JCurtis - good morning. No, I was not referring to your post. I do not, nor does anyone else here, have the ability to insert posts where they should belong. My comments were addressed to the context I gleened from the original post. Secondly, I do not believe that I have, since becoming a member, made any disparaging remarks about anyone else here, save for 9 FOOT PILES, but that was more of a curiosity about how he/she dealt with such an obviously debilitating medical condition. Don't take any offense JC, because there was none intended.
To all, I say: There was a thread going recently about charging per inch. I threw in my 3 cents there and said I couldn't understand the benefit of such a system - too much measuring and room to create disagreement. I still think such a system represents a lower level of maturity in the ongoing profession of snow control.
Secondly, there was another thread that I started about Downward Price Pressures" as a result of me becoming more efficient. Response was almost universal that we should not take a hit because we have spent $$ to become more efficient.
Now, as I read the situation, we have a gentleman asking if he should bill, applying rates that would take him off and above his billing scale, for one, big snow event. I also understood that he only went to the property once. Well, a price is a price, and is an agreement between the property owner and the contractor to undertake a job and apportion the risk. The knife that I was talking about above cuts both ways, and it should. If we expect to maintain our prices as we strive to become more efficient, then also the customer should expect not to get hammered under a contract agreement because of a big storm and the associated extra clean-up time. Never reward inefficiency.
This arguement is based on contract prices, and to an extent, only visiting the property, in this case, on one occasion. By-the timers and those with service agreements stating maximum allowable accumulation would follow a different billing schedule, but that schedule would be stated in advance.
I stand by my original thought that $110 is too much to ding a customer for one snow event and one visit. I don't doubt that there are some markets where this could be supported, but it still does not represent fair value.
Lastly, I added my comments, as I stated, to get further comments going.