Anyone Heard Of Lobos Interstate Services?

There is a tried and true theory in business, happy employees usually develop happy customers. In my 30 years of business I have seen this scenario repeatedly. Almost always the root cause of customer dissatisfaction are a high number of unhappy and poorly trained employees.

I think as Lobos continues to prey on and take advantage of the desperate and uninformed student driver, their customer satisfaction will degrade, eventually causing a loss in market share and customer base.

Unfortunately, there's a sucker born every day, and not everybody finds a website like this where they can do their due diligence.

Unfortunately, there's a sucker born every day, and not everybody finds a website like this where they can do their due diligence.

Exactly the reason companies like Lobos exist. Anyone with minimal knowledge of this business would avoid a company like Lobos.

Unfortunately, there's a sucker born every day, and not everybody finds a website like this where they can do their due diligence.

Exactly the reason companies like Lobos exist. Anyone with minimal knowledge of this business would avoid a company like Lobos.

Hopefully Google will pick up "Lobos" from this website forum and give folks an opportunity to research.

Hopefully Google will pick up "Lobos" from this website forum and give folks an opportunity to research.

I just did a Google search for "Lobos Interstate Services" and this thread was #3 on the page.

Hopefully Google will pick up "Lobos" from this website forum and give folks an opportunity to research.

Even more so I'm hoping Lobos will decide they're not using a sustainable business model and will switch to a more standard model of training new drivers to be employees of a company, not the owner of one.

How is it fair to hold someone accountable financially for running a trucking business when the person doesn't even know how to drive a truck yet? They simply do not have the control, knowledge, or experience needed to make the important business decisions required run a trucking business and yet it's their financial future that's at stake if they can't figure it out.

I just want to know why Lobos won't use a model that brings new drivers into this industry as employees like the rest of the world is doing. Why can't you just run a normal school that trains drivers and then gets them hired on as employees with lease drivers, owner operators, or fleet owners? Why do you have to tie them into contracts and force them to be financially responsible for the operations of the business?

Hopefully Google will pick up "Lobos" from this website forum and give folks an opportunity to research.

I just did a Google search for "Lobos Interstate Services" and this thread was #3 on the page.

That might be because you're already logged in Google under your Google account on your computer or device. Google will prioritize your search results based on your personal history.

And I should clarify........I don't mind having contracts that require a driver to work for someone for a specified amount of time in return for the training they're being provided with. That's a fantastic model in fact and it helps many thousands of people get out of financial straights and into a new career while helping companies find new drivers at lower wages at the same time. Everyone wins with that model in my opinion.

So it's not the fact that they're signing a contract that I have a problem with at all. It's the fact that they're signing up to be financially responsible for running the business when they don't have the experience necessary to do so successfully. That's where you're preying on people. You're putting them in a do or die financial situation when you know most of them aren't going to figure it out.

Hopefully Google will pick up "Lobos" from this website forum and give folks an opportunity to research.

I just did a Google search for "Lobos Interstate Services" and this thread was #3 on the page.

That might be because you're already logged in Google under your Google account on your computer or device. Google will prioritize your search results based on your personal history.

Google pops this thread as #1. Again probably because I've been on it.

"Forced Leasing Scenarios", as this appears to be - is like BUYING A JOB.

The 14 pages of accusations, defenses, recriminations, etc. notwithstanding - this has got to be the first thread on here, where I've seen a representative of a company jump on and try to defend or justify their policies (whether defensible or not).

Probably time to lock this one down - and if someone asks here in the future, simply direct them to this discussion.

If this company were someone's ONLY OPTION to get into the industry (2nd or 3rd chance type companies), it might be the only option.

But since there are SO MANY OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE - why even bother continuing this discussion?

Rick

Hopefully Google will pick up "Lobos" from this website forum and give folks an opportunity to research.

Even more so I'm hoping Lobos will decide they're not using a sustainable business model and will switch to a more standard model of training new drivers to be employees of a company, not the owner of one.

How is it fair to hold someone accountable financially for running a trucking business when the person doesn't even know how to drive a truck yet? They simply do not have the control, knowledge, or experience needed to make the important business decisions required run a trucking business and yet it's their financial future that's at stake if they can't figure it out.

I just want to know why Lobos won't use a model that brings new drivers into this industry as employees like the rest of the world is doing. Why can't you just run a normal school that trains drivers and then gets them hired on as employees with lease drivers, owner operators, or fleet owners? Why do you have to tie them into contracts and force them to be financially responsible for the operations of the business?

Isn't what they're doing not even as good as being a normal lease operator anyway? Honest question because I really don't know. But don't most companies that pay percentage pay more than 25-50% of the load?

Lobos wrote:

@Pat M.: I understand what you're trying to spin here, but your analogy is severely flawed. It's the income and expenses of the -truck- not all expenses of all businesses providing services to the owner operator. So the things that come out of the truck profit are things that relate to the actual truck and operations. If you spend $500 in fuel then that comes out of the profit, if you wreck the truck and have to pay a $1,000 deductible then that comes out of the profit. If you drive well and maximize your time and haul a lot of loads and get $6,000 worth of revenue for the truck then that adds to your truck profit. It's really that simple.

Spinning? I find it amazing that you pick and choose what your are responding to. Why not respond to Pat's point on the true liability of a driver? Bottom line, there is no possible way for the unsuspecting driver to clearly know the true profit per load. He would have to know all of the costs and the actual freight rate and total. Are you going to reveal that to all of your drivers? Disclosure of your per load profit, your books? How will they really know what they are being paid on? They won't! It comes down to blind trust on the part of the driver. Most of your drivers are totally green, no experience, and most likely not business people. Initially they will believe anything you tell them. They don't know any better.

Lobos defends their website:

@Paul W.: yes indeed things were pretty unclear and our website was pretty awful when I first took on handling the online presence for Lobos. It took a while but I eventually was able to build something better and more informative, some of the changes even came from suggestions here. Now the site is informative, clear, and consistent. I also revamped the recruiting process for Lobos and more checks and disclaimers were put in place before purchasing travel for new students and drivers. We lose money when people come out to the office and then decide to leave, so it's not in our best interests to be misleading. I appreciate the kind words re: myself, I truly am trying to make sure everything is presented clearly and concisely while dealing with the mud slinging.

I totally agree, the website is an improvement over what it was 6 months ago. If you recall, there were several drivers on this forum (me included) who provided honest feedback and made suggestions on how to improve the website. Some of those suggestions were implemented, some were not. Again, you really need to compare your web presence with the carriers you are competing with. For example it's barely adequate when compared to Prime, Roehl, and Swift to name just a few. I understand what you are trying to do, but I get the feeling you are a one man band, trying to "fix" numerous problems, it's tactical. Building and managing an effective and formidable web presence is a full time job...not something that can be accomplished as a secondary task. (not the first time I said that to you)

Lobos continues:

@Errol V.: By your own statement you just disproved your claim. UMCC does indeed exist as you just said it is an incorporated business entity. Just because it doesn't have an online presence does not mean it doesn't exist. The UMCC is not a consumer facing business and does not do it's own recruiting or advertising so it has no need for a website. That is part of what Lobos does.

Please explain the last statement in bold. In reference to that statement "what exactly is it that Lobos does"?

Lobos throws down:

@Brett A.: I would think name calling would be a bit beneath the owner and moderator of a forum like this. I see you took down your post, and I am glad to see that, but the fact that it was posted at all is rather unprofessional. It's not the first time I've seen that happen here too. Time and time again I see this forum being more about slinging mud than clearing things up. When you sling mud it's pretty hard to get a clear picture of anything.

Truly weak. We do not sling mud for no reason, read all of the threads, not just the Lobos example. With that said, so give us a clear picture on just one aspect of your operation...tell us why you would place a brand new, inexperienced driver in a lease operator arrangement from day 1 and expect said driver to succeed? This is at the very crux of what you do and completely in deference to what most of us consider best practice. THIS IS BASED ON A LEGACY OF REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE!

Unless I am mistaking, in every way your business model smacks of the "lowest cost provider" in the trucking space. All smoke and mirrors. Compensating a driver a tad more than $300 for 3300 miles speaks volumes (CPM of 11-12), as does the so-called 51 page contract. It's completely one-sided and only serves the short-term interest of the business. Call it mud slinging, call it what ever you want, but it's totally obvious that Lobos takes full advantage of the "path of least resistance"; the uninformed and inexperienced driver. If you are as smart as I think you are, deep down you know this is not a sustainably profitable model and definitely not ethically sound. Eventually, specific regulatory and governing bodies (like the Department of Labor) will catch up with this and begin to investigate.