muckles:
As you say it’s in the interests of the transport industry to have an over supply of driver to keep wages down, so the only way there will be wage rises in a free market is when there aren’t enough drivers out there to fill all the available seats, and it will be the same whether you are doing the job with 18t rgids or LHV’s.
In which case how do you explain the financial advantages of using trucks at all or at least anything bigger than a 4 wheeler.Let alone the largest trucks. While by your logic the Scandinavian road transport industry would be on its knees.
The fact is there won’t be wage rises and increase in demand for drivers until demand for road tansport increases based on its cost effectiveness and efficiency.Together with a protected labour market not based on race to the bottom free markets ideology.
I’ve never said using LHV’s would bring the haulage industry to it knees or that LHV’s aren’t a transport option, just it won’t change the business model much of haulage operates on which is the lowest rates to get the work.
What you asking for is either a minimum rate for road transportation or a minimum wage for lorry drivers, neither of which will happen with present government policies. The same goes for LHV’s where the UK government has gone a different direction from other European countries.
I know you’ll respond with more of your usual stuff but as far as I’m concerned it’s done if you can’t see it now you never will.
Carryfast:
In which case how do you explain the financial advantages of using trucks at all or at least anything bigger than a 4 wheeler.Let alone the largest trucks. While by your logic the Scandinavian road transport industry would be on its knees.
The fact is there won’t be wage rises and increase in demand for drivers until demand for road tansport increases based on its cost effectiveness and efficiency.Together with a protected labour market not based on race to the bottom free markets ideology.
I’ve never said using LHV’s would bring the haulage industry to it knees or that LHV’s aren’t a transport option, just it won’t change the business model much of haulage operates on which is the lowest rates to get the work.
What you asking for is either a minimum rate for road transportation or a minimum wage for lorry drivers, neither of which will happen with present government policies. The same goes for LHV’s where the UK government has gone a different direction from other European countries.
I know you’ll respond with more of your usual stuff but as far as I’m concerned it’s done if you can’t see it now you never will.
Yes an industry specific minimum wage for drivers.Just like every other industry needs and the way you get that is with strong unions working together with an economic policy based on maximising incomes not race to the bottom free labour market minimising of incomes.
The problem in this case being that even ‘if’ we had the strong unions and the Fordist economic policy the employers couldn’t ‘afford’ to pay the required wages.Because the industry is crippled by massive,unsustainable,industry specific,taxation in the form of road fuel duty and stagnant productivety caused by over regulation of gross weights and dimensions.
Carryfast:
The problem in this case being that even ‘if’ we had the strong unions and the Fordist economic policy the employers couldn’t ‘afford’ to pay the required wages.Because the industry is crippled by massive,unsustainable,industry specific,taxation in the form of road fuel duty and stagnant productivety caused by over regulation of gross weights and dimensions.
But as has been pointed out to you over and over again by people who have forgotten more about transport than you will ever know, reduction in fuel duty would result in a corresponding reduction in haulage rates, and larger/ heavier vehicles would result in a reduction in rates because fewer vehicles would be required to move the same amount of goods.
Carryfast:
The problem in this case being that even ‘if’ we had the strong unions and the Fordist economic policy the employers couldn’t ‘afford’ to pay the required wages.Because the industry is crippled by massive,unsustainable,industry specific,taxation in the form of road fuel duty and stagnant productivety caused by over regulation of gross weights and dimensions.
But as has been pointed out to you over and over again by people who have forgotten more about transport than you will ever know, reduction in fuel duty would result in a corresponding reduction in haulage rates, and larger/ heavier vehicles would result in a reduction in rates because fewer vehicles would be required to move the same amount of goods.
Exactly what precedent and example are you relying on that shows that lower fuel costs in real terms supposedly result in a net reduction in rates v costs as opposed to vice versa.Or that increased efficiency in the form of heavier trucks doesn’t result in a net improvement in rates allowing more wages.On that note I’m guessing that,like my pathetic knowledge,your own flawless infinite ‘experience’ in the industry,contradicts your own script.Unless you’re saying you didn’t get paid more to drive class 1 than you would have been paid to drive a class 3 motor.
IE in all your infinite wisdom you seem to have forgotten to factor in that the type of massive reduction in fuel costs in the allowance of the use of red diesel combined with almost equally large increase in productivety would attract a net increase in ‘demand’.Resulting from the room created for a massive reduction in rates for the customer combined with an equally massive net increase in rates v costs for the operator providing scope for an equally massive increase in wages for the driver.Unlike what we’ve got now.Which is why the government won’t buy the idea that such a move wouldn’t create a massive switch back from rail to road at least in the container sector.
Carryfast:
The problem in this case being that even ‘if’ we had the strong unions and the Fordist economic policy the employers couldn’t ‘afford’ to pay the required wages.Because the industry is crippled by massive,unsustainable,industry specific,taxation in the form of road fuel duty and stagnant productivety caused by over regulation of gross weights and dimensions.
But as has been pointed out to you over and over again by people who have forgotten more about transport than you will ever know, reduction in fuel duty would result in a corresponding reduction in haulage rates, and larger/ heavier vehicles would result in a reduction in rates because fewer vehicles would be required to move the same amount of goods.
Exactly what precedent and example are you relying on that shows that lower fuel costs in real terms supposedly result in a net reduction in rates v costs as opposed to vice versa.Or that increased efficiency in the form of heavier trucks doesn’t result in a net improvement in rates allowing more wages.On that note I’m guessing that,like my pathetic knowledge,your own flawless infinite ‘experience’ in the industry,contradicts your own script.Unless you’re saying you didn’t get paid more to drive class 1 than you would have been paid to drive a class 3 motor.
IE in all your infinite wisdom you seem to have forgotten to factor in that the type of massive reduction in fuel costs in the allowance of the use of red diesel combined with almost equally large increase in productivety would attract a net increase in ‘demand’.Resulting from the room created for a massive reduction in rates for the customer combined with an equally massive net increase in rates v costs for the operator providing scope for an equally massive increase in wages for the driver.Unlike what we’ve got now.Which is why the government won’t buy the idea that such a move wouldn’t create a massive switch back from rail to road at least in the container sector.
Most companies operate fuel escalator. Quite common for the past 11 years or so. Hence when fuel rises, so do rates. Ditto for reductions
Carryfast:
Exactly what precedent and example are you relying on that shows that lower fuel costs in real terms supposedly result in a net reduction in rates v costs as opposed to vice versa.
My experience of operating a truck, and the experience of everybody else who has ever operated a truck, and my experience as an employee before that and for the last 30+ years.
Carryfast:
Or that increased efficiency in the form of heavier trucks doesn’t result in a net improvement in rates allowing more wages.
The fact that no increase in gross weights or trailer lengths has ever led to rate or wage rises.
Carryfast:
Which is why the government won’t buy the idea that such a move wouldn’t create a massive switch back from rail to road at least in the container sector.
You support longer, heavier vehicles, yet when one tractive unit tows a hundred containers, then suddenly there is something wrong with the idea. I support the movement of freight by rail whenever it is possible and practical, because I base my opinions on more than my own vested interests.
OVLOV JAY:
Most companies operate fuel escalator. Quite common for the past 11 years or so. Hence when fuel rises, so do rates. Ditto for reductions
The problem is that the customer doesn’t have a limitless margin to pay it.Especially when that ‘margin’ is based on the max payload potential of a 44 tonner.So the price of fuel goes up the operator says the escalator goes up.The customer either says no thanks because it wipes out his margin and then finds a cheaper alternative which pays the driver a lower wage.Or sends it by rail.
Carryfast:
Exactly what precedent and example are you relying on that shows that lower fuel costs in real terms supposedly result in a net reduction in rates v costs as opposed to vice versa.
My experience of operating a truck, and the experience of everybody else who has ever operated a truck, and my experience as an employee before that and for the last 30+ years.
Carryfast:
Or that increased efficiency in the form of heavier trucks doesn’t result in a net improvement in rates allowing more wages.
The fact that no increase in gross weights or trailer lengths has ever led to rate or wage rises.
Carryfast:
Which is why the government won’t buy the idea that such a move wouldn’t create a massive switch back from rail to road at least in the container sector.
You support longer, heavier vehicles, yet when one tractive unit tows a hundred containers, then suddenly there is something wrong with the idea. I support the movement of freight by rail whenever it is possible and practical, because I base my opinions on more than my own vested interests.
Exactly what ‘experience’ has anyone alive today ever had of a trading environment in which road transport isn’t subject to extortionate levels of industry specific fuel taxation.While you’ve said that wage levels were better in real terms in 1988.Remind us what fuel costs ( charged to the customer and as a proportion of operating costs ) were then in real terms compared to now.
As for heavier vehicles not allowing more wages in which case why would anyone ever bother to drive a truck instead of a van.Or for that matter class 1 instead of class 3.
Meanwhile you support the movement of freight by rail.Unfortunately your bleeding heart principles in that regard can only come at the expense of less demand for truck drivers and less wages for those with a job.Bearing in mind that the only way to make rail competitive in terms of overall cost is by artificially stitching up the road transport industry.Which is more or less where we are now.With the exception that the East Euros are in a better position to withstand that with their lower wage expectation labour force.
Carryfast:
Meanwhile you support the movement of freight by rail.Unfortunately your bleeding heart principles in that regard can only come at the expense of less demand for truck drivers and less wages for those with a job.
It’s nothing to do with “bleeding heart principles”, the simple fact is that it is more planet-friendly if a hundred containers can be transported by one prime user rather than a hundred prime movers. I want to leave the planet in as healthy a state as possible for my children, surely you want to do the same for yours?
Carryfast:
Meanwhile you support the movement of freight by rail.Unfortunately your bleeding heart principles in that regard can only come at the expense of less demand for truck drivers and less wages for those with a job.
It’s nothing to do with “bleeding heart principles”, the simple fact is that it is more planet-friendly if a hundred containers can be transported by one prime user rather than a hundred prime movers. I want to leave the planet in as healthy a state as possible for my children, surely you want to do the same for yours?
Blimey Harry do you believe the Global Warming farce.While even if you believe in all the eco ■■■■ bs how much fuel use do you think you’ve actually saved by running a railway system and intermodal transhipment operation.But if you’re really that bothered maybe you’d have been better off sticking to your principles by refusing to get involved in the road transport industry or at least only inter modal which was there at least since the 1980’s.
As for leaving the planet in a better state do you think the planet could care less that you polluted it with the diesel used by more efficient trains than that used by almost if not as efficient LHV’s.Especially if that pollution happens to eventually be a large scale nuclear power station disaster used to generate the electricity used by electric powered trains v what ( should be ) wholesale switch to LPG powered trucks.Or if you’re not bothered about a UK version of Chernobyl then you obviously wouldn’t be bothered about using the same electricity to produce hydrogen to use in Hydrogen powered trucks.
Carryfast:
Blimey Harry do you believe the Global Warming farce.
Well, yes I do, as does anybody with a basic understanding of science. You could always try joining a science-based forum and giving them your opinions to the contrary, I’m sure they would find you equally amusing. When a planet burns fossil fuel which took tens of thousands of years to form every single day, then it is not difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to see that this is not indefinitely sustainable.
Carryfast:
Blimey Harry do you believe the Global Warming farce.
Well, yes I do, as does anybody with a basic understanding of science. You could always try joining a science-based forum and giving them your opinions to the contrary, I’m sure they would find you equally amusing. When a planet burns fossil fuel which took tens of thousands of years to form every single day, then it is not difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to see that this is not indefinitely sustainable.
Blimey so you’ve gone all LibDem on us now.
Maybe you should tell the government that so it can shut down all the North Sea production and the Arabs so they can cap all their wells and leave the stuff in the ground.IE even the government doesn’t believe their own bs.While I think there’s plenty of science out there which ridicules the theory it’s just that the PC believers won’t allow it to be listened to.So yes I’m a climate change denier shock horror.But if we must go for nuclear disaster instead just to please your lot then you’ll obviously be happy with those hydrogen powered LHV’s competing with rail on a level playing field if/when they do actually close those oil fields down.Bearing in mind that Hydrogen can be burnt in an engine in just the same way as fossil fuel it doesn’t need to be all the complicated electric fuel cell tech.
Carryfast:
.While I think there’s plenty of science out there which ridicules the theory it’s just that the PC believers won’t allow it to be listened to.So yes I’m a climate change denier shock horror.
If you think that the massive increase in world population since the industrial revolution, and the enormous change in the way that this population has lived since the industrial revolution- 1.2 billion cars worldwide, each requiring enormous amounts of energy just in their manufacture, never mind the fuel the use in their lifetimes just as one small example- cannot have any adverse effect on the planet in the long term, then all I can say is that I disagree with you. But like I say, join a science-based forum and post your theories there.
I tell you what CF. Harry had dumbed his answers down to a relatively basic level-(such to the point that even I understand ), and now you claim that his example of efficiency/environmental benefits is buying into conspiracy theories!!
You are losing the plot my old china Leaving the planet in as healthy a state as we can is not only caring about other generations…it’s common bloody sense man.
The real conspiracies are the ones that exist in your head.
Carryfast:
But if we must go for nuclear disaster instead just to please your lot
I’m not quite sure what this “your lot” is supposed to be referring to. As you probably know, I live on a narrowboat and like all narrowboat liveaboards I treat every resource, right down to a couple of pints of water, as a precious commodity which will be used three or four times before it is thrown away. Nothing that can be burnt in the stove to provide a few seconds of heat ever goes to landfill. If everybody lived their lives in the minimalist way we do, there wouldn’t be a tenth as many trucks on the road, of whatever size.
Perhaps that’s the answer, instead of having ever larger vehicles moving ever more Chinese crap around, people should start living simpler and less materialistic, yet happier lives?
Carryfast:
But if we must go for nuclear disaster instead just to please your lot
I’m not quite sure what this “your lot” is supposed to be referring to. As you probably know, I live on a narrowboat and like all narrowboat liveaboards I treat every resource, right down to a couple of pints of water, as a precious commodity which will be used three or four times before it is thrown away. Nothing that can be burnt in the stove to provide a few seconds of heat ever goes to landfill. If everybody lived their lives in the minimalist way we do, there wouldn’t be a tenth as many trucks on the road, of whatever size.
Perhaps that’s the answer, instead of having ever larger vehicles moving ever more Chinese crap around, people should start living simpler and less materialistic, yet happier lives?
am with you on this…,100% agree Harry…, we try to live in a minimal manner - 14 year old (still running like a swiss watch) van to get to work., re-use/re-cycle etc woodburners at home and in workshop burning any and all available waste wood etc…and dont feel the lack of anything…i think a complete shift in attitudes to consumption etc among the general population
may well be needed., but not holding my breath
Carryfast:
Blimey Harry do you believe the Global Warming farce.
Well, yes I do, as does anybody with a basic understanding of science. You could always try joining a science-based forum and giving them your opinions to the contrary, I’m sure they would find you equally amusing. When a planet burns fossil fuel which took tens of thousands of years to form every single day, then it is not difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to see that this is not indefinitely sustainable.
The dinosaurs (who are a large constituent of our fossil fuel reserve) roamed this god forsaken rock for over 150 million years. It took the best part of the 65 million years since they became extinct to press them together and create the oil deposits. We have been taking that out of the ground for just over a hundred years. . And are running low…
The sooner nature designs a bug we can’t cure, the better. We, Home Sapiens, are like the old inhabitants of the Easter Island. …
Carryfast:
But if we must go for nuclear disaster instead just to please your lot
I’m not quite sure what this “your lot” is supposed to be referring to. As you probably know, I live on a narrowboat and like all narrowboat liveaboards I treat every resource, right down to a couple of pints of water, as a precious commodity which will be used three or four times before it is thrown away. Nothing that can be burnt in the stove to provide a few seconds of heat ever goes to landfill. If everybody lived their lives in the minimalist way we do, there wouldn’t be a tenth as many trucks on the road, of whatever size.
Perhaps that’s the answer, instead of having ever larger vehicles moving ever more Chinese crap around, people should start living simpler and less materialistic, yet happier lives?
If you want to go along with the anti fossil fuel use Global Warmist cause you’re going to have to support nuclear energy sooner or later one way or another.In which case great it’s so much better to turn the place into an uninhabitable toxic wasteland all based on a non existent supposed runaway greenhouse effect scare story.Based on the bs theory of Venus’ atmosphere,put up by pot smoking hippy Sagan.
As for the stove burning hippy lifestyle so everyone demolishes their house and lives on a house boat and burns the contents of the house and then start on the local woodland when all that’s run out.Brilliant idea every riverside full of house boat dwellers all fighting for a space and loads of toxic burning plastics emissions and all the woodland cut down to keep everyone warm because they want to leave all the fossil fuels in the ground which will do wonders for the atmospheric quality and oxygen count.Let me guess you call that the good life.As for the irony of eco nazis wanting to burn all the trees to keep warm if not nuclear power either of which would cause more environmental and atmospheric damage than fossil fuel use,you couldn’t make it up.
So there we have it.Hippies moaning about drivers wages while at the same time supporting the draconian anti road transport policies that are causing the problem.All based on a bs eco agenda.
While by your logic the Scandinavian road transport industry would be on its knees.
), and now you claim that his example of efficiency/environmental benefits is buying into conspiracy theories!!
Leaving the planet in as healthy a state as we can is not only caring about other generations…it’s common bloody sense man.