Has anyone else been hit by the Fedex takeover of TNT ?

[Justin Smith]

As many will know Fedex bought out TNT a few years ago. We`ve been TNT customers for about 10 years and there were no particular problems or big upheavals until just recently when the **** has hot the fan in a big way.
I check over my TNT invoices every few weeks but when I last did so I noticed there were a load of "excess length / non conveyable item" surcharges, literally half the consignments were subject to one. To cut a long story short we `ve been told that these are all due to new supplements introduced in January, and they`re significant, each surcharge is £4.95 + fuel surcharge (why ? ) + VAT.
Other than a change in the small print at the bottom of the annual price list (I never even saw that ! ) we were never told about this massive change to TNT`s terms of carriage. TBH I could have done with as much notice as possible, a year would have been better but a month would be the absolute minimum required.....

Has any other TNT customer been affected by this ?
Were you given advance notice (e.g. by the visit of your rep) ?
Have you been given clear guidance about what is a box and what is not (I kid you not, a flatpack or a modified box is, apparently, not a box ! ? !) ?

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Even though it looks like the merger has caused this . This is now becoming an industry wide practice. I think the reality is that the parcel companies don't actually make any money on the low prices they charge and are adding various tarrifs ect .

It should not be a problem for a standard e commerce operation that sends out normal size freight

 

[Blaby Loyal]

* etc

 

[Justin Smith]

Even though it looks like the merger has caused this . This is now becoming an industry wide practice. I think the reality is that the parcel companies don't actually make any money on the low prices they charge and are adding various tarrifs ect .

It should not be a problem for a standard e commerce operation that sends out normal size freight

There are two points here :

1 - TNT traditionally charged a bit more than the other carriers but took more "non standard items". That was their USP. TBH I don`t understand why FedEx are just chasing the same market as everyone else, it makes no sense to me.

2 - I`m particularly incensed that FedEx apparently informed everyone by just altering a line of small print at the bottom of the annual "Your prices" pdf. Unforgiveable.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

FEDEX are chasing the same market because there is little profit in odd shape and ugly freight especially at the rates they charge .

 

[Justin Smith]

FEDEX are chasing the same market because there is little profit in odd shape and ugly freight especially at the rates they charge .

Ahh there lies a question, what is odd shape freight ? Apparently FedEx charge a supplement for a "flatpack item". That is to say something in a regular shaped box, but a thin box ! In fact they haven`t even been able to tell me the definition of a flatpack, as opposed to a box, which is very important because it almost doubles the cost of sending it. Furthermore we sell an aerial which comes in a box, but the box isn`t square (to save of shipping space and make it cheaper to ship, ironically), does that still qualify as a box ? ! ? The whole thing is ludicrous.
Lastly, requiring everything to be in a box, even fairly regular shaped stuff, or even stuff already in a box, is quite plainly not environmentally friendly at all. Yet FedEx, and all other large companies, trumpet their environmental credentials. It`s nauseating bollox.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

The parcel companies don't have the luxury of being nice to the environment ! If it is not boxed it will get damaged or go missing .

 

[Justin Smith]

The parcel companies don't have the luxury of being nice to the environment ! If it is not boxed it will get damaged or go missing .

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear.
The second item I was referring to is actually boxed.
A classic case of the first is a reel of cable on a cardboard drum with cardboard then wrapped round its circumference making a short cylinder shape. Why does that have to be put in a box ? Why is that, apparently, non-conveyable ?

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

These types of questions are simply too much drama for a company like this . They just want a standardised way of doing things . That ensure the smooth day to day running of their operation.

 

[AllUpHere]

FEDEX are chasing the same market because there is little profit in odd shape and ugly freight especially at the rates they charge .

Hope I dont have to send the Mrs anywhere.

 

[stuartm1962]

UPS are doing the same thing.. Anything not wrapped in cardboard, ie bubble wrap, shrink wrap etc, or odd shaped parcels. They all seem to be moving in the same direction, loads of small square boxes, nothing cylindrical that can roll off the conveyor, or plastic that gets stuck to it. No parcels over 1.2m long. we use DPD for sending bumpers and odd shaped items, but they charge a handling charge if it is bubble wrapped, as they claim it has to be manually removed from the conveyor belt.

 

[Justin Smith]

UPS are doing the same thing.. Anything not wrapped in cardboard, ie bubble wrap, shrink wrap etc, or odd shaped parcels. They all seem to be moving in the same direction, loads of small square boxes, nothing cylindrical that can roll off the conveyor, or plastic that gets stuck to it. No parcels over 1.2m long. we use DPD for sending bumpers and odd shaped items, but they charge a handling charge if it is bubble wrapped, as they claim it has to be manually removed from the conveyor belt.

So a long triangular box would be acceptable ? If not why not ? ! ?

I can only say what I`ve said before, I don`t understand why all the carriers want to chase the same market, by definition it`s got to be cheaper there.
We are stuck in the middle a bit. Carriers like Tuffnells or DX freight will take literally anything but they`re pretty expensive and not designed for relatively small orders. And anyway most of our stuff isn`t that big anyway.
On the other hand the conventional carriers are all aiming at just relatively small boxes, many just one to each address.
We need something in the middle, just like TNT were. I obviously wish FedEx hadn`t come within a million miles of TNT, for us there is absolutely nothing positive that`s come out of that merger, it`s all massive negatives.
The bottom line is if I`d wanted to use FedEx I`d have used them before, as would most of TNT`s customers, so if FedEx change TNT into an exact copy of FedEx they`re bound to lose a significant number of customers, so it makes no business sense to me to do that.

 

[chalkie99]

At the heart of the matter, when the parcel business was growing rapidly many years ago, the majority of carriers utilised self employed drivers (now re-invented as the Gig "Economy") who had to own their own vans, typically restricted to Mercedes Sprinters or Ford Transits which had to be signwritten with the carriers graphics. This made them appear, to the uninitiated, to be part of the carriers own fleet.

TNT were one of the few exceptions to this. They ran their own vehicles with properly employed drivers. Their fleet included 7.5 ton trucks which could accommodate large,irregularly shaped items. The majority of other companies, using panel vans, could only prosper from delivering "regular" sizes which fitted neatly in to their smaller vehicles and which would also fit into postcode sorted cages for quick loading/unloading of trunking lorries.

Anything regarded as irregular or over-size was regarded as "ugly freight". Odd items had to be delivered by the depot's trunking lorry which was primarily a loss leader to get the senders "better" business.

The business is now on it's knees. Rates haven't kept up with costs and profits have disappeared meaning self employed van drivers are working for next to nothing (but most aren't sharp enough to work out their costs) and the big stuff can't be delivered without hiking the rates for that.

 

[Justin Smith]

At the heart of the matter, when the parcel business was growing rapidly many years ago, the majority of carriers utilised self employed drivers (now re-invented as the Gig "Economy") who had to own their own vans, typically restricted to Mercedes Sprinters or Ford Transits which had to be signwritten with the carriers graphics. This made them appear, to the uninitiated, to be part of the carriers own fleet.

TNT were one of the few exceptions to this. They ran their own vehicles with properly employed drivers. Their fleet included 7.5 ton trucks which could accommodate large,irregularly shaped items. The majority of other companies, using panel vans, could only prosper from delivering "regular" sizes which fitted neatly in to their smaller vehicles and which would also fit into postcode sorted cages for quick loading/unloading of trunking lorries.

Anything regarded as irregular or over-size was regarded as "ugly freight". Odd items had to be delivered by the depot's trunking lorry which was primarily a loss leader to get the senders "better" business.

The business is now on it's knees. Rates haven't kept up with costs and profits have disappeared meaning self employed van drivers are working for next to nothing (but most aren't sharp enough to work out their costs) and the big stuff can't be delivered without hiking the rates for that.

I agree with most of what you say, though I would just clarify that you can get a 10ft pole, possibly even a 12ft pole, into a Sprinter type van easily. I know that because quite often these days it`s a TNT Sprinter type van which calls to our shop to do the collections !
Interestingly about 5 years ago TNT introduced a £5 plus VAT surcharge for all items over 1.6m, that was a significant problem at the time, but we got over it. They gave us plenty of notice and sent a rep round to ensure we knew about it. FedEx`s changes are far more wide reaching than that (including a surcharge for everything over 1.4m) yet we never saw a rep at all, and when we did she didn`t actually know FedEx`s exact definition of a non conveyable. In the mean time I`m stuck with about 50 poles I`ve had cut down to 1.6m so as to avoid my customers having to pay a surcharge ! You can see why I`m pretty annoyed ! !

 

[chalkie99]

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that.

Yes, you can fit a long pole or whatever, in an otherwise unloaded van but you cannot fit it in with a hundred other boxes, certainly not without it getting in the way while you are delivering other items. Feel free to sign up as a parcel driver and see how it goes for you.

That 12 foot pole won't go into a cage on a trunking lorry and it will restrict the number of cages which might go on, have to be "handballed" on and off rather than by a forklift and will generally slow the whole operation.

Without the numbers the job can't be done as TNT have eventually discovered. They have, effectively, been subsidising the cost of the irregular items for years, something the new owners know cannot continue.

As I have said before, the majority of the industry is based on self employed drivers running their own vehicles in the carriers colours and getting a fraction of what those carriers used to pay. It won't go on much longer before the system cracks.

 

[Justin Smith]

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that.

Yes, you can fit a long pole or whatever, in an otherwise unloaded van but you cannot fit it in with a hundred other boxes, certainly not without it getting in the way while you are delivering other items. Feel free to sign up as a parcel driver and see how it goes for you.

That 12 foot pole won't go into a cage on a trunking lorry and it will restrict the number of cages which might go on, have to be "handballed" on and off rather than by a forklift and will generally slow the whole operation.

Without the numbers the job can't be done as TNT have eventually discovered. They have, effectively, been subsidising the cost of the irregular items for years, something the new owners know cannot continue.

As I have said before, the majority of the industry is based on self employed drivers running their own vehicles in the carriers colours and getting a fraction of what those carriers used to pay. It won't go on much longer before the system cracks.

TNT have been charging a supplement for anything over 1.6m for the last 5 years.

But, here`s the interesting thing, a 10ft x 2in pole has a volume of about 0.02 cubic metres, and only weighs 2.1Kg.
FedEx won`t charge a supplement, apparently, for something up to 1.4m x 0.7m x 0.7m, that`s about 0.7 cubic metres, a volume 35 times greater.

 

[deniser]

I share your frustration. We found out the hard way when DPD took over Interlink that it mattered what you wrote for the parcel weight when you created the label. The Interlink rep who had originally trained us how to use the system said "don't worry about the weight, it's not relevant" so everything defaulted to 1 kg. Lost parcels were reimbursed on the value of the contents.

When DPD took over and the first rather large and valuable parcel was lost, they gave us compensation for only £12 which was based on 1 kg weight.

Would have been nice to be told about the changes to the compensation arrangements beforehand!

 

[stuartm1962]

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that.

Yes, you can fit a long pole or whatever, in an otherwise unloaded van but you cannot fit it in with a hundred other boxes, certainly not without it getting in the way while you are delivering other items. Feel free to sign up as a parcel driver and see how it goes for you.

That 12 foot pole won't go into a cage on a trunking lorry and it will restrict the number of cages which might go on, have to be "handballed" on and off rather than by a forklift and will generally slow the whole operation.

Without the numbers the job can't be done as TNT have eventually discovered. They have, effectively, been subsidising the cost of the irregular items for years, something the new owners know cannot continue.

As I have said before, the majority of the industry is based on self employed drivers running their own vehicles in the carriers colours and getting a fraction of what those carriers used to pay. It won't go on much longer before the system cracks.

A very accurate description of the process! The carriers (most of them) will try to find every opportunity to apply a surcharge to subsidise the low rates, which are cut to the bone to get the client in.

 

[chalkie99]

TNT have been charging a supplement for anything over 1.6m for the last 5 years.

But, here`s the interesting thing, a 10ft x 2in pole has a volume of about 0.02 cubic metres, and only weighs 2.1Kg.
FedEx won`t charge a supplement, apparently, for something up to 1.4m x 0.7m x 0.7m, that`s about 0.7 cubic metres, a volume 35 times greater.

You are still not getting it - and you probably won't unless you do the job.

A 10 foot pole does not fit in a 6 ft high cage at the depot - Most trunking lorries are double decked so a pole cannot be stood in one as it would foul the upper deck. If it has to be laid flat it cannot be handled by fork lifts and the operation is slowed down.

A delivery driver in a panel van needs to load as many parcels as possible to even have a chance of earning a living. He/She cannot be messing about with long poles in his way during the deliveries.

Normally, a driver might do 100+ deliveries (which is a tight schedule) but will often do far lower number of collections as the carriers make their bread and butter from large customers where they can drop off a 40 foot trailer to load. Your collection driver probably has plenty of space when he collects from you but the van would have been rammed full with deliveries early in the day.

The Interlink rep who had originally trained us how to use the system said "don't worry about the weight, it's not relevant" so everything defaulted to 1 kg.

That's sales reps for you. They will tell you anything to get the business as they have targets to meet.

Drivers may be paid (partially) by weight. Anything, say, over 20 kg will attract a greater payment to offset the fact that there will be less room for other freight and therefore restrict earnings.

Additionally, some consignments will attract "volumetric weights" In other words, a pallet of feathers might not weigh much but will still take up valuable space.

When the drivers see this they will rightly moan and the depot will work out a more realistic charge and invoice the sending depot for the surcharge.

 

[Justin Smith]

You are still not getting it - and you probably won't unless you do the job.

A 10 foot pole does not fit in a 6 ft high cage at the depot - Most trunking lorries are double decked so a pole cannot be stood in one as it would foul the upper deck. If it has to be laid flat it cannot be handled by fork lifts and the operation is slowed down.

A delivery driver in a panel van needs to load as many parcels as possible to even have a chance of earning a living. He/She cannot be messing about with long poles in his way during the deliveries.

Normally, a driver might do 100+ deliveries (which is a tight schedule) but will often do far lower number of collections as the carriers make their bread and butter from large customers where they can drop off a 40 foot trailer to load. Your collection driver probably has plenty of space when he collects from you but the van would have been rammed full with deliveries early in the day.

I think I may have mad an error when working out the volume of a 10ft x 2in pole, I squared the diameter not the radius, so its volume is actually far smaller.

But, with respect to your main point, what about a 6ft pole then ? That will fit in a 6ft cubed cage and only weighs 0.8Kg (thinner wall cheapo poles sold by our competitors weigh even less.....).
A 6ft x 1.25" pole has a volume (I think....) about 500X less than the maximum (without surcharge) FedEx box, why should that be surcharged ? Even if it does need a small amount of manual handling the amount of room it`d save on the trunkers (and the vans come to that) is huge.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

This could mean that you might get less boxes in the cage as there is a two inch thick pole in the way
You wont beat them

 

[Justin Smith]

This could mean that you might get less boxes in the cage as there is a two inch thick pole in the way
You wont beat them

The 6ft pole is 1.25" in diameter, not two inches, but, since all the boxes are different sizes anyway, (and almost certainly not carefully put in by people with the skill of dry stone wallers to maximise how full the cage is) it`s a bit irrelevant anyway......

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

You do like arguing with people

I recommend Tuffnels for a business like yours . Your just not happy with you current supplier

 

[Justin Smith]

You do like arguing with people

I recommend Tuffnels for a business like yours . Your just not happy with you current supplier

Tuffnells, and similar carriers like DX freight, aren't suitable for us because we send relatively small orders (value wise), at least 50% to residential addresses. The cost of those kind of freight carriers are only worthwhile if the value of the order is into the £100s of pounds or you need to ship a really large item (e.g. a 20ft pole) particularly to a business address. Though the definition of a business address can become quite subjective, is a farm a business address ? How about a pub ?

And I don`t actually like arguing with people, particularly if it`s not going to get me anywhere. I wasn`t aware we were arguing anyway, I thought we were debating how carriers charge for their services and why.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Talk to your local APC depot

 

[NJH149]

As many will know Fedex bought out TNT a few years ago. We`ve been TNT customers for about 10 years and there were no particular problems or big upheavals until just recently when the **** has hot the fan in a big way.
I check over my TNT invoices every few weeks but when I last did so I noticed there were a load of "excess length / non conveyable item" surcharges, literally half the consignments were subject to one. To cut a long story short we `ve been told that these are all due to new supplements introduced in January, and they`re significant, each surcharge is £4.95 + fuel surcharge (why ? ) + VAT.
Other than a change in the small print at the bottom of the annual price list (I never even saw that ! ) we were never told about this massive change to TNT`s terms of carriage. TBH I could have done with as much notice as possible, a year would have been better but a month would be the absolute minimum required.....

Has any other TNT customer been affected by this ?
Were you given advance notice (e.g. by the visit of your rep) ?
Have you been given clear guidance about what is a box and what is not (I kid you not, a flatpack or a modified box is, apparently, not a box ! ? !) ?

We are in the same situation as you by the sounds of it Justin, we send out somewhere in the region of 25-30 consignments a day the vast majority of which are "oversize" and have just started to be penalised, Have you found any alternatives? We are actively looking at the moment.

Our business is based on sending out parcels like this so like you extremely frustrated to have this surcharge applied by stealth!

 

[Guy Incognito]

Going potentially against the grain here but we use TNT and have found their prices reasonable. Most of the stuff we sell is boxed at 1.83 x 0.93 x 0.04 (weight of 7kg) and always attracted the oversize surcharge. We strap them up and send them in pairs. The thing that bugs me is the £2.50 residential surcharge. But our average shipping cost per consignment is around £15 and with larger shipments my cost per item shipping is as low as £6. We're probably not a massive account with them (yet) as we send out around 10 consignments per day but I hope to get the prices down as we do more volume of sales.

I thought they had also changed their volumetric rules at the same time so only items over certain dimensions were billed volumetrically.

We used Panther before and looked at Tuffnells etc but were scared of them after our experiences with Panther.

 

[Justin Smith]

Have you both had a word with your TNT/FedEx reps ? It was implied their definition of what constitutes a non conveyable item can be flexible.
I do very much agree that FedEx`s * introduction of the new non conveyable definition (to TNT`s customers) has been handled appallingly. Not only did they slip its introduction into the small print of the annual list of rates but we`re still waiting for the gospel as to what exactly constitutes an un-conveyable item, and that`s over two months after it was introduced.

* Because it is down to FedEx. When TNT introduced their surcharge for items over 1.6m back in July 2015 they sent a rep round to make sure we knew about it then gave us 3 weeks notice.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Have you both had a word with your TNT/FedEx reps ? It was implied their definition of what constitutes a non conveyable item can be flexible.
I do very much agree that FedEx`s * introduction of the new non conveyable definition (to TNT`s customers) has been handled appallingly. Not only did they slip it`s introduction into the small print of the annual list of rates but we`re still waiting for the gospel as to what exactly constitutes an un-conveyable item, and that`s over two months after it was introduced.

* Because it is down to FedEx. When TNT introduced their surcharge for items over 1.6m back in July 2015 they sent a rep round to make sure we knew about it then gave us 3 weeks notice.

We got sent through the new rates but no one contacted us to explain it. Most of what we send previously attracted this surcharge anyway. We sell some things at 120cm which don't but everything else is at 180cm which does.

But there are so many surcharges, and then you get certain things charged volumetrically (and this has now changed as well).

I want to get my £2.50 residential surcharge lowered as at least 80% of our orders go direct to clients. But we need to be doing more volume with them.

As we include shipping in our prices this is something I have to stay on top of.

Having said all of that, I am generally pleased with TNT. Very few breakages and mis-routings.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes you`re right of course, the 1.8m item would have attracted the surcharge before anyway.

 

[Owesdr]

I find that those are such a huge systems that last thing to think for them is to inform customers about changes in pricing. There is no any significant competition now, the rule of monopoly is in place

 

[pentel]

"We strap them up and send them in pairs"

It seems that strapped parcels now attract a surcharge.

 

[Justin Smith]

"We strap them up and send them in pairs"

It seems that strapped parcels now attract a surcharge.

We seem to have been hit by that too. Why on God`s earth should two parcels taped together attract a non conveyable surcharge (assuming they`re still within the max size and weight limits) ?
We`ve noticed there`s no consistency anyway. On our last TNT/FedEx invoice there were 4 cons in a row all with disputable n/c surcharges. One we hadn`t been charged when we should have been, two which we should never have been charged under any definition we`ve seen, and one was debatable either way. Who is applying these surcharges ? From our experience it must be a human who is making loads of mistakes. Either way every customer should be going through their invoices checking whether the n/c surcharges have been reasonably applied, remember they`re £4.95 (plus 8% fuel surcharge= £5.35) each.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

I find that those are such a huge systems that last thing to think for them is to inform customers about changes in pricing. There is no any significant competition now, the rule of monopoly is in place

I am not sure if there has been a change in pricing . The over sized and oddly packed parcels have probably always been part of the terms and conditions . They have just decided now to capitalize on these terms . This is probably due to so many consignments in the system being over size that they have to run extra trunk trucks overnight and they don't like it when they have to do this
In the old days pre internet we used to pick up a two tonne pallet from North Devon a couple of times a week and take it to the local Business Post depot . Their agreement at the time was just a parcel collection every night !

 

[Justin Smith]

I am not sure if there has been a change in pricing . The over sized and oddly packed parcels have probably always been part of the terms and conditions . They have just decided now to capitalize on these terms . This is probably due to so many consignments in the system being over size that they have to run extra trunk trucks overnight and they don't like it when they have to do this
In the old days pre internet we used to pick up a two tonne pallet from North Devon a couple of times a week and take it to the local Business Post depot . Their agreement at the time was just a parcel collection every night !

No there`s been a significant change. Before, when it was TNT, the only thing subject to a surcharge (other than volumetric charges) were items over 1.6m in length. An objective measure that everyone could agree on. Now that`s dropped to 1.4m, but worse than that, far worse, is all the other conditions. In fact it`s so complicated as to what constitutes non conveyable that I don`t think anyone actually understands it * and I suspect it`s made up on the spot by some bloke at the depot. He`s often wrong, and that matters when the surcharge is £4.95 ( plus 8% fuel surcharge) per item.

* e.g. a pole under 1.4m is, to some FedEx employees non conveyable "because it can roll off the conveyor". Our Rep helpfully suggested we tape a thick piece of cardboard to them so they can`t then roll, BUT we`re still getting n/c surcharges ! So, basically, it`s a subjective load of bollox which nobody understands. In fact what FedEx make in extra charges they probably lose in extra admin time as we query all the non/conveyable surcharges which we don`t agree with, which is most of them !

 

[Guy Incognito]

Regarding the strapping together, by looking at my bills I don't think that is in addition to the non-conveyable surcharge. We haven't been hit twice by surcharges - ie if it is non-conveyable for multiple reasons you only pay the one surcharge.

I agree about checking bills regularly. I had one outlier the other week - they clearly got a a decimal point in the wrong place and wanted to charge me for 270kg rather than 27. Stood out like a sore thumb on the invoice!

I can't comment on how they were more than a year ago - for our business and item size they are cheaper and more reliable than the others we have either used or explored using.

 

[Justin Smith]

I agree about checking bills regularly. I had one outlier the other week - they clearly got a a decimal point in the wrong place and wanted to charge me for 270kg rather than 27. Stood out like a sore thumb on the invoice!

To be frank, there`s an argument that checking all ones invoices is good for all businesses so you`re not only saving yourself money but doing your civic duty / gaining Karma as well ! If everyone checked all their invoices (esp carriers, who, in my experience are the most prone to errors, usually over charges.....) and then disputed them, the suppliers would be less likely to make errors in the first place. Better for you personally, but also for everyone else !

 

[Guy Incognito]

Quick follow up to this - going to meet with my account manager soon to see if I can get our rates down. What sort of spend do you have to be hitting to move to more preferable rates? We're currently on the £5k every 3 months tariff but we're probably closer to £30k every 3 months.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

You have a decent output .It can also depend on location and other factors If they have a vehicle with space at the end of each day on your industrial estate they maybe looking to discount you freight to keep the volume