|
By Clifford F. Lynch
DC Velocity, February 2008
When returning from a quick out-of-town trip the other day, I handed the
attendant at the offsite airport parking facility my $7.95-per-day coupon. To my
surprise, he responded with a request not for $7.95, but for $10.67. Curious as
to how my bill could have increased by 34.2 percent, I checked the receipt. The
fine print turned out to be very revealing: There was a 9.25-percent sales tax,
a 10-percent airport tax, and you guessed it – a $1 fuel surcharge. To add
insult to injury, the taxes also applied to the fuel surcharge. Everyone won but
me.
This started me thinking about the whole fuel surcharge subject. We’ve all
heard the stories of carriers profiting from surcharges (as well as a few about
shippers that refused to pay them in full or even pay them at all). But how can
this be? I asked myself. These charges are supposed to be tied to an index
published every Monday by the Department of Energy. If fuel prices go up, the
shipper pays more. If they go down, the shipper pays less. Though prices could
change every week, at least the system is fair.
I decided to check some annual reports and press releases to see what the
motor carriers themselves had to say about their surcharge programs. Here’s
what I found:
- Motor Carrier A was very straightforward in its reporting for 2006,
providing figures for both its fuel surcharge revenues and its fuel
expenses. However, the fuel surcharge revenue equaled 96 percent of its
total fuel expense. Since general increases supposedly do not factor in
fuel costs (the idea being that carriers will rely solely on fuel
surcharges to recover those cost increases), this carrier obviously has
found a way to cover virtually all of its fuel costs.
- Motor Carrier B has its surcharges pegged at a base fuel price of $1.00
to $1.12 per gallon, and now has a fuel surcharge in excess of 50 percent.
In its 2006 annual report, it states, "While the fuel surcharge
impacts [our] overall rate structure, the total price received from
customers is governed by market forces. Although fuel costs increased
significantly during 2005 and the first eight months of 2006, increased
revenues from fuel surcharges more than offset these higher direct diesel
fuel costs."
- Motor Carrier C States, "We believe the distinction between base
rates and fuel surcharges has been blurring over time, and it is
impractical to clearly separate all the different factors that influence
the price that our customers are willing to pay. In general, under our
present fuel surcharge program, we believe rising fuel costs are
beneficial to us in the short term."
In all three cases, it’s clear that rising fuel costs have not affected the
carriers’ bottom lines. But it’s also clear that there’s absolutely no
consensus among carriers about what constitutes a fair and reasonable fuel
surcharge. In fact, on July 23, 2006, one major LTL carrier reduced its fuel
surcharge by 25 percent. No wonder we are confused and more than a little
concerned.
Back when it functioned more as a rate bureau than a technology company, SMC3
described the function of fuel surcharges this way: "These surcharges track
both increases and decreases in fuel costs, so both carriers and shippers
benefit from swings of the fuel price pendulum." Well, the pendulum appears
to be sticking a little. It seems to me that shippers would be well advised to
be aggressive in their rate negotiations. There’s no question that carriers
should have a mechanism for recovering their fuel cost increases, but using fuel
surcharges as a profit center goes beyond the bounds of fairness.
|