Are they serious? Who writes their material? Don’t they realize that their sales are nosediving precisely because Americans are rejecting low-mileage vehicles in the face of $4.00 a gallon gasoline?

Remember a few months ago when a reporter asked President Bush if he was concerned about gasoline hitting $4 a gallon, and he replied, “Oh really? Four dollars a gallon? I hadn’t heard that.”? I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to be any more clueless than that, but here come GM, Ford, Chrysler and Toyota to prove me wrong. The automakers complain that the new CAFE standards will cost 82,000 jobs and $29 million in economic activity, and will reduce industry output by 850,000 units. Guess what, guys? It’s already happening, and it’s not because of CAFE standards. You’re losing customers, market share and stock value because you ramped up production of gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs and willfully ignored the nascent market for high-quality, high-mileage cars (not to mention the market for hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles and alternative fuel vehicles). How can you seriously look at what’s happening in the marketplace today and complain that being forced to sell high-mileage vehicles will kill your business? How can you say you didn’t see this coming?

Out of those 29 states that don’t run technician competitions, a handful have very disturbing reasons for why they don’t.

One State Maintenance Council officer told Scott that he couldn’t get fleets in his state to support a technician competition because of their fears of technician theft–too many smaller fleets were worried that if they sent their top technicians to compete, those techs would be recruited away by bigger fleets at the competition.

Two other State Maintenance Council officers said that they can’t get support for a technician competition because of the cockiness factor–their member fleets worry that if a technician wins a state trophy, he or she will come back to the shop demanding more pay.

I have two reactions to this. First, are these really legitimate fears, or are they just excuses for not getting involved? Second, if they are true, so what? Why are these fleets unwilling to reward their technicians for their accomplishments? If a technician is good enough to go to a state competition and win, isn’t he worth paying more to hang on to? Why not tie a competition into a pay incentive for your best technicians? Imagine what kind of loyalty that would create, and imagine how envious those bigger fleets would be, knowing that they can’t steal a technician who is so happy in his current job…

And then there’s this: if your technicians win at a state competition, wouldn’t other technicians want to come work for you, because they’re so impressed with your training and incentive program?

It just seems to me that those fleet maintenance managers in those states are looking at things in absolutely the wrong way. And they probably don’t need the help of a state competition to lose their best employees.

In last week’s press release from the company, Cat’s Group President, Douglas R. Oberhelman, said, “Caterpillar and our dealers will continue to provide product support and service beyond 2010 for all Caterpillar on-highway engines regardless of truck brand.” That will, no doubt, be a relief to the countless fleets that depend on Cat power, but if I were in charge of purchasing for a fleet and I had 2008s or 2009s on order with Cat engines, I think I might feel a little betrayed and abandoned.

This isn’t the last we’ll see of Caterpillar, of course–the company also announced a strategic alliance with International Trucks, and plans to introduce its own line of severe-service trucks at the same time they leave the on-highway market. Just the same, Cat’s move will leave a big hole–and probably some hard feelings–in the industry.

What took me by surprise is that the Florence distribution center is an all-brands operation. You won’t just find ArvinMeritor-branded parts at this operation; what you’ll find is ArvinMeritor parts mixed in with a whole lot of other manufacturer’s parts, so that ArvinMeritor can deliver exactly what the customer needs, even if someone else makes it.

There were so many parts, and so much activity, packed into this place that I really had hard time imagining how they manage to keep expanding, but expand they do. ArvinMeritor recently acquired Canadian remanufacturer Mascot, and has started handling Allison transmission remanufactures as well as remanufactured trailer axles, and yet the parts packers and forklift drivers seemed completely in control of the process, and proud of the fact that they can handle any job that’s thrown their way.

Well done, ArvinMeritor. It’s inspiring to see so many hard-working Americans dedicated to the success of their company, and to the satisfaction of their many customers in the trucking industry.

Well, it turns out that demo didn’t actually take place on the drag strip itself, but in the parking lot adjacent to the strip. But the disappointment was fleeting, because once I got into the demo trucks to experience Meritor WABCO’s systems first-hand, I was greatly impressed. First came a ride in a truck with the full complement of tractor and trailer stability control systems, and it was amazing… The company driver took a tractor-trailer up to about 40 mph and took us through first an emergency lane-change maneuver and then an offramp J-turn maneuver, to show us how well the truck would behave. Now, 40 mph isn’t very fast, but it’s not hard to imagine how dangerous a Class-8 truck and trailer can be if they go out of control even at that speed. In fact, at first the driver took us through the maneuvers with the systems off, and the trailer outriggers were the only things keeping the rig on its feet. But the next time around, with the safety systems on, they activated in time to decelerate the vehicle and keep it stable… The systems cut in at the last possible moment, so as to give the driver every chance to make corrections him or herself, but once they activate they keep that truck pinned to the pavement like nobody’s business.

Next up was the OnGuard system with adaptive cruise control. Imagine bearing down on a vehicle in a Class-8 rig, and having to react when that lead vehicle suddenly decelerates, or stops. With this new system, the truck maintained a safe distance behind the vehicle, and ground to a safe, stable stop when the lead vehicle made an emergency stop. Once again, the system cut in at the last moment, but when it did it left no doubt as to who–or in the case, what–was in charge.

Does this technology have a place in every heavy-duty fleet? Of course not. But for over-the-road fleets that can benefit from reduced collision losses, this type of system seems to be a no-brainer. Hats off to Meritor WABCO for bringing this technology to market, and for making the highway safer for all of us. But next time, how about just one run down the quarter mile?

The newsletter also had some interesting news stories that deepened my respect for this group. The stories described how last year the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) had issued NFPA 1911, a new standard for “Inspection, Maintenance, Testing and Retirement of In-Service Automotive Fire Apparatus,” and how EVTCC is now incorporating the NFPA 1911 standards in their new maintenance exams for fire apparatus and ambulances.

These guys don’t let their standards gather any dust, and neither should the rest of the industry. If you work in the emergency vehicle arena, you should be sending your technicians to the next round of EVTCC certification exams (they’re coming up on June 7th and October 18th), and if you don’t, you should study up on how EVTCC (www.evtcc.org) maintains its high standards for maintenance technicians. You could learn a lot from this group!

One: The American Trucking Associations recommends enacting a new national speed limit of 65 mph for all vehicles, and setting speed governors on new trucks at no more than 68 mph.

Two: The American Trucking Associations recommends pursuing a federal solution that reduces non-discretionary idling through highway infrastructure improvements and reduces discretionary idling through incentives for new technology.

Three: The American Trucking Associations recommends that shippers and carriers join the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SmartWay(SM) Transport Partnership Program in order to achieve greater national gains in fuel efficiency and carbon reduction.

Four: The American Trucking Associations advocates initiatives to improve highway infrastructure and reduce congestion.

Five: The American Trucking Associations recommends introducing truck fleet combination changes as ways to reduce emissions, relieve congestion and conserve fuel.

Six: The American Trucking Associations supports setting technologically feasible national fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks that reduce fuel consumption if they do not compromise the performance of the vehicles.

The program, referred to as “Trucks Deliver a Cleaner Tomorrow,” is an aggressive effort, and it includes some very specific, and very interesting, proposals. We’ll be writing a lot more about this program over time, but for now we want to get your initial impressions of these six proposals. Will they help? Will they hurt? Are you already doing some of these things? Let us know!

The idea was hatched in California, where the Air Resources Board (CARB) decided that it would be a good idea to keep emissions-control hardware under warranty longer. And it is a good idea: People are keeping their vehicles longer, so it makes sense, from CARB’s point of view, to do everything it can to ensure that those vehicles will be running clean for their entire lives. Super Warranties can make sure that this happens, and 11 other states seem to agree, because they’ve adopted similar regulations as part of their clean air initiatives.

But where does that leave the independent service provider, who currently makes a lot of coin repairing emissions-control systems? If vehicle owners are compelled to return to the dealer to get their emissions-control systems maintained, the logic goes, they are likely to have all their service needs taken care of at the dealer, killing two birds with one stone. The independent shops lose out twice: once on the emissions-control work, and twice on the additional service work.

I’m not sure where I come down on this. As I said, I do think the Super Warranties make sense, from a clean air point of view. But I also understand why independent service providers might feel they have had the rug pulled out from under them. It just goes to show you how hard it is to find solutions to the complex issues facing our transportation industry, and our country. Can there possibly be a way to have clean air that doesn’t make someone unhappy?

What I actually said in that blog post was that TMC’s process seemed to have broken down in this particular case, and that it was hard to say why (in my book that’s not exactly pointing a finger of blame at anyone… but I digress). I went on to speculate in the post that the problem might have been that the vendor that had been complaining may not have been willing to volunteer as much time and effort as their competitor. I also said that if this had happened on one Task Force, it has probably happened on others, and it was a shame that TMC wasn’t addressing these issues.

Well, I just got off the phone with Robert Braswell, TMC’s Technical Director, and he made the case that his organization actually does all it can to address problems such as these. For one thing, attendees always have an opportunity to fill out an anonymous meeting evaluation immediately after every Task Force session, so if they have any complaints that’s the easiest and most effective way to get a response from TMC staff. Beyond that, every RP developed by every Task Force is put up for balloting before going on the books, so any member has an opportunity to bring up objections to the content at that time. In addition, even non-members can contact TMC to comment on RPs, and TMC is happy to get the additional input.

So, I stand corrected. The gentleman who felt “squeezed out” could have addressed his issues with TMC in a number of ways, but Robert Braswell told me that he is not aware of anyone lodging any formal complaint. My apologies to TMC.

For those of you who don’t follow TMC activities, an RP is a maintenance standard developed by a Task Force that ideally consists of both fleet maintenance professionals and technical experts from OEMs and component suppliers. I said ideally, because it doesn’t always work out that way.

I found that out the hard way when I asked representatives of one of these component suppliers about this particular RP, and I was told that they had wanted to participate but had backed out of the Task Force in question… I asked why, and they said that the Task Force had been more or less “taken over” by a competing component supplier, and that the RP was essentially a reflection of that one company’s needs and concerns. Because of this, the folks I was talking to had pulled their company out of the TMC and never looked back.

Now, obviously, something about the way the TMC goes about its work has failed in this instance, although it’s hard to say just what. TMC Task Forces are volunteer-driven, and the spoils often go to to those who are willing to volunteer. Still, I imagine the type of falling out and disillusionment that was described to me is quite common, and it seems to me that the TMC should be taking a close look at these issues. Losing membership over turf wars is not an acceptable option.