Singing The Same Tune
Deborah Whistler
Editor
Truckers are in the middle of a crisis. The cost of fuel has reached critical mass and is forcing thousands of carriers — especially small fleets and owner-operators — out of business.
As this month's cover story points out, for every 10-cent increase in the price of fuel, 1,000 trucking companies will go down. Fuel prices have jumped by as much as a dollar a gallon in recent months. That's 10,000 trucking companies. Depending on what happens in Iraq, the cost of diesel could rise to as much as $4 a gallon. That's about 250 cents higher than it was just a short while ago.
What is the industry doing to help ease the situation? Not much, unfortunately. Why? That's the question any reasonable outsider to trucking would ask. It's a no-brainer that the fuel crunch is one of the few issues where truckers could get positive public support.
So what's the problem? Truckers can't unite on the obvious solution to the volatile nature of fuel prices: a federally imposed fuel surcharge.
Again, anyone who doesn't know trucking well might ask why?
Answer: Some of the big fleet boys won't support a government-imposed fuel surcharge. They claim it would be too much government control of their business.
The real truth is that the large carriers have enough clout with shippers to get fuel surcharges on their own. It gives them a competitive advantage over smaller fleets and owner-operators who don't have the power to force rate increases to cover fuel spikes.
Think of all the freight that would be available when 25,000 fleets go belly up if diesel jumps to $4 a gallon.
Bill Graves, president of ATA, in one of his first interviews since taking the job, told HDT he feels it's better to not take a position on those issues that divide the industry (see story page 12). He thinks it confuses government to have a divided trucking lobby, and he's right. Truckers have done little but confuse politicians with their disjointed lobbying efforts for years.
But Mr. Graves is going to find he has a big problem with his pledge to not take a stand unless there is industry consensus. This industry is consistently divided on virtually every single issue of significance. If ATA plans to not take a position on those issues, we apparently won't be hearing much from them.
Fuel isn't the only crisis truckers need to get a grip on. If you think what happened with the 2002 emissions regulations stinks, just wait until 2007 and 2010.
The industry got burned bad when EPA stepped up its stricter emissions regulations to 2002. Engine manufacturers couldn't agree on a course of technology. The trucking lobby was nowhere to be found.
Welcome to 2003. Engine and truck makers are taking it on the chin financially because they had to invest so heavily in R&D to meet the emissions hurdle; truck sales have lagged.
The 2007 and 2010 emissions regs will escalate the fuel crisis. The 2002 engines seem to be operating very well in the few fleets running them (see story page 50), but they are also thirstier. The technology necessary to make engines as clean as the government wants in '07 and '10 will undoubtedly lead to further degradation in fuel economy.
In a recent exclusive interview with HDT, Freightliner President Rainer Schmueckle put it in a nutshell:
"Because '07 (emissions requirements) will be very hard to reach, 2003 is a crucial time for industry to formulate a position so that 2007 is not just a repeat of '02. We need to formulate a response as an industry, all singing from a single hymn sheet.
"(The stakeholders) truck OEM, engine manufacturers and customers must have a common response. This would entail not only questioning the introductory period of the '07 regulation, but how it can practically be handled," Schmueckle said. "From a technology standpoint we must not to put all our eggs in one basket. We currently have two: Cat with ACERT and EGR. We should not rule out Selective Catalytic Reduction (this time). The industry must put its politics in place and get down to business."
Amen.
