Saw on the TRAINS newswire that the JD is investigating BNSF’s pricing policies for hauling coal out of the PRB. All I can say is it’s about time.
Although if the JD really wants to get to the root of the problem of monopolistic pricing practices, it should start an investigation of the STB and why they haven’t enforced the competitive caveats of the Staggers Act.
Oooh.ooh…
That counts as a two for…
Double dings![:D]
Does that mean the clowns in the power companies get investigated too? Only fair!
Didn’t I hear somewhere that the RR’s have the right to Price there own Freight shipments?
Does this mean the STB must let the DM&E build thier PRB extension to provide more competition?
No, it just means that our DOJ is responsive to political pressure from special interest. As it was and as it always shall be.
BTW, I am totally offended by your repeated referenced to cats. I B a “dog man”, and I don’t think that cats have any place on a railroad discussion board. You offend me with your signature “Cats rule, dogs drool”. This should be banned because I have a right to not be offended by anything.
We are forced, I tell you FORCED, to “cat test” our retired racing Greyhounds before they are placed as pets. This is so some wimpy cat (Yetch, shudder, yutch) is not caught by a Grey in its new home.
When God made a Dog (think about the spelling), God made a Greyhound. When God made a cat we can only puzzel as to what He was thinking.
Please desist immediately or I shall be even more offended.
greyhounds, I’m confused. Is that sarcasm or not?
Please denote anything questionable like that so to prevent confusion!
“Puckdropper”? Well, I guess you’re out of work. It took a few years, but they did screw up hockey didn’t they. Of course, before that, they wrecked the Indianapolis 500, which took some doing, but they did it.
Most of my previous post regarding God, cats or dogs is meant as “sarcasm”. How would you suggest that I “denote” such.
But I do basically believe that “When God made a dog, He made a Greyhound” is true.
That’s a dog as He intended a dog to be.
And I like cats just fine. Like dogs, they’re a gift from God that enriches our lives.
I am glad someone is finally getting upset about BNSF pricing. The BNSF just charged us over $9,000.00 to move an FRA blue carded locomotive 17 miles because it did not have alignment control couplers. Ridiculous
I had a feeling this would get some interesting responses.
rgemd: You guys might have gotten a better deal from some house movers.
It is still a pretty well-run railroad that seems to please some shippers and it seems to be more responsive to the welfair and blood pressure of the Amtrak passengers on its tracks than you know who.
With Staggers for the first time, railroad pricing was subject to the the anti-trust laws. Other than the end of the ICC the biggest change was that railroads could not continue with various rate making cartels. It was illegal for competitors to agree on rates. However, there are other anti-trust provisions besides colusion so you can’t tell just what interests the Justice Department.
No it’s just to me that the Railroads have to do what ever that they can to servive in this stupid country without the worry of politicks always getting in the way.
Had me worried there for a minute. I have had all sorts of animals - mostly strays and abandons.
Prefer a cat now because of low maintenance.
Remember minor league hockey is still available.
Indy 500 - well after Fireball Roberts, it went downhill.
Ok - back to subject at hand…
Mookie
I wonder what it is about BNSF’s pricing policies that they are investigating. I am a bit confused. If BNSF gets to set its own prices . . . Are they conspiring with UP? That might be something the Feds can hang their hat on. Anyone have any insight on that?
Greyhounds, I thought your comments were choice. Especially when you stood by your comments; you are a real “the puck stops here kind of guy.”
Gabe
Having just read the article, it says the Justice Department is investigating the practice of Burlington Northern Santa Fe AND Union Pacific, not just BNSF, to see if posting public tariffs for coal movements on the Internet is a violation of antitrust law.
Giving DOJ the benefit of the doubt for a second: So should we assume that it’s OK for a gas station or a grocery store to advertise a price on their goods, or a plumber to advertise his rate for unclogging a drain, but not a railroad to name a price for their coal? The federal government would prefer that rates be negotiated secretly? That the public good is advanced by hiding information under rocks? It prefers people to lie in the course of negotiations than to tell the truth? It would prefer the court docket to be loaded up with plaintiffs’s suits about rate discrimination? It wants to create an environment that encourages people to file suits alleging, for example, that one man got a better deal because his wife is the admissions officer at a fancy kindergarten and the railroad man’s kid was trying to get in?
Supposing this holds up, will it then be illegal for airlines to publish rates on the Internet? Will taxis be prohibited from painting their rates on doors? Wasn’t that last one pushed by DOJ to protect the public?
Truly, I’m baffled by this one.
OS
Like the Justice Department forcing the power companies to sell the street railways to National City Lines (GM-Firestone-Texaco). Anti-trust!
OS – if you’re baffled, what do you think I am? But seems to me you have it – as usual – right on the nail. That being said, it does have a suspiciously politically inspired look to it…
Jamie,
Given Bush’s relationship with corporate America, I doubt this is a politically motivated investigation so much as it is probably a reluctant action due to overwhelming complaints from the captive shipper sector of our economy.
When you look at this from the macro-economic viewpoint, you begin to understand the notion that what’s good for the railroads isn’t necessarily good for the economy on the whole. The U.S. is in heated competition with the rest of the world for manufacturing retainment, and when the means of transportation in the U.S. is more costly than that for other nations, it can be a major contributor to manufacturers relocating overseas. We are all aware that it costs more for captive shippers to get their goods to port than it does in other countries. We are also constrained by our energy costs, and when the price of delivered coal goes up, the cost of energy also goes up, and that’s one more factor in whether a company relocates or stays put.
No one wants to see the railroads go broke, but neither do we want to see all our manufacturing jobs leave. Since rail shippers represent a far larger portion of the GDP than do the railroads themselves, it makes sense for the feds to take action to prevent or reduce pricing factors for the costs of inputs and the transportation of U.S. goods to port.
Dave,
If this were about shippers on a branch line serving less-than trainload customers, I might be more convinced; but, don’t you think the relationship between Powder River Basin Coal and manufacturing is a bit attenuated to support your “its about keeping manufacturing jobs” argument?
I am not sure this administration—or the last three—want to keep such industry in the United States. It seems to me that the economic strategy is to intentionally export as many of these jobs as we can in order to keep inflation in check and transform the A