<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Taking the Low Road: Mudslinging YRC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/08/07/taking-the-low-road-mudslinging-yrc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/08/07/taking-the-low-road-mudslinging-yrc/</link>
	<description>Providing logistics professionals with clear and concise analyses of Logistics Trends, Technologies, and Services</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:26:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Giles Taylor</title>
		<link>http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2009/08/07/taking-the-low-road-mudslinging-yrc/comment-page-1/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>Giles Taylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=1537#comment-79</guid>
		<description>Adrian,
The more I read about the financial status of YRC, the more encouraged I am that they will survive.  It seems no one wants to own a LTL carrier (bankers, government, Teamsters, competition).  The banks keep adjusting YRC’s obligations, the teamsters make concessions, etc. In fact, if they file chapter 11, which might be a good idea, what will the government do when thousands of retires have no pension?   Further, I&#039;m sure the government doesn&#039;t want to see several thousand people added to the unemployment rolls.

What does concern me is their continued loss of business.  They can get all the help they want from banks, governments, and unions, but if they don&#039;t have any business, it won&#039;t matter.

With regard to pricing, we are seeing YRC be very competitive on pricing, but have not had the best price in all negotiations we have done this year.  They&#039;re willing to be aggressive, but not giving away the farm yet.  Interestingly, we have seen other carriers less aggressive on pricing the past 30 days.  

As you say, it&#039;s too soon to tell whether YRCW will make it, but it will be interesting to see what happens.  It might be more interesting to see what happens to LTL pricing when the largest provider is removed from the supply side.

giles</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adrian,<br />
The more I read about the financial status of YRC, the more encouraged I am that they will survive.  It seems no one wants to own a LTL carrier (bankers, government, Teamsters, competition).  The banks keep adjusting YRC’s obligations, the teamsters make concessions, etc. In fact, if they file chapter 11, which might be a good idea, what will the government do when thousands of retires have no pension?   Further, I&#8217;m sure the government doesn&#8217;t want to see several thousand people added to the unemployment rolls.</p>
<p>What does concern me is their continued loss of business.  They can get all the help they want from banks, governments, and unions, but if they don&#8217;t have any business, it won&#8217;t matter.</p>
<p>With regard to pricing, we are seeing YRC be very competitive on pricing, but have not had the best price in all negotiations we have done this year.  They&#8217;re willing to be aggressive, but not giving away the farm yet.  Interestingly, we have seen other carriers less aggressive on pricing the past 30 days.  </p>
<p>As you say, it&#8217;s too soon to tell whether YRCW will make it, but it will be interesting to see what happens.  It might be more interesting to see what happens to LTL pricing when the largest provider is removed from the supply side.</p>
<p>giles</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

