What changed
| Measure | Reported comparison |
|---|---|
| Total operating revenue | Up 20% |
| Revenue excluding fuel surcharges | Up 13% |
| Operating income | Up 2% |
| Operating margin on total revenue | 6.7%, versus 7.9% |
Company-reported figures, rounded. Revenue growth rates use different fuel definitions; the operating-margin comparison uses total revenue in both periods.[J1]
Why investors should care
Our interpretation
The first adjustment asks whether the sales headline overstates the expansion in the underlying business. The second asks whether that expansion improves earnings power. Removing fuel surcharges makes the revenue comparison more informative, but still does not turn it into a pure volume measure.
The company attributed the margin decline to higher purchased transportation, fuel and fuel taxes, and insurance-claims expenses relative to gross revenue.[J1] Our reading is to investigate those cost relationships before assuming that stronger sales will translate into proportionate profit growth.
The strongest counterargument
Sales can improve before profitability catches up. A gap between revenue growth and profit growth does not establish that recovery has failed. It does establish a useful question for the next set of numbers: are the economics improving as activity expands?
What to watch next
At the next quarterly release, compare fuel-excluded revenue growth with operating income and a consistently defined operating margin. Our test is whether the profit gap narrows; this brief makes no forecast that it will.
Useful takeaway: look beyond the revenue growth rate. Read the M&T earnings brief for a different example of checking what sits behind a headline.
Sources & verification
Checked October 17, 2026 against the company’s earnings release filed with the SEC. All comparisons are Q3 2026 versus Q3 2025. The gross-revenue and fuel-excluded growth rates have different definitions and are labeled separately. No market reaction or analyst estimate is used.