Carrier must have Broker MC# to post loads between USA <--> Canada

theman said:
Hence the suffixes. When we have customers that we act as both on, we seperate the operation by holding multiple SCACs and applying the appropriate SCAC to each type of operation.
Click to expand...

the MC & suffixes will dissapear and will be replaced by all new number sequence, at least that is their plan...
 
the only thing I don't get is how the "age" of the authorities will be respected once they transfer to this new system, now everyone with an MC starting with 1-2-3 look great! hopefully we don't lose that.
 
It's not as important as you would think. I wouldn't rest credit worthiness on the age of an MC. There's much more robust tools out there to judge someone's credit worthiness. Especially if one can buy a company and sink it on purpose ... like we haven't seen THAT before ...
 
I agree with theman, the MC # itself is not a good measure. Anyone can buy a trucking company just for the authorities if they really want to. I know of at least two instances where a company was purchased or their authorities purchased after the company failed just so someone could use those authorities. Turn a bad CVOR into a good CVOR very quickly.
 
If you buy a trucking company for the Authorities because the one you have is in horrible shape and you use the same name that is on the bad authority does the ministry not step in and place the purchased one with the same rating as the old. The only way around this I believe is a different name as a owner? Providing the ministry is doing their job properly this should not happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom