Skip to comments.
Massive Lay-Offs at Peterbilt Motor Company - say thank you to the EPA ($10,000 more and less MPG)
wkrn ^
Posted on 08/29/2002 3:41:37 AM PDT by chance33_98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
One reason for the drop in orders after October 1st is a new EPA regulation on emission standards that will tack $9,000 to $10,000 onto the price of each truck and cause them to use more gas. To avoid the expense, many companies ordered early.
So it will cost more to buy and more to operate, guess they will be using Mexican drivers and trucks to avoid these problems....
To: chance33_98
and many will ask, what specifically is this epa reg that will lower efficiency and raise cost?
2
posted on
08/29/2002 3:56:03 AM PDT
by
wita
To: wita
I think they named it - The California Project for a better America, or something like that....
To: chance33_98
A request. Whenever an article is posted from local media, PLEASE include the state in your reference.
You (and I) know that WRKN is Nashville, TN. But, others would not know.
4
posted on
08/29/2002 4:10:07 AM PDT
by
Tom Pain
To: chance33_98; Cagey
FYI &;-)
5
posted on
08/29/2002 4:17:25 AM PDT
by
2Trievers
To: Tom Pain
It's in the topic list...
To: 2Trievers
Good thing I don't have to get a new...Peterbilt...
The old one works just fine lol.
Really though,this is sad. Funny how you dont hear aobut these guys when the effette little leftists are whining about the Administration not embracing Kyoto...etc...
7
posted on
08/29/2002 4:31:34 AM PDT
by
hobbes1
To: chance33_98
a new EPA regulation on emission standards that will tack $9,000 to $10,000 onto the price of each truck and cause them to use more gas.
Hopefully they won't use more gas since they run on diesel fuel.
To: chance33_98
"Union leaders say they were surprised by the size of the cuts. When are the industrial union workers going to learn that they are just doormats for the democratic party which is controled by environmentalist and anti-Americans? The pary leadership hates our great industries, its products and its people. They hate, and lookdown upon them, and the military.
Oh, well.
9
posted on
08/29/2002 4:42:35 AM PDT
by
Leisler
To: wita
and many will ask, what specifically is this epa reg that will lower efficiency and raise cost?..I believe this refers to Tier II emission standards being applied in October of this year rather than in 2004 as originally planned. This is as a result of a consent decree signed by the DOJ, EPA, and the heavy duty diesel engine manufacturers back in '98.
It seems that the silly lawyers in Washington D.C. wrote some emissions regulations a few years back without understanding current and near term engine control technology. Some enterprising engineers at Cat, Cummins, Mack etc., implemented the regs in such a way as to maximize fuel economy at the expense of NOx emissions in engine operating modes not explicitly covered by the regulations. I guess it was assumed by the EPA that if they defined emissions standards at multiple engine operating points, the emissions performance would interpolate between the points. That's the way mechanical fuel injection systems would have worked. I guess no one ever bothered to do any research or even pick up a few copies of Diesel Progress. Apparently they missed the advent of computerised electronic fuel injection and engine control. Pin heads.
To: Jack of all Trades
"I believe this refers to Tier II emission standards being applied in October of this year rather than in 2004 as originally planned. This is as a result of a consent decree signed by the DOJ, EPA, and the heavy duty diesel engine manufacturers back in '98."
Thank you Data, now please search and find a way to defeat the democrats in all elections in the future.
To: Jack of all Trades
You probably feel the same way I do about a consent decree between two agencies that have nothing to do with the trucking industry, or maybe better said, should have nothing to do with the trucking industry. Where are the industry folks, engine makers, trucking companies, etc. I know, it's a rhetorical question.
12
posted on
08/29/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT
by
wita
To: wita
Old truckers never die ......
They get a new Peterbilt.
To: chance33_98
To: Leisler
"When are the industrial union workers going to learn that they are just doormats for the democratic party which is controled by environmentalist and anti-Americans? "
If I'm not mistaken these regs were passed under GW's watch and a Republican Congress, with GW's appointees heading up the EPA. It seems the doormat was never changed when Clinton left.
15
posted on
08/29/2002 5:59:05 AM PDT
by
SEGUET
To: chance33_98
I also love the way that "one" (should be the "major") of the reasons for the layoff is tucked away in the very last paragraph of the article. The writer is undoubtedly ticked he couldn't blame "right-wing, maniacal conservative whackos" for the situation.
On the other hand, I'm also ticked at the multitudes of industry captains and employees alike in this country who still haven't figured out who and what is eating away at their businesses and livelihoods. They don't organize to fight back against the leftists, globalists and environmentalists. They even contribute to their causes and vote for their stooges.
They accept Jesse Jackson's blackmail against their companies. The restaurant industry meekly accepts the anti-smoking edicts even though it may shut down countless establishments. I could go on. But they just whine and accept their fates.
I guess when the axe falls, they finally do find the energy to turn the wrestling and Ophra programs off their tubes and manage to fill out their unemployment compensation forms.
Hard to feel sorry for them.
Leni
To: MinuteGal
another major reason truck sales are down is because many owner operators have been forced out of business due to the 4.3 cent per gallon tax that klintoon & owlbore put on everyone...avg big truck burns 100 gals per day...that is $43.00 per day additional operating expense...which over the course of a month will approximately equal a truck payment....so, the owner is losing over a $1000.00 a month...buy 10 gals of gas per week for a toyota....43 cents no big deal...100 gals for big truck is 43.00 a very big deal. All the pubbies voted against it's implentation, but when fuel prices started going up, all the pubbies voted to keep it....just too dang much money for them to get their hands on to let it go..
To: MinuteGal
Hard to feel sorry for them. I've got to agree reluctantly with you there. Reap what you sow, baby. But if I'm not mistaken, GW runs the EPA now, and in a time of economic crisis, seems that he could relax a reg here or there, like the suckerfish, or the increased steel tariffs to save some jobs, eh?
Or could he at least publicly connect the dots that the EPA is responsible for these new welfare recipients?
To: cajun-jack
another major reason truck sales are down is because many owner operators have been forced out of business due to the 4.3 cent per gallon tax that klintoon & owlbore put on everyone...avg big truck burns 100 gals per day...that is $43.00 per day additional operating expense...which over the course of a month will approximately equal a truck payment....so, the owner is losing over a $1000.00 a month...buy 10 gals of gas per week for a toyota....43 cents no big deal...100 gals for big truck is 43.00 a very big deal. 4.3 cent per gallon multiplied by 100 gallons = $4.30 not $43.00
To: chance33_98
In addition to the higher cost of the new engines, I understand that the operating costs will be higher.
As for how this affects the truck builders as an industry it is important to point out that the fall-off in orders due to the new engines is temporary since there was a rush to buy before the new models came out.
Regarding the validity of the changes due to environmental concerns note that although there is neither scientific nor political consensus on CO2 and the global warming that may result from that compound, there is no disagreement at all on the need to regulate methane, CO, NOx, VOCs, CFC, SO2, mercury, etc.
Bush has recieved a great deal of criticism for being "soft" on CO2, but if he tried to go "soft" on these other compounds, there would be a firestorm.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson