10
Maisliner Transport - 137049 Canada Inc.
- Thread starter Jim L
- Start date
We give them business, and at the same time, they us some. We have never received a cheque without calling/nagging. We always owe them more, so they always pay up, but I have a feeling they are having some issues. If I didn't owe them money, i probably would not accept business from them unfortunately. They send statements and call weekly for status payments on balances due, even if under 30 days owed, but they always play koi when we ask for payments.
I think the continued high value of the US dollar is finally kicking in since they use US agents to do most of their P&Ds.
They've been around a long time, but I think they are feeling the pressure.
I think the continued high value of the US dollar is finally kicking in since they use US agents to do most of their P&Ds.
They've been around a long time, but I think they are feeling the pressure.
30
Disappointing administration department.
As a carrier - they deliver a shipment (hopefully on their truck), August 1, 2016. They finally get around to sending us a POD/Invoice on Aug 24, 2016. Phone rings - August 28th - 4 days after receipt - "Where's out cheque, this delivered nearly 30 days ago".
*facepalm
Happy Friday!
Mike
As a carrier - they deliver a shipment (hopefully on their truck), August 1, 2016. They finally get around to sending us a POD/Invoice on Aug 24, 2016. Phone rings - August 28th - 4 days after receipt - "Where's out cheque, this delivered nearly 30 days ago".
*facepalm
Happy Friday!
Mike
MikeJr, your comment "hopefully on their truck" struck a nerve.
Okay, so we all know that double-brokering is bad, so why do we put up with it? I'm sorry to say but we all have a role to play here. There will always be people willing to offer double-brokered loads, but if a carrier takes a load where their name is not on the BoL, they're part of the problem. If I factor that load, I encourage that behaviour. Can someone tell me about the grey areas here? This should probably be a separate thread, but I'll start it here because I like to stir it up.
Okay, so we all know that double-brokering is bad, so why do we put up with it? I'm sorry to say but we all have a role to play here. There will always be people willing to offer double-brokered loads, but if a carrier takes a load where their name is not on the BoL, they're part of the problem. If I factor that load, I encourage that behaviour. Can someone tell me about the grey areas here? This should probably be a separate thread, but I'll start it here because I like to stir it up.
30
Keyfactor, I am not sure if this explanation is the "grey area" you're asking about, but I think most members of this site will agree it is the worst case scenario when it comes to double brokering.
I am a broker and I give a load to carrier A. I checked them out, they have authorities and insurance and they even sent me some references. Our agreed rate for this load is $1000.00. Carrier A then turns around and sells my load to Carrier B for $2000.00. As soon as he can, Carrier A sends me a copy of the POD and asks for a quick pay, which I agree to. Carrier B gathers his paperwork and sends his bill to Carrier A, who by this time, is long gone having pulled this scam on other unknowing brokers and carriers. As if this situation isn't bad enough already, lets add in the fact that both Carrier A and Carrier B factored their invoices with 2 different factors and received their payment. A pretty good mess, isn't it?
I am a broker and I give a load to carrier A. I checked them out, they have authorities and insurance and they even sent me some references. Our agreed rate for this load is $1000.00. Carrier A then turns around and sells my load to Carrier B for $2000.00. As soon as he can, Carrier A sends me a copy of the POD and asks for a quick pay, which I agree to. Carrier B gathers his paperwork and sends his bill to Carrier A, who by this time, is long gone having pulled this scam on other unknowing brokers and carriers. As if this situation isn't bad enough already, lets add in the fact that both Carrier A and Carrier B factored their invoices with 2 different factors and received their payment. A pretty good mess, isn't it?
Last edited:
30
I don't know how many of you know the history of the Maislins. There used to be a common LTL carrier called Maislin, that had unionized drivers and the whole bit. With deregulation, the Maislin family basically liquidated it and then rebooted as Maisliner on a model that was lighter on assets.
There are certain laneways that they are indeed running 100% on their own trucks ... like between Montreal and NYC/NJ. There is some GTA presence but not much ... their terminal in Mississauga is really just a couple of doors in an industrial unit.
If you're looking at freight on their main corridors (QC-NY/NJ, QC-ON, ON-NY/NJ) it's probably being run by them, if it's outside of this realm it's likely that Maisliner equipment is handling part of it but then interlining.
On another note, I met the Maislins at my old employ because they are good friends of the owners of my old place. They were looking for strategic help, I don't know if they are trying to find an avenue to make their business better or sell out. My guess is to sell because JJ's kids are not going into the business.
There are certain laneways that they are indeed running 100% on their own trucks ... like between Montreal and NYC/NJ. There is some GTA presence but not much ... their terminal in Mississauga is really just a couple of doors in an industrial unit.
If you're looking at freight on their main corridors (QC-NY/NJ, QC-ON, ON-NY/NJ) it's probably being run by them, if it's outside of this realm it's likely that Maisliner equipment is handling part of it but then interlining.
On another note, I met the Maislins at my old employ because they are good friends of the owners of my old place. They were looking for strategic help, I don't know if they are trying to find an avenue to make their business better or sell out. My guess is to sell because JJ's kids are not going into the business.
30
Double brokering can be stopped dead in its tracks by involving the shipper. Give them the name of the carrier you're sending in, and if the truck that goes in has a different name on it then it doesn't get loaded. Most shippers will go along with that, especially if you tell them you're not responsibly if they load the "wrong" truck. And sometimes you can make a little extras money on it too... if the "wrong" truck checks out you can hire it directly and cut out the original carrier you hired. Serves them right for attempting to double broker, and you get yourself a better deal.
30
It really depends how close the buyer is to the actual operations regarding the freight moving. If they're close I would agree. In the vast majority of cases from my experience they're not that close to it and cannot pay attention.
I don't know if that comment belongs on this thread though.
I don't know if that comment belongs on this thread though.
30
True... but that's where educating the shipper comes in. They're not up on all the risks that we deal with. If you hire Carrier "A" to move their load, and Carrier "A" sends in Carrier "B" ... they load "B" and "B" has an accident, who is responsible? I cover my behind by letting my shippers know the carrier name I hire and their DOT.. with a disclaimer stating that if they load someone else without my prior consent to do so then I'm nolonger responsible for what happens and that for all intents and purposes they've hired someone else to move their load. My larger accounts require that anyway.. their tendering programs require me to enter a carrier name prior to pickup.. no name entered results in an automatic load cancellation two hours prior to pickup appointment. A wrong name entered raises a flag and I'm notified immediately by my shipper. Every so often it catches a double broker situation, and it happens more often than one would think.
30
Hmmm ... never heard of that. Part of a TMS system or operating system of larger companies just makes a bill of lading with the carrier name filled out using the SCAC of the entity they are paying. As long as the driver has the right reference # (whether it's B/L, S/O or whatever the shipper uses) it doesn't matter who actually picks up. The odd time in brokerage a customer would ask that a daily report is sent to the shipping people so they know who is coming for what and when (but these are manual reports). The good thing is that as a carrier you can audit the B/Ls that come in from the drivers and see easily whether the broker you got the load from is the actual broker or if it's passed hands.
But customers ultimately trust us to know who we're dealing with ... so unless it's a relatively small operation where the buyer has high visibility to the shipping dock, they will only respond when the crap hits the fan. In my experience, the buyer is usually not in the place where shipping or receiving is occurring.
But customers ultimately trust us to know who we're dealing with ... so unless it's a relatively small operation where the buyer has high visibility to the shipping dock, they will only respond when the crap hits the fan. In my experience, the buyer is usually not in the place where shipping or receiving is occurring.
30
I received a letter from them in August; other members likely did too. They just hired on the former Mayor of Montreal? to help develop and remodel their business? I wish I could copy and paste it, but I am hopelessly useless at that.
30
As freightbroker does, we try to advise every shipper of who is coming in to load on our behalf, regardless of the actual location. If that information filters down to the person doing the loading, especially if it is after hours, is open to discussion.
30
I guess it depends on the customer. My larger ones require visibility right from the get go. If I accept a load then they want to know who I'm sending in to pick it up. They do that for a number oif reasons, some of which (like plant security), have little to do with the actual transportation. Where they're putting out hundreds of loads each and every day, they don't want random trucks showing up. when a truck arrives and gates in, they're expecting it and they know what broker sent it to them. Overall its a good way to go.. red flags get raised early and potential problems are averted.
30
Thank you for this, we have usually only offered on the lanes they would handle on their equipment.
Merci!
Mike
30
Maisliner is a "sweep the dock" type operation and thus does rely heavily on broker and interline arrangements to complement their 20 truck fleet. At one time Maislin was the second or third largest LTL carrier in North America. Deregulation as well as some questionably purchases in the US led to their demise in the early 80s. Nonetheless they're shrewd business people.. not sure why Maisliner hasn't grown beyond being a small fleet after all these years.
Shakey
Site Supporter
30
30
They offer it to shipper customers yes ... but most customers use them regionally. Also, they wouldn't be doing dock sweeps for freight brokers. The family has other business interests so their money is spread around.
30
That's right.. the sweep the dock is for shippers. I'm saying they use other brokers, freight forwarders and carriers in an interline capcity in order to execute.
Well JJ never did get back to me. According to my spies they are in trouble maybe on the verge of bankruptcy. I guess all the employees are pooping in their pants waiting for the ball to drop. My spies tell me thy have many suppiers that aren't paid. Next time they need my services in their usual panic, its paid before by credit card. I dont like working for nothing and then have to chase these sleezeballs for my cheque. Makes the whole industry look bad. And no they didnt hire the ex mayor of montreal but they did hire a couple of supposed big shots.....i can never figure out how an outsider can come into your own company that you know well and fix it. More bullshyte. Maybe if they had decent people in the accounting instead of that airhead allison and the other one yvette fukitoomi......they would be doing better.