IS A NEW R "ING SYSTEM NECESSARY?
Page 38
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Criticism of the Schedules of Rates for Furniture Removing Published in the Previous Issue
NOW I must criticize the method of calculating rates for furniture removal which were set out in the previous article. In passing. I should like to express the hope that Mr., A N. Blackwood, the originator of that method, will accept the criticism as friendly and meant to be helpful. It may be that what I write will be of assistance to the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers, which, I understand, is going to consider Mr. Blackwood's suggestions at an early meeting.
First, on the broadest of grounds, I deprecate the introduction of alternative methods of calculating rates for haulage of any description. The greater the number of possible ways of arriving at a rate, the greater the chances that mistakes are going to be made and differences of opinion arise as to those rates.
A Change of System Not justified.
Some qualification of this somewhat dogmatic claim is, perhaps, necessary. I should say that a new system must inevitably be acceptable if it is better than any previously used, especially if it be so good as to support the argument that it should supersede any existing methods. I do not think that Mr. Blackwood's proposals are so much better than any of those which are already familiar to us, as to justify a recommendation that those other methods should be scrapped. Actually, I do not think the new scheme is so good as the old one.
It seems to be more complicated and, in endeavouring to simplify the calculations that furniture removers will have to make in order to arrive at a rate for a particular B28 job, certain essential factors appear to have been submerged or lost sight of. For some special classes of work done by furniture removers, the suggested method may be useful. That argument has no bearing, however, on the question whether the system can justify itself as a method for universal application to the assessment of rates for furniture removal.
The main feature of Mr. Blackwood's system, which was designed to help the calculation of rates for longdistance haulage, was that it was based on the unit of 100 cubic ft., the actual rate quoted being a figure per 100 cubic ft. per mile run. The minimum mileage quoted in the schedule was 25. In addition to the figures for distance, that is to say, for the actual transport, Mr. Blackwood put forward additional rates to cover terminal charges.
Coining now to more direct criticism, my first objection is to the basis of assessment': I refer to the use of the unit of 100 cubic ft. as the scale for reckoning the transport charge. Please note that I accept it as being useful with reference to terminal charges, although there it is subject to the criticism that it compels users to apply it to one part of the assessment, whilst it is not, in my view, suitable for application to the other.
How Body Capacities Vary.'
If I except greengrocers, coal merchants and fishmongers—and I feel sure that Mr. Blackwood will wish me to make these exceptions—every furniture remover with whom I have come into contact operates one or more vans, varying in size from a minimum of, say, 500 cubic It. to a maximum of 1,500 cubic ft. The most popular minimum is 600 cubic ft., rising to 900 cubic ft., and 1,200 cubic ft. as the most usual maximum. Only few can find economical use for vehicles of 1,500 cubic ft. capacity.
A 2-ton chassis can accommodate a body of 500-600 cubic ft., a 3-tonner, 800-1,000 cubic ft., and a 4-tonner, 1,200 cubic ft. For the 1,500-cubic-ft. pantechnicon, an articulated chassis is usually employed. The modern pantechnicon body is built on a light-type chassis and the majority of operators endeavours to keep within the 21-ton unladen weight limit for the complete vehicle, because of the speed limitation covering vehiclesof greater unladen weight.
TABLE II.