Category Archives: Trucking

Leaf Logistics launches multi-shipper dedicated fleets

Leaf Logistics, an innovative truckload freight platform, has a unique recipe for reducing unloaded miles and matching carriers with driver-friendly routes, called Flex Fleets. It coordinates truckload freight between shippers and logistics service providers (LSPs) like trucking firms and freight brokers. The concept is that LSPs act as dedicated carriers over a short time for packages of loads from different shippers, but on approximately the same route. The claim is that users can experience a 75% or more reduction in slack or empty travel time for trucks.

I interviewed Anshu Prasad, CEO of Leaf, for some perspective on how the new Flex Fleets system works. The essence is an analytical system that compiles load histories from all the shippers who sign up, projects them to the future, and builds blocks of future loads from one node to another. Leaf Logistics calls this a route.

The image below shows the historical traffic by day on a specific route (think LA to PHX, for instance), with a moving average trend. The green bars display a way to ‘chunk’ the demand into blocks that would make attractive short-term contracts for a haulier. These are called Flex Contracts. Thus from about June 10 to July 15, there is a base volume of 3 loads a day to be handled by a dedicated contract.

That contract is much easier to digest for the LSP. It also assures shippers whose loads are in the block that there is a ‘dedicated’ resource to handle that base load. It’s much easier to create a Flex Contract; no long-term commitment, prices somewhere between spot and negotiated prices, and more flexibility for both parties. As you can see there’s a dip anticipated just after that block, and perhaps the shippers would not want 3 trucks per day available.

What’s in it for LSPs? Their alternative is to try selling dedicated services to many shippers to fill out schedules on a route, but there is a long sales cycle with each shipper, and some shippers would be bound to attract bids from others, breaking your grip. Traditional contracts are typically for longer periods, partly because they are hard to negotiate. And through Leaf, management is easier. Leaf estimates that an average of 20 or more ‘touches’ via EDI, email or calls can be reduced to under 5 using Flex.

Leaf’s Adapt data analysis constructs multi-shipper routes, and the LSP chooses a Flex Contract for such a route. The route can reduce unloaded miles and assure drivers they can fulfill them on time. It’s an advantage if an LSP wants to give drivers a ‘home life’. Quality of life is becoming an essential factor to keep drivers on board and happy. And eliminating unloaded miles and gaps in rolling service is huge; it’s the largest capacity loss in trucking logistics today.

Flex Fleets operates only with truckload (TL) shipments today, the largest segment of trucking. They have about 400 shippers enrolled; the shippers need to disclose historical data on their traffic lanes to Flex, though not to each other. Flex uses the traffic gathered to compute its route blocks. It’s a reasonable compromise with information that is not that useful for competition in reality. Flex is now in trials including reefer traffic.

Leaf usually enrolls the shippers’ preferred trucking vendors, so shippers do not need to worry about qualifying trucking firms again. The LSPs like it, because they get the Flex Fleets benefits of guaranteed loads in a workable pattern over a longer time horizon. Of course, all the carriers are insured. If something happens on a route, like an accident, weather, or carrier no-show, Leaf makes good on the route with a failover plan to ensure completion.

I asked Anshu if there was a plan to introduce Leaf’s concepts into container drayage, an area plagued with turnover, contracting issues, and driver exploitation. Anshu wants to test and refine the Flex concepts first before trying that difficult area. Drayage is an area with many owner-operators. The Leaf system does not have owner-operators as carriers. If one wants to participate, she could sign up with a trucker or broker who joins. Anshu says studies have shown that many full-truckload owner-operators work that way, possibly up to 70%.

Everyone benefits from the Flex Fleets idea to induce cooperative behavior on the part of shippers and LSPs. The shorter duration contract— a month to a year— with fewer conditions is easier to accept or say no to.

  • Shippers benefit from dedicated and scalable capacity, without having to purchase or lease their own fleet — currently, they commit to fleets for years and have to pay for maintenance, regardless of utilization. Flex Fleets save shippers up to 30% on their line haul costs.
  • Carriers benefit from consistent business and preferable freight, eliminating driver downtime and fleet empty miles — 40% of all trucks on the road today ride empty. Tender rejections drop from 30% to 0. 
  • Brokers benefit from enabling drivers to accurately predict their earnings, work from a preferred domicile, maximize their number of paid miles driven and return home each night for an improved quality of life on and off the road. For instance, Sage Freight has seen driver turnover drop from 75% to 15% or less on dedicated freight. 
  • Everyone benefits from reducing emissions by eliminating empty miles and delays. ESG ratings are improved in the fastest way for truckload haulage.

We have been saying for years that logistics is the only place in business where cooperation is routine. But in truckload, it hasn’t been. We need intelligent systems, like Leaf’s Flex Fleets, to identify how it can be made routine and easy.

Anshu indicates that he and his leadership team, some of whom worked together previously, have a long-term commitment to their business idea. That’s why they are growing deliberately with tested concepts, and why they have not sought large venture investments like many young logistics software firms. Instead, they want persistent solutions to the problem of cooperation that will capture the next-generation logistics information market.

And they’ll be helping truckers with some of their most intractable problems.

Intermodal truckers secure win against ocean carriers

The chassis world is always coming up with a new twist.

Two large chassis pool operators, in Chicago, LA/Long Beach, Memphis, and Savannah, have to allow truckers to use a provider of their own choosing.

The formation of chassis pools about 10 years ago was sparked by ocean carriers’ desire to stop providing chassis. The reason given was that US rules on who is responsible for damages if there is an accident placed the burden on the chassis owner. To escape, the ocean carriers decided to leave the chassis business in the US. That’s typical worldwide; for instance, in Europe most chassis are owned by trucking firms.

But how do ocean carrier customers in the US get chassis to move the containers once they are off the boat? A game theory analysis (Hartman, Bruce and Christopher B. Clott, 2014) showed that truckers would not buy chassis unless they were virtually certain (over 90%) that the shipper would use their chassis rather than deal with the ocean carrier for one. Cargo gotta move — so the ocean carriers needed to find a way.

The answer was ‘chassis pools’. Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) developed Consolidated Chassis Management(CCM) to form and manage pools of container chassis at various ports to insure that chassis would be available for cargoes.

Clearly the pools were an advance. Pooling always allows demand to be satisfied with smaller inventory; it’s essentially a newsvendor situation. One big issue, however, is maintenance. A trucker expects to be given a chassis that is in good repair, and will probably not need maintenance during the trip. In the US, the trucker is responsible for on-the-road maintenance. So the question arises— how diligent will pool operators be in maintaining chassis that are turning over quickly?

That question alone was the spark of a putative strike at the LA/Long Beach pool. The union wanted to have control over workers at the pool yard, who were doing the maintenance. It became a big deal in the union negotiations. And the union won– union workers were hired to staff the yards. This went some distance to resolve the problem since the quality of the workforce was controlled by the union and not the owners of the yard.

All this sounds good so far. But issues can arise when individual carriage contracts are made. To what extent can carriers specify what equipment is used, and where it must be delivered when empty? What rates will be set for the use? And can contracts be altered while the chassis is moving, to specify return at a different place, or somewhere well off the route of the trucker?

In this case, the Administrative Judge ruled that motor carriers cannot be forced to use pool chassis; they may use their own chassis source. It’s a victory for truckers. There’s a tricky question of ‘default chassis provider’ when the contract does not specify the chassis source, but it’s clear now that the Judge wants truckers to be free to use their own provider.

That’s a win because it puts truckers in control of their chassis source, and frees them from potential hassles over contracting and repairs they might get into with CCM. They can manage their chassis choice themselves.

It’s interesting that over 9000 pages of documents were filed in this proceeding. Clearly both sides felt there was something to argue.

John Gallagher·Monday, February 06, 2023

Intermodal truckers secure win against ocean carriers – FreightWaves

FMC Summary Decision Text

FMCSA proposes tougher rules for truck broker financial backing

A few dishonest truck cargo brokers are making it necessary for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to tighten rules for all brokers.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, passed just before the end of 2022, Congress directed the agency to make new rules making clear the distinction between legal truck brokers, bona fide agents, and dispatch services.

Truck brokers have to post a $75,000 bond with a surety company or trust fund, which is used to guarantee claims against the brokerage such as for accidents or mishandling of loads. Dispatch services have not needed to post this bond in the past; they claim they merely connect the shipper with a load to carry with a trucker; the contract for carriage is between shipper and carrier. Many dispatch services do not handle the funds, though somehow they get paid for their services; perhaps the trucker pays a subscription. Occasionally the dispatch service handles the payments; are they then functioning as a broker?

FMCSA recently released the draft of the new guidelines, which they have been working on. They focus on posting the bond and making sure it is paid up. I’m not sure this will address what Congress requested, but certainly the question of whether the bond is posted will go a long way toward making sure claims for accidents or losses or mistaken freight bills can be adjusted.

The guidelines don’t clarify whether a dispatch service is a broker or not. I’m not sure the FMCSA wants to open up that discussion. It’s not hard to register as a broker, but you do have to come up with the bond; that’s the biggest hurdle. The dispatch service does not want liability for financial damages associated with the load.

FMCSA believes about 1.3% of all registered brokers each year, based on 2022 data, are subject to drawdowns of the $75,000 bond they post to legally operate. The bond is supposed to be surety against incorrect charges to their customers. When customers fight the charges, the bond is ‘drawn down’, or pledged to repay the customers. It must be replenished by the broker when the claim is paid.

Of these brokers, about 17% receive total claims over $75,000 in 2022. Unless the bond is replenished, these brokers are violating the law, and also causing their customers a lot of extra work fighting for fair charges.

The bond is held by the surety agency or the trust fund provider. Both are legal entities to hold the bond for the broker. If the bond isn’t replenished, an ‘interpleader’ lawsuit is filed by the surety or trust company, and these legal proceedings against the broker take time and money. The new rules should reduce the number of these filings.

According to John Gallagher, the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), a group representing brokers, believes that the problem often lies with fraudulent surety and trust entities. These companies can run out of funds to pay the claims against the trusts or bonds they hold, meaning that the carriers are unprotected. In other words, the brokers’ representative claims it’s not the brokers’ fault. The FMCSA rules have not focused on surety or trust fund viability in the past.

While both sides may have half a point, fraudulent brokering is not good for drivers or for the industry, though brokers have a vital role to play, especially helping owner-operators and small firms capture and service loads.

And the dispatching services? They want to stay out of the broker loop, preferring to operate in an unregulated fashion. They do provide ‘liquidity’ for truckers, allowing empty backhauls to be filled and reducing operating costs for independent truckers and small carriers. That’s a tremendous advantage for truckers and for the environment; preventing those empty miles is a major concern. It’s not clear whether the dispatchers should be folded under the broker category by the FMCSA.

John Gallagher·Wednesday, January 04, 2023

FMCSA proposes tougher rules for truck broker financial backing – FreightWaves

John Gallagher·Tuesday, December 20, 2022

Congress directs action on broker-related regulations – FreightWaves