1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212 
Janus comments
Page 98
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Rates cacophony
EVEN after the Prices and Incomes Board has done its worst a surprising number of traders when approached by a haulier for an increase in rates continue to ask him what figure is recommended by the Road Haulage Association. His inability to give a specific answer is leading to more and more confusion, especially at the present time when there have been so many changes in costs.
Periodical announcements, however unscientific the Board may have considered them to be, at least had the merit of marking a clear path. Each recommendation was intended to wipe the slate clean. It was left to the individual haulier each time to make the best bargain he could and the general understanding was that he would then wait for a further announcement before approaching his customers again.
Traders with tidy minds approved this system. They believed they could follow what was happening. It was not difficult to get official confirmation of the RHA proposal and they then waited for the haulier to prove that the recommended increase was justified in his case.
No national pattern The situation has changed probably for the worst. Lacking authoritative guidance and conscious all the time that costs are rising, hauliers individually or in groups have followed no national pattern in their approaches. Some of them have demanded several small increases in the course of a year; others have preferred to wait until the increases have accumulated to a certain level. Some have waited for the Budget; others have continued to follow the advice still sent out by the RHA.
The customer with substantial transport requirements may still see his way clearly. He has never needed the help of the Prices and Incomes Board in getting the keenest rates. His habit has been to discuss the subject periodically with all the hauliers who serve his needs and this practice remains undisturbed.
Other customers are less fortunately placed. They rely more upon published information and this often adds to the confusion. Statements in the Press may often seem to contradict what hauliers themselves are saying.
Several recent examples can be found. A few weeks ago the chairman of the RHA, Mr. Noel Wynn, in a letter to all members drew together the main increases in costssince the Budget of March 1968 (which was itself expensive for hauliers in that it added 4d a gallon to the fuel tax and put up vehicle licence duties by 50 per cent).
Mr. Wynn gave no figure for the total increase. Members were left to assess the effect on their businesses. But he did say a little later that many hauliers were putting their rates up by something Like 10 per cent to meet the extra costs enumerated in his letter.
A large proportion of members have acted on this hint. It would not have been reasonable to increase their charges overnight and in most cases May 1 has been the earliest practicable date. In the meantime costs have not stood still. Yet another Budget has meant yet another increase in the fuel tax; insofar as it bears upon hauliers the burden of SET has been increased; and tyres now cost more.
Most hauliers who have negotiated for an increase in May will decide to carry the latest cost rises for the time being. Other operators acted promptly after the Budget in November last. They have not hesitated to negotiate a further rates increase at once.
Their success has varied but a figure of 2+ per cent is not uncommon. When an announcement to this effect reaches the ears of a customer who has just agreed to a rise of 10 per cent he is likely to be suspicious however convincingly the case for the increase has been put to him. He may even suggest postponement of the effective date until he has had a satisfactory explanation.
For many hauliers this would happen at a particularly unfortunate moment. Costs arising from new legislation are proving in many cases even higher than had been feared. Tyres and other expensive equipment which the operator may have thought good for a long time to come are having to be replaced to meet the standards of the plating and testing scheme. The growing problem of finding the money is aggravated when other costs keep rising and the customer refuses to pay more.
US carriers rebuffed It is probably little consolation to hauliers to learn that their problems are also being met in the US and in Canada although the circumstances are different. American carriers have recently had two severe rebuffs in their attempt to increase revenue •so as to offset rising costs.
Approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission is required for changes in the long-distance rates of US hauliers. Operators in the Middle Atlantic and the Pacific Inland territories were allowed rises of up to 5 per cent a year ago pending an ICC inquiry. As a result of the investigation the increases have been cancelled, although mercifully the operators will not have to pay back revenue already earned. The ICC decision was based "in part upon the failure of the carriers to offer evidence concerning possible offset of cost increases by increased efficiency". The words which so faithfully echo our own Prices and Incomes Board are borrowed from an earlier ICC decision in Ig66.
The second blow by the ICC is the refusal to allow changes in the goods classification structure. It had been proposed to move certain types of traffic into a higher category so that hauliers would be entitled to charge more for carrying them although there would be no general rates increase.
Change the basis?
Carriers had drawn attention to the substantial increase in the carriage of space-consuming and low-density freight caused partly by the use of lighter materials and the trend towards bulkier packaging of consumer goods. Instead of basing the charge solely on weight it was suggested that higher rates should be allowed when the commodities concerned had a density of less than 6 lb. per cu. ft.
Whether rates are controlled within a rigid structure as in the US or there is a free market as in Britain the problems seem very much the same and the comments by operators are almost interchangeable. Transport Topics, the journal of the American Trucking Associations, complains that "motor carriers are in the position of having to pay more for virtually everything they need—manpower, equipment, fuel, taxes and real estate". The same point has been made . on innumerable occasions by the RHA.
The ATA continues on another familiar theme. Unless some increase in rates is allowed, it is pointed out, the operator has two grim alternatives: curtailment of service or operating losses. This dilemma confronts them at a time when the ICC and the customers are demanding improvements in service. There is the associated problem of improving terminal and other facilities.
Not so much stress is laid in the US upon more stringent requirements for vehicle maintenance and standards of operation. Moreover, the rates classification with which the ATA are concerned applies almost entirely to large—in many cases very large—operators on assigned long-distance routes.
A different problem in Britain is the one facing the small operator who has survived, it must be admitted, largely through economies which will no longer be possible when he has to submit his vehicles regularly for testing and when the Licensing Authority is going to insist on certain facilities and staff before granting the new operator's licence.
For such an operator his only hope is that customers will understand his predicament and agree to pay him more so that he can meet his growing responsibilities. The ATA may be allowed to have the last word on this point also: "It would be disastrous for truck transportation and industry generally if the attitude against needed rate increases continues to prevail."