| Author |
 Topic  |
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2004 : 21:35:53
|
Clayton,
Please Kewl off.[:D]
Personally, I am as grateful as a lab in the water, for all you have done. Only you know what effort it took, and we can only show our appreciation by viewing and understanding the context of your work.
It does not seem in keeping with the credo of CADO to not wish to view your work.[:I]
If you wish, I will receive the document, post it in an acceptable format (or 2) and suggest that it is to be included in the members only area.
Another option, and one probably not to yours or anyone elses liking is to charge a small fee for the work, to offset a portion of your time. If you choose to go that route, I would not hesitate a minute to pay for that kind of valuable information.[}:)]
The knowledge, terms and conditions of employment, posted for ALL interested parties may prove to be the catalyst that opens the gates to the new adjusting processes being implemented by carriers, vendors and others.
THANK YOU
..
|
Edited by - katadj on 04/18/2004 21:56:12 |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 22:07:26
|
Dave, you to misunderstand what I am saying; and more is being made of this than necessary. Perhaps I have been vague on the CADO "access" issue. I believe Roy will recall his concerns over 'privacy issues' etc, etc, which formed the basis of his opinion as to why this type of vendor information should not be accessed via a CADO forum.
It is not a personal issue with me, regarding this, and there is no other underlying personal issues relative to CADO that I am aware of that would be an impediment.
I've wanted this in CADO from the origin of the idea, that was my opening post in this thread. It is foolish - even though I am dubbed the armchair idiot liar by the Buck of the CADO Bush - to do this for 13 people the first time and a total audience of 26 this time; I would not have started it originally if I thought my efforts were to be for so few.
So please understand, there is more than figuring out "how to" post the survey. I recognized the content could be a "touchy" nature, so I asked both permission to post the survey and how to ( pg 2 - 10/20, 11/03, 11/05); and again tell you that it wasn't favorably received. Roy was sent a copy of the original survey, some time later, so he is aware of the content and format; this time there is just more of it in generally the same format. |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 22:13:56
|
OK, then we just "wait and see": how, when, & where the information will be disseminated.
As you stated, the participating parties to the two inquiries will receive their drafts and I am reasonably sure that they are most anxious to receive their copies prior to any of us being "activated".
The sooner the better, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 19:40:38
|
Roy, can you address or clarify this matter, and advise whether or not the revised survey can be entered into CADO; for access by CADO adjusters?
The format and presentation is similar to the original survey, of which you have a copy, and the content contains that and similar additional data gathered.
If this is an acceptable thing to be entered into CADO, your thoughts on how and into what specific forum are invited.
The general thoughts and background of the processes are basically found in the various relevant posts in this thread.
Thank you. |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 20:27:44
|
Clayton,
I will take another look at the survey that you sent. If I recall most if not all of the information is in Word format, so it can be provided in several ways.
- One way would be to include it as an attachment in a forum post, this is easy to do. If the document exceeds that max upload size then it could be listed as two or more attachments. The "include attachment icon" has been part of the forums for quite some time. We also have a download section, currently inactive but could be activated.
- Another way is like you did with the Fire thread last year.
- Convert to it html for displaying as stand alone web pages.
I will have to give all of this some additional thought.
|
|
|
|
Todd Summers
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 12:09:04
|
| (((((APPLAUSE)))))) |
|
|
|
WilburBarnes63026
14 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 15:58:58
|
| While the survey done by CCARR certainly is informative, does it mean that these schedules will be used this coming season? Also with the rising cost of fuel, some $0.80 since Hurricane Isabel, should that increase be expected to be factored into this years fees? |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 16:25:58
|
Wilbur, the revised survey is not out yet, but I to hope and think that it will be informative. Hopefully it is just one small tool to be used as part of the "know before you go" exercise; and its information can be factored in to the types of issues raised relative to deployment in other threads and forums.
My guess is yes, the fees surveyed in the survey and comparison will be the fees used this coming season. History says it is so. There are a number of vendor and/or carrier specific fee schedules that I have the yearly set of, going back on some for 5 years. Unfortunately, I have not noted any increases in regards to the fee that the adjuster would share in. I would have to say that from what I have seen, that most fee schedules have stagnated - relative to the flat fee - over the last 5 years and in fact some have declined.
Specifically, with the fuel increase issue you raise, I am not of the opinion that much, if any, of that increase will get built into a fee schedule structure.
Of the 43 fee schedules that specific "mileage allowances" positions could be gleaned from the schedule, 12 or 27% either did not have any allowance for mileage beyond the flat file fee or the mileage per file base amount was 100 miles before an excess at a rate was considered. A further 21 or 48% had their base mileage per file set between 75 to 50 miles before an excess at a rate was considered. |
|
|
|
Admin
547 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fee Schedule comparisons
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
