1 posted on
04/26/2013 12:28:15 AM PDT by
rawhide
To: rawhide
Since an enormous amount of the stuff in Walmart isn’t that heavy, it makes sense to ship as much low density material in as few loads as possible without exceeding weight limitations.
2 posted on
04/26/2013 12:31:46 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
To: rawhide
3 posted on
04/26/2013 12:37:11 AM PDT by
JoeProBono
(A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
To: rawhide
Typical Walmart would consider the drivers sleeper to be wasted space.
4 posted on
04/26/2013 12:45:07 AM PDT by
gunsequalfreedom
(Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
To: rawhide
Saving fuel and cutting costs with more freight per truck are good ideas.
The problem is all the preaching about “cutting carbon emissions” and “greening.”
Large businesses that preach “sustainability” like Wal-Mart’s leaders do lose my respect.
We need good business, not pandering to political correctness like we read in this article.
MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS AN IDEOLOGY THAT WAL-MART SHOULDN’T BE SPREADING.
5 posted on
04/26/2013 12:58:46 AM PDT by
Nextrush
(A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
To: rawhide
Yeah — just what is needed, longer trucks. Around here, the 53’ trailers are destroying all the corners and curbs. Not to mention all the traffic jams as of a result of the tractor trailers having “races” up the mountains on the interstate.
What to be more “green”, Walmart? Build your new stores next to a RR line and put a spur in.
To: rawhide
Nobody seems to notice that the driver is on top of the front wheels and doesn’t have an engine in front of him. Its like driving from the front of a bouncy cliff. I’m glad its not going to be me.
To: rawhide
Can the roads take the extra weight?
19 posted on
04/26/2013 7:35:47 AM PDT by
Excellence
(9/11 was an act of faith.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
