escort bayan mersin escort tokat escort osmaniye escort
Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Subs fine
11-19-2012, 04:24 PM
Post: #31
RE: Subs fine
Yeah, I was hoping you'd read that thread and have something to add to it. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 11-20-2012 02:43 PM by Bib Bubba.)
Post: #32
RE: Subs fine
(11-18-2012 03:20 PM)DustyBones Wrote:  
(11-18-2012 02:31 PM)jeffbuchanan Wrote:  There are others that fail also and they are not brought into this conversation.

Most fail due to miscalculations or driver problems..

You fail because you have a company of 4 and end up with (for instance) 3 or 4 sub contracts of 25 loads apiece that are 2500 mile or longer runs each knowing that there is no way you could ever finish them.

It's more of a question of being a good player and trying to seriously play the game and not just be a thorn in everyone's side.

If the company that is creating the sub-contract is stupid enough to allow a company with only 4 drivers to take on a 2500 mile long distance sub-contract with 25 loads, they deserve to have the sub-contract failed on them. But I don't think they should be allowed to keep the fine money.

Companies creating the sub-contract shouldn't be allowed to profit from the fine if the sub-contracting company fails the sub-contract because they don't have the resources to finish the contract in the first place. The sub-contracting company should never have been allowed to take on that 25 load long distance sub-contract that a four driver company could never complete in time. But since the company creating the sub-contract specifies without limitation how many drivers a company needs to take on the sub-contract it is possible to allow a small company to take on what is virtually an impossible contract for the sub-contracting company to complete. I think if a company wants to create sub-contracts that are impossible to complete they too should be fined. If not then what is to stop companies from making impossible to complete sub-contracts knowing they will profit from the fine if a small 4 driver company tries to take on their high paying long distance sub-contract?

I think an algorithm needs to be written which specifies how many drivers the sub-contracting company needs to have in order to be able to complete the sub-contract which will limit the lowest number of drivers the company creating the sub-contract is allowed to specify when creating the sub-contract.

Without that some companies who don't need help with their own contract might create an impossible to complete sub-contract knowing they can pick up an extra couple of thousand dollars when the small four driver company they allowed to take on their sub-contract fails the sub-contract.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 11-20-2012 03:02 PM by bozzwell.)
Post: #33
RE: Subs fine
(11-18-2012 02:23 PM)Little Bear Wrote:  
(11-18-2012 01:58 PM)Norman Wrote:  Is this because you generally don't like having to rely on subcontractors or because (some) subcontractors are unreliable? What alterations (if any) to the subcontract system would give you the confidence to create subcontracts again?

Not all sub-contractors are unreliable. I guess it does come across that way, looking at the original post.

If there were any changes to be made, I would suggest the company creating the sub contract have the ability to exclude a company or companies from be able to take their sub contracts. (Other than the number of players required.)

Not having any concept of how programming works, this feature might be set up at the time the sub contract is created, in the manner that the "ignore" feature works. Nobody would need to know who is "blocked" looking at the list. The way the "blocked" company would know, is being denied the contract in an attempt to take it.

This may help "level" the field and curtail some of the above mentioned group's nonsense that has been commented on by many players in a multitude of threads.

It is a shame that a certain group that seems to take immense pride in failing contracts and jumping from company to company to company, get a free pass 'carte blanche' and spoil it for others, in particular the new players they manage to ruin the game for.
i agree, this is why we stopped setting out sub-contracts, we got stuck cuz a few co.'s just grab anything not even knowing about the contract they are taking like distances or in relations to where they are to where the supply city is,
i have clicked on a few company's that have taking a sub-contract from us and seen they have 2-3 or 4 contracts already knowing they cant complete the ones they got so they just go after another,

there needs to be away to be able to click , yes or no to the company that wants your sub, in life you can choose who you want to work with meaning , i dont have to accept their application to haul our sub-contract

i think every company should have a rating system , the more contracts you complete the higher your COMPANY EXPERIENCE LEVEL goes up or if you fail the lower the rating goes down
you need a COMPANY EXPERIENCE LEVEL OF ___ to be able to haul this contract
so if your a company thats just grabbing contracts just to grab themand not finishing them , this would put an end to that

-----Cool--Bozzwell ----
OWNER and C.E.O. Of the #2 company
~ ~ Dynamic Global Transport ~ ~
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 03:37 PM
Post: #34
RE: Subs fine
(11-20-2012 02:42 PM)Bib Bubba Wrote:  
(11-18-2012 03:20 PM)DustyBones Wrote:  
(11-18-2012 02:31 PM)jeffbuchanan Wrote:  There are others that fail also and they are not brought into this conversation.

Most fail due to miscalculations or driver problems..

You fail because you have a company of 4 and end up with (for instance) 3 or 4 sub contracts of 25 loads apiece that are 2500 mile or longer runs each knowing that there is no way you could ever finish them.

It's more of a question of being a good player and trying to seriously play the game and not just be a thorn in everyone's side.

If the company that is creating the sub-contract is stupid enough to allow a company with only 4 drivers to take on a 2500 mile long distance sub-contract with 25 loads, they deserve to have the sub-contract failed on them. But I don't think they should be allowed to keep the fine money.

Companies creating the sub-contract shouldn't be allowed to profit from the fine if the sub-contracting company fails the sub-contract because they don't have the resources to finish the contract in the first place. The sub-contracting company should never have been allowed to take on that 25 load long distance sub-contract that a four driver company could never complete in time. But since the company creating the sub-contract specifies without limitation how many drivers a company needs to take on the sub-contract it is possible to allow a small company to take on what is virtually an impossible contract for the sub-contracting company to complete. I think if a company wants to create sub-contracts that are impossible to complete they too should be fined. If not then what is to stop companies from making impossible to complete sub-contracts knowing they will profit from the fine if a small 4 driver company tries to take on their high paying long distance sub-contract?

I think an algorithm needs to be written which specifies how many drivers the sub-contracting company needs to have in order to be able to complete the sub-contract which will limit the lowest number of drivers the company creating the sub-contract is allowed to specify when creating the sub-contract.

Without that some companies who don't need help with their own contract might create an impossible to complete sub-contract knowing they can pick up an extra couple of thousand dollars when the small four driver company they allowed to take on their sub-contract fails the sub-contract.
they throw out a 25 load contract for 4 drivers they know very well that it won't be done and they make money from the failed contracts. sure I am going to take what comes along to make 1 or 2 drivers some good money.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 04:12 PM
Post: #35
RE: Subs fine
Jeff that's rubbish!! you should think how it will affect your company as a whole,not that a couple of your drivers will make a few extra dollars!! Your the worst for talking any sub contract going, so start thinking about your company more, and not how you can wined up CEO's by talking there sub contracts and failing them time and time again!!!!!

Proud supporter of West Ham United Football Club
Proud CEO Matlee Express,

[Image: driverstats.php?id=2994]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 04:18 PM
Post: #36
RE: Subs fine
(11-20-2012 03:37 PM)jeffbuchanan Wrote:  they throw out a 25 load contract for 4 drivers they know very well that it won't be done and they make money from the failed contracts. sure I am going to take what comes along to make 1 or 2 drivers some good money.

Yep.. make 1 or 2 drivers money and bankrupt your company.. Just like your current, yet another company... you've had 2 contracts and failed both of them so far.. Won't be long and it will be gone too..

How's this for a thought..
How about doing like the rest of us and actually figure out your contracts so that you don't go into the hole and thereby bankrupting your company..

Or are you unable to figure it out?

Have a little pride in your company and try to actually make something out of it instead of just running it into the ground.. Anyone can do that, it actually takes some brain work to make one successful..

I'm done with this thread and wasting my breath on you.. play the game however you are able.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 05:16 PM (This post was last modified: 11-20-2012 05:17 PM by Norman.)
Post: #37
RE: Subs fine
(11-20-2012 02:42 PM)Bib Bubba Wrote:  I think an algorithm needs to be written which specifies how many drivers the sub-contracting company needs to have in order to be able to complete the sub-contract which will limit the lowest number of drivers the company creating the sub-contract is allowed to specify when creating the sub-contract.

If I remember correctly we currently have an upper limit based on the capabilities over a week for a 10-driver subcontractor. I agree with you that a more complex algorithm would be beneficial. It would require a rewrite of the way the subcontract creation page works so that the driver limit and deadline must be set before the load but I'd guess that it's doable.

However, I don't know that I agree that we should make it so that *all* subcontracts can definitely be completed. As with the main/subsidiary systems there needs to be some onus on the user to do their homework and check if a contract is possible. Having equivalent upper limits to the main system (2 * what we think is possible), or perhaps slightly below that, should give users enough room to over-reach whilst preventing the worst issues. Given that subcontract time is always decreasing perhaps they should also be automatically be removed from the list should enough time pass that they become unreasonable before a company bids.

Also, because there is so much variation on the time to complete a subcontract, a clearer/more obvious time remaining stat should be added. eg 72 hour contract.

(11-20-2012 02:47 PM)bozzwell Wrote:  i agree, this is why we stopped setting out sub-contracts, we got stuck cuz a few co.'s just grab anything not even knowing about the contract they are taking like distances or in relations to where they are to where the supply city is,
i have clicked on a few company's that have taking a sub-contract from us and seen they have 2-3 or 4 contracts already knowing they cant complete the ones they got so they just go after another,

there needs to be away to be able to click , yes or no to the company that wants your sub, in life you can choose who you want to work with meaning , i dont have to accept their application to haul our sub-contract

i think every company should have a rating system , the more contracts you complete the higher your COMPANY EXPERIENCE LEVEL goes up or if you fail the lower the rating goes down
you need a COMPANY EXPERIENCE LEVEL OF ___ to be able to haul this contract
so if your a company thats just grabbing contracts just to grab themand not finishing them , this would put an end to that

As I've posted elsewhere, I'm not too keen on the accept/reject button due to the possible time delay that a subcontractor could have between bidding and finding out if they've been accepted/rejected. Perhaps there could be (for instance) a 4-hour window to reject a subcontractor and if you don't check back quickly enough then it's tough, you're stuck with them. Having a blacklist to prevent bids from certain companies is fairer because the subcontractor would know immediately if they have the subcontract, but then it's up to the main contractor to be proactive and add "bad" companies to the list before they take a subcontract.

The "company experience" idea is similar to my current preferred solution of limiting the number of contracts based on % completed. Currently we have the following limits for everyone:
Total contracts: 6
Subcontracts: 3

I would propose changing this to:
Total contracts: 6 * (Completed / Won)
Subcontracts: 3 * (Completed / Won)
with the minimum being 1 so that a company never gets completely locked out of contracts.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 10:25 PM (This post was last modified: 11-20-2012 10:26 PM by ROADHUGGER.)
Post: #38
RE: Subs fine
If the company that is creating the sub-contract is stupid enough to allow a company with only 4 drivers to take on a 2500 mile long distance sub-contract with 25 loads, they deserve to have the sub-contract failed on them
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a NEWS FLASH FOR YOU , the company posting the SUBCONTRACT has NO SAY on who bids on it who is awarded the subcontract
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-21-2012, 01:48 AM
Post: #39
RE: Subs fine
(11-20-2012 10:25 PM)ROADHUGGER Wrote:  If the company that is creating the sub-contract is stupid enough to allow a company with only 4 drivers to take on a 2500 mile long distance sub-contract with 25 loads, they deserve to have the sub-contract failed on them
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a NEWS FLASH FOR YOU , the company posting the SUBCONTRACT has NO SAY on who bids on it who is awarded the subcontract
Not completely true.
When creating the contract, you can choose how many drivers the subcontracting company must have. The maximum is 10.
If a contract same as mentioned above, the subbing company should've set the number of drivers needed to 10.

But I agree that after the contract is subbed out, there is no control on who cantake it.

[Image: driverstats.php?id=294]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-21-2012, 06:51 AM
Post: #40
RE: Subs fine
Looking at the only subcontract currently on offer does reinforce Bib's points.

Chemicals to Corpus Christi, Texas, US
Cargo Weight (lbs): 800,000
Estimated Loads: 20
Deadline: 26-11-2012 at 07:30:01 AM
Penalty: $4,000.00
Current PPM: $1.90
Min Drivers: 2

The closest supply is Amarillo, 563 miles away so ~ 9 legs per trip.
There are (just under) 5 days until the deadline which is 24 * 5 = 120 legs per driver
Assuming the best-case scenario where the company is already in the area you might get 6 loads per driver which means you need 4 drivers to complete the contract.

Any (2 driver) company taking that contract deserves to fail it and whoever made it will deserve to fail their contract if they need those extra loads and a 2 driver company can't complete it.

Using my earlier post's limit of setting an upper limit at 2X capability could therefore allow this contract to be made despite the fact that it is clearly unreasonable at the bottom end of the driver limit. Should we be more stringent with subcontracts on the basis that smaller companies are more likely to have newbies and/or less mathematically minded users in charge of bidding?

Rather than limiting the number of drivers when the contract is set, should we run a check when the user opens the contract page and block bids for companies that we think are too small with the standard "Your company is too small for this contract" message?
So for instance:
  • A contract suitable for 4 drivers with a user-specified minimum of 2 is only available for 4+ driver companies (automatic limit wins)
  • A contract suitable for 2 drivers with a user-specified minimum of 4 is only available for 4+ driver companies (user-specified limit wins)


So far we seem to mostly have the opinions of the main contractors setting contracts. Are there any subcontractors who want to add an opinion on the subcontract system? Would you want more limits? Do you think that other subcontractors are giving you a bad name and limiting the contracts you should have available? Do the subcontracts available to bid on generally suck? How would having to wait for a bid to be accepted affect you and do you think it would be a good or bad thing?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Trucking Sim | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication