expensive route guess which one won’t get used. You simply cannot work at a loss to satisfy a ■■■■■ for romantic long distance wanderlust Carryfast. Get over it FFS man

The world of transport is an ever evolving beast. You can either understand that and work with it or be King [zb] in your 6x4 bigrig yelling at the tide while getting wetter and wetter until you sink.

So go and tell all that bs to all those operators out there who are still (trying to) survive by (trying to) remain competitive with present levels of road fuel taxation.The only reason why it is competitive for rail to take an intermodal load by zb train is because of the zb anti competitive nature of the government’s road fuel taxation policies.Trucks in this case are only the more expensive option because that’s exactly how the government want the so called free market rigged to benefit their big business mates in the rail freight industry.

But it’s zb ironic,but not surprising,how it seems to be someone who says that his masterplan is (all ?) based on long distance work who then comes out with all the bs saying that it’s all got to stop because of the environmental CO2 bs argument blah zb blah etc etc just like a zb turkey voting for christmas.

But since when couldn’t time senstitive loads or parcels go on an intermodal service in just the same way as anything else that can fit in a container or on an intermodal swap body that at present goes by road .Rail freight doesn’t take any longer to cover long distances than trucks.If anything it can be faster.Which just leaves local zb work delivering rail freight to and from the customers and/or oversized loads for most of what remains of the road transport industry.Assuming that most,if not all,of them don’t decide to chuck the towel in then what the zb happens to rates on that remaining work too when they all take your advice to zb ‘evolve’ .

[stevieboy308]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
So you’re saying that all long distance operations would still be economically viable if all operators factored in all of the present road fuel costs/taxes and they would still be competitive with the same job being done by long distance intermodal operations in that case .

Where did I say that then ■■? What I said was. “the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.” So basically if when all costs are factored in, the train is cheaper then the train it is. Do you understand that ■■ or should we all pay more so it can go by road

In the real world of trying to remain competitive,in the long distance sector of the road transport industry,with intermodal rail freight operations and air freight and east european road transport operations,I doubt that there’s many UK operators out there who would be able to relate to your world of having 10 times as much work as they can handle and being able to cherry pick jobs that pay more than enough to cover their costs (most of which are made up of road fuel costs) .

“In the real world of trying to remain competitive” … CF there is no other world or way and when you aren’t competitive you cannot simply absorb costs to be competitive. When a sector of work becomes unprofitable then you don’t do it simples. Long distance long distance long distance, that’s all you go on about.
Firstly long distance has always been predominantly one of the least profitable areas of road haulage.
Secondly as the world changes true long distance is pretty much no more except for more specialised areas. These are the areas where other means such as containers or trains would be impossible to use. For example oversized loads, exhibition work, parcels, time sensitive or high value loads. Channel hopping produce work is another example which continues simply because of time and infrastructure constraints but when the infrastructure is in place then this too will be done intermodal. Simply because regardless of diesel price you won’t have the cost of multiple drivers and their vehicles all trolling down the same road. That’s before the issues of climate control and diminishing resources are considered and whether you believe in either of these issues or not they will be an issue at some point, especially in terms of business and public relations.

The trucking industry is so much more than your beloved and mourned for long distance.

The contradiction is that in this case you’re telling long distance operators to do as you do in passing all of their costs on while at the same time admitting that rail freight has a competitive edge in that sector of the industry.So how the zb can those operators pass those costs on and still remain competitive in that sector .

See above because, as I originally said, freight needs to go the cheapest way simple as that, not a contradiction but a plain and simple economic fact. If you’re the more expensive route guess which one won’t get used. You simply cannot work at a loss to satisfy a ■■■■■ for romantic long distance wanderlust Carryfast. Get over it FFS man

The world of transport is an ever evolving beast. You can either understand that and work with it or be King [zb] in your 6x4 bigrig yelling at the tide while getting wetter and wetter until you sink.

spot on, along with everything else you’ve said on this thread.

[carryfast]

stevieboy308:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
So you’re saying that all long distance operations would still be economically viable if all operators factored in all of the present road fuel costs/taxes and they would still be competitive with the same job being done by long distance intermodal operations in that case .

Where did I say that then ■■? What I said was. “the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.” So basically if when all costs are factored in, the train is cheaper then the train it is. Do you understand that ■■ or should we all pay more so it can go by road

In the real world of trying to remain competitive,in the long distance sector of the road transport industry,with intermodal rail freight operations and air freight and east european road transport operations,I doubt that there’s many UK operators out there who would be able to relate to your world of having 10 times as much work as they can handle and being able to cherry pick jobs that pay more than enough to cover their costs (most of which are made up of road fuel costs) .

“In the real world of trying to remain competitive” … CF there is no other world or way and when you aren’t competitive you cannot simply absorb costs to be competitive. When a sector of work becomes unprofitable then you don’t do it simples. Long distance long distance long distance, that’s all you go on about.
Firstly long distance has always been predominantly one of the least profitable areas of road haulage.
Secondly as the world changes true long distance is pretty much no more except for more specialised areas. These are the areas where other means such as containers or trains would be impossible to use. For example oversized loads, exhibition work, parcels, time sensitive or high value loads. Channel hopping produce work is another example which continues simply because of time and infrastructure constraints but when the infrastructure is in place then this too will be done intermodal. Simply because regardless of diesel price you won’t have the cost of multiple drivers and their vehicles all trolling down the same road. That’s before the issues of climate control and diminishing resources are considered and whether you believe in either of these issues or not they will be an issue at some point, especially in terms of business and public relations.

The trucking industry is so much more than your beloved and mourned for long distance.

The contradiction is that in this case you’re telling long distance operators to do as you do in passing all of their costs on while at the same time admitting that rail freight has a competitive edge in that sector of the industry.So how the zb can those operators pass those costs on and still remain competitive in that sector .

See above because, as I originally said, freight needs to go the cheapest way simple as that, not a contradiction but a plain and simple economic fact. If you’re the more expensive route guess which one won’t get used. You simply cannot work at a loss to satisfy a ■■■■■ for romantic long distance wanderlust Carryfast. Get over it FFS man

The world of transport is an ever evolving beast. You can either understand that and work with it or be King [zb] in your 6x4 bigrig yelling at the tide while getting wetter and wetter until you sink.

spot on, along with everything else you’ve said on this thread.

Another turkey voting for christmas.

[stevieboy308]

PinkLadyTrucker:

DADDY LONGLEGS:
I can’t believe some of the comments on this thread either! why the hell should … awarded themselves too much far too often. And I’m NOT a commie either, I just think we are being taken for one of the biggest rides known to man.

Fatboy slimslow:

gazza1970:
hate to say it ,but we should be like the french if a protest was to work, ive been stuck in a few over the years.

that’s the only way to do it! But no- ones got the balls in this country! block London, … stuck together we wouldn’t be in the " MERDE! " rant over!

Too many have no Balls to stand together

+1 +1

come on, put your balls where your mouth is, tell us your plan for sticking / standing together and how it would work.

some people think it makes a great sound bite, but i’m yet to hear any substance.

PinkLadyTrucker:
This country is in a State, never have the gap between the Rich and Poor been so wide, Why should I leave this country and live in a 3rd world country before you tell me to

is that a fact or you perception?

[stevieboy308]

Carryfast:

stevieboy308:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
So you’re saying that all long distance operations would still be economically viable if all operators factored in all of the present road fuel costs/taxes and they would still be competitive with the same job being done by long distance intermodal operations in that case .

Where did I say that then ■■? What I said was. “the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.” So basically if when all costs are factored in, the train is cheaper then the train it is. Do you understand that ■■ or should we all pay more so it can go by road

In the real world of trying to remain competitive,in the long distance sector of the road transport industry,with intermodal rail freight operations and air freight and east european road transport operations,I doubt that there’s many UK operators out there who would be able to relate to your world of having 10 times as much work as they can handle and being able to cherry pick jobs that pay more than enough to cover their costs (most of which are made up of road fuel costs) .

“In the real world of trying to remain competitive” … CF there is no other world or way and when you aren’t competitive you cannot simply absorb costs to be competitive. When a sector of work becomes unprofitable then you don’t do it simples. Long distance long distance long distance, that’s all you go on about.
Firstly long distance has always been predominantly one of the least profitable areas of road haulage.
Secondly as the world changes true long distance is pretty much no more except for more specialised areas. These are the areas where other means such as containers or trains would be impossible to use. For example oversized loads, exhibition work, parcels, time sensitive or high value loads. Channel hopping produce work is another example which continues simply because of time and infrastructure constraints but when the infrastructure is in place then this too will be done intermodal. Simply because regardless of diesel price you won’t have the cost of multiple drivers and their vehicles all trolling down the same road. That’s before the issues of climate control and diminishing resources are considered and whether you believe in either of these issues or not they will be an issue at some point, especially in terms of business and public relations.

The trucking industry is so much more than your beloved and mourned for long distance.

The contradiction is that in this case you’re telling long distance operators to do as you do in passing all of their costs on while at the same time admitting that rail freight has a competitive edge in that sector of the industry.So how the zb can those operators pass those costs on and still remain competitive in that sector .

See above because, as I originally said, freight needs to go the cheapest way simple as that, not a contradiction but a plain and simple economic fact. If you’re the more expensive route guess which one won’t get used. You simply cannot work at a loss to satisfy a ■■■■■ for romantic long distance wanderlust Carryfast. Get over it FFS man

The world of transport is an ever evolving beast. You can either understand that and work with it or be King [zb] in your 6x4 bigrig yelling at the tide while getting wetter and wetter until you sink.

spot on, along with everything else you’ve said on this thread.

Another turkey voting for christmas.

but i’m not a turkey

[andy1961]

PinkLadyTrucker:

DADDY LONGLEGS:
I can’t believe some of the comments on this thread either! why the hell should … awarded themselves too much far too often. And I’m NOT a commie either, I just think we are being taken for one of the biggest rides known to man.

Fatboy slimslow:

gazza1970:
hate to say it ,but we should be like the french if a protest was to work, ive been stuck in a few over the years.

that’s the only way to do it! But no- ones got the balls in this country! block London, … stuck together we wouldn’t be in the " MERDE! " rant over!

Too many have no Balls to stand together

+1 +1

Those who think that we should get smaller cars or walk, I suppose they already have such a perfect work / family life and all their bills paid on time, and also get a great holiday, Work Permanent not via Agency
Many Agency workers hope to be taken on after a short while at the company they contracted at, not have the pee taken out of them and the AWR ignored or have to do LTD or umbrella.
This country is in a State, never have the gap between the Rich and Poor been so wide, Why should I leave this country and live in a 3rd world country before you tell me to

Agency drivers?

What have agency drivers got to do with fuel protests?

[carryfast]

stevieboy308:

Carryfast:

stevieboy308:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:
So you’re saying that all long distance operations would still be economically viable if all operators factored in all of the present road fuel costs/taxes and they would still be competitive with the same job being done by long distance intermodal operations in that case .

Where did I say that then ■■? What I said was. “the work will go onto whatever the cheapest and most suitable, in terms of logistical constraints, platform there is to move it by. In most cases that will be, over shorter distances, a truck. If it is cheaper to go long distance by train so be it.” So basically if when all costs are factored in, the train is cheaper then the train it is. Do you understand that ■■ or should we all pay more so it can go by road

In the real world of trying to remain competitive,in the long distance sector of the road transport industry,with intermodal rail freight operations and air freight and east european road transport operations,I doubt that there’s many UK operators out there who would be able to relate to your world of having 10 times as much work as they can handle and being able to cherry pick jobs that pay more than enough to cover their costs (most of which are made up of road fuel costs) .

“In the real world of trying to remain competitive” … CF there is no other world or way and when you aren’t competitive you cannot simply absorb costs to be competitive. When a sector of work becomes unprofitable then you don’t do it simples. Long distance long distance long distance, that’s all you go on about.
Firstly long distance has always been predominantly one of the least profitable areas of road haulage.
Secondly as the world changes true long distance is pretty much no more except for more specialised areas. These are the areas where other means such as containers or trains would be impossible to use. For example oversized loads, exhibition work, parcels, time sensitive or high value loads. Channel hopping produce work is another example which continues simply because of time and infrastructure constraints but when the infrastructure is in place then this too will be done intermodal. Simply because regardless of diesel price you won’t have the cost of multiple drivers and their vehicles all trolling down the same road. That’s before the issues of climate control and diminishing resources are considered and whether you believe in either of these issues or not they will be an issue at some point, especially in terms of business and public relations.

The trucking industry is so much more than your beloved and mourned for long distance.

The contradiction is that in this case you’re telling long distance operators to do as you do in passing all of their costs on while at the same time admitting that rail freight has a competitive edge in that sector of the industry.So how the zb can those operators pass those costs on and still remain competitive in that sector .

See above because, as I originally said, freight needs to go the cheapest way simple as that, not a contradiction but a plain and simple economic fact. If you’re the more expensive route guess which one won’t get used. You simply cannot work at a loss to satisfy a ■■■■■ for romantic long distance wanderlust Carryfast. Get over it FFS man

The world of transport is an ever evolving beast. You can either understand that and work with it or be King [zb] in your 6x4 bigrig yelling at the tide while getting wetter and wetter until you sink.

spot on, along with everything else you’ve said on this thread.

Another turkey voting for christmas.

but i’m not a turkey

The only other reason why anyone would want road fuel taxes kept as they are and for the road transport industry to then pass those costs on to the customer would be if they are rail freight industry supporters or the zb stupid commie green party zb’s.

[stevieboy308]

Carryfast:
The only other reason why anyone would want road fuel taxes kept as they are and for the road transport industry to then pass those costs on to the customer would be if they are rail freight industry supporters or the zb stupid commie green party zb’s.

where did i by saying, or by agreeing with what BBR said, who agreed with VAS, say or imply i’m happy with the amount of fuel tax?