SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Check the appropriate box:

Saia, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD April 27, 2017

To Our Stockholders:

We cordially invite you to attend the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders of Saia, Inc. The meeting will take place at the Renaissance Concourse Atlanta Airport Hotel, One Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30354 on April 27, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. local time. We look forward to your attendance, either in person or by proxy.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on March 8, 2017 may vote at the meeting or any postponements or adjournments of the meeting.

By order of the Board of Directors,

Frederick J. Holzgrefe, III
Secretary

March 21, 2017

Please complete, date, sign and return the accompanying proxy card or vote by telephone or the internet. The enclosed return envelope requires no additional postage if mailed in either the United States or Canada. Alternatively, you may vote electronically via the internet. Go to www.investorvote.com/saia and follow the steps outlined on the secure website.

If you are a registered stockholder, you may elect to have next year’s proxy statement and annual report made available to you via the internet. We strongly encourage you to enroll in this service. It is a cost-effective way for us to send you proxy materials and annual reports.

Your vote is very important. Please vote whether or not you plan to attend the meeting.

PROXY SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider and you should read the entire proxy statement before voting. For more complete information regarding the 2016 performance of Saia, Inc. (the “Company”), please review the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

April 27, 2017, 10:30 a.m., local time

Renaissance Concourse Atlanta Airport Hotel

One Hartsfield Centre Parkway

Atlanta, Georgia 30354

March 8, 2017

Voting Matters and Board Recommendations

2016 Business Highlights

In 2016, the Company continued to effectively execute its long-term strategic plan and delivered strong operating results in spite of a challenging environment. The following illustrates the three-year directional relationship between Company performance, based on four of the Company’s key operating metrics, and the compensation (as defined below) of Saia’s President and Chief Executive Officer.

i

Director Nominees (page 6)

The Board of Directors consists of nine directors divided into three classes. Directors in each class are elected to serve for three-year terms that expire in successive years. The terms of the Class III directors will expire at the upcoming annual meeting. The Board of Directors has nominated the following persons for election as Class III directors for three-year terms expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2020. Each nominee is currently a director of Saia.

Management Proposals (pages 58-61)

ii

Corporate Governance (page 12)

Saia has the following corporate governance provisions and policies:

Executive Compensation Highlights (page 22)

iii

3-Year CEO Total Direct Compensation⁽¹⁾ vs. 3-Year Stockholder Return⁽²⁾

iv

See also the narrative and footnotes accompanying the Summary Compensation Table on page 41.

Important Dates for 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (page 64)

Any stockholder who intends to submit a nomination or present a proposal at the annual meeting in 2018 must deliver such nomination or proposal to Saia’s corporate Secretary at 11465 Johns Creek Parkway, Suite 400, Johns Creek, Georgia 30097:

v

Saia, Inc.

11465 Johns Creek Parkway, Suite 400
Johns Creek, Georgia 30097

2017 PROXY STATEMENT

The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Saia, Inc. (“Saia” or the “Company”) is furnishing you this proxy statement in connection with the solicitation of proxies on its behalf for the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders. The meeting will take place at the Renaissance Concourse Atlanta Airport Hotel, One Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30354 on April 27, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. local time. At the meeting, stockholders will vote on (a) the election of three directors, (b)  an advisory basis to approve the compensation of Saia’s Named Executive Officers, (c) an advisory basis on the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation of Saia’s Named Executive Officers, (d)  the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as Saia’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2017, and (e) the transaction of any other business that may properly come before the meeting, and any postponement or adjournment of the meeting, although we know of no other business to be presented.

By submitting your proxy (either by signing and returning the enclosed proxy card or by voting electronically on the internet or by telephone), you authorize Herbert A. Trucksess, III, Chairman of the Board, Richard D. O’Dell, Saia’s President and Chief Executive Officer, and Frederick J. Holzgrefe, III, Saia’s Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, to represent you and vote your shares at the meeting in accordance with your instructions. They also may vote your shares to adjourn the meeting and will be authorized to vote your shares at any postponements or adjournments of the meeting.

Saia’s Annual Report to Stockholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, which includes Saia’s audited annual consolidated financial statements, accompanies this proxy statement. Although the Annual Report is being distributed with this proxy statement, it does not constitute a part of the proxy solicitation materials and is not incorporated by reference into this proxy statement.

We are first sending this proxy statement, form of proxy and accompanying materials to stockholders on or about March 21, 2017.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

What is the purpose of the annual meeting?

At the annual meeting, the stockholders will be asked to:

Stockholders also will transact any other business that may properly come before the meeting. Members of Saia’s management team and a representative of KPMG LLP, Saia’s independent registered public accounting firm, will be present at the annual meeting to respond to appropriate questions from stockholders.

1

Who is entitled to vote?

You may vote if you owned shares of our common stock at the close of business on March 8, 2017, the record date for the annual meeting, provided such shares are held directly in your name as the stockholder of record or are held for you as the beneficial owner through a bank, broker or other nominee. Each outstanding share of common stock is entitled to one vote for all matters that properly come before the annual meeting for a vote. At the close of business on the record date, there were 25,446,515 shares of Saia common stock outstanding and entitled to vote.

What is the difference between a stockholder of record and a beneficial owner of shares held in street name?

Stockholders of Record. If your shares are registered directly with our transfer agent, Computershare Trust Company, N.A., you are considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares, and these proxy materials are being sent directly to you by us. As the stockholder of record, you have the right to grant your voting proxy directly to us through the enclosed proxy card or to vote in person at the annual meeting.

Beneficial Owners. Many of our stockholders hold their shares through a bank, broker or other nominee rather than directly in their own name. If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other nominee, you are considered the beneficial owner of shares held in street name, and these proxy materials (including a voting instruction card) are being forwarded to you by your bank, broker or nominee who is considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your bank, broker or nominee on how to vote your shares. As the beneficial owner of shares, you are also invited to attend the annual meeting. However, since you are not the stockholder of record, you may not vote your shares in person at the annual meeting unless you obtain a legal proxy from your bank, broker or nominee and present it at the 2017 annual meeting. Your bank, broker or nominee has enclosed a voting instruction card for you to use in directing the bank, broker or nominee regarding how to vote your shares.

How do I vote?

Stockholders of Record.

1.You May Vote by Mail. If you properly complete and sign the accompanying proxy card and return it in the enclosed envelope, it will be voted in accordance with your instructions. The enclosed envelope requires no additional postage if mailed in either the United States or Canada.

2.You May Vote by Telephone or the Internet. You may vote by telephone or on the internet by following the instructions included on the proxy card. If you vote by telephone or on the internet, you do not have to mail in your proxy card. Internet and telephone voting are available 24 hours a day. Votes submitted through the internet (www.investorvote.com/SAIA) or by telephone (1-800-652-8683) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on April 26, 2017.

3.You May Vote in Person at the Meeting. You may deliver your completed proxy card in person. Additionally, we will pass out written ballots to registered stockholders who wish to vote in person at the meeting.

Beneficial Owners.

If you hold your shares in street name, follow the voting instruction card you receive from your bank, broker or other nominee. If you want to vote in person at the annual meeting, you must obtain a legal proxy from your bank, broker or nominee and present it at the annual meeting.

Can I change my vote?

Stockholders of Record. You may change your vote at any time before the proxy is exercised by voting in person at the annual meeting, giving written notice to Saia’s Secretary revoking your proxy, submitting a properly

2

signed proxy bearing a later date or voting again by telephone or on the internet (your latest telephone or internet vote is counted).

Beneficial Owners. If you hold your shares through a bank, broker or other nominee, you may change your vote by submitting new voting instructions following the instructions provided by your bank, broker or nominee.

What if I do not vote for some of the items listed on the proxy card or voting instruction card?

Stockholders of Record. If you indicate a choice with respect to any matter to be acted upon on your proxy card, the shares will be voted in accordance with your instructions. Proxy cards that are signed and returned, but do not contain voting instructions with respect to a proposal, will be voted in accordance with the recommendations of the Board with respect to that proposal.

Beneficial Owners. If you indicate a choice with respect to any matter to be acted upon on your voting instruction card, the shares will be voted in accordance with your instructions. If you do not indicate a choice with respect to a proposal or do not return your voting instruction card, the bank, broker or other nominee will determine if it has the discretionary authority to vote your shares. Regulations prohibit banks, brokers and other nominees from voting shares in elections of directors, as to compensation of Named Executive Officers, and the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation of Named Executive Officers unless the beneficial owners indicate how the shares are to be voted. Therefore, unless you instruct your bank, broker or nominee on how to vote your shares with respect to the election of directors, the compensation of Saia’s Named Executive Officers, and the frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation of Saia’s Named Executive Officers, your bank, broker or nominee will be prohibited from voting on your behalf on any such matter for which your instructions are not provided. As such, it is critical that you cast your vote if you want it to count for the proposals regarding the aforementioned matters. Your bank, broker or nominee will, however, continue to have discretionary authority to vote uninstructed shares on the ratification of the appointment of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

How many shares must be present to hold the meeting?

A quorum must be present at the annual meeting for any business to be conducted. The presence at the annual meeting, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of the shares of Saia common stock outstanding on the record date will constitute a quorum. Abstentions and broker non-votes (which occur when a bank, broker or other nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner does not have discretionary voting authority with respect to a proposal and has not received instructions with respect to that proposal from the beneficial owner) will be treated as shares present for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present.

What if a quorum is not present at the meeting?

If a quorum is not present at the start of the meeting, the stockholders who are represented may adjourn the meeting until a quorum is present. The time and place of the adjourned meeting will be announced at the time the adjournment is taken, and so long as the adjournment is not for longer than 30 days, no other notice will be given.

How does the Board of Directors recommend I vote on the proposals?

Your Board recommends that you vote:

3

Will any other business be conducted at the meeting?

We know of no other business that will be presented at the meeting. If any other matter properly comes before the stockholders for a vote at the meeting, the proxy holders will vote your shares in accordance with their best judgment.

Who will count the votes?

Saia’s transfer agent, Computershare Trust Company, N.A., will tabulate and certify the votes. Douglas L. Col, the Company’s Treasurer and Assistant Secretary, will serve as the inspector of elections.

How many votes are required to elect the director nominees?

Because this is considered an uncontested election under the Company’s Bylaws, a nominee for director is elected to the Board if the votes cast for such nominee’s election exceed the votes cast against such nominee’s election. Abstentions will not affect the election of directors. In tabulating the voting results for the election of directors, only “FOR” and “AGAINST” votes are counted. If an incumbent director fails to receive a majority of the vote for re-election, the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board will act on an expedited basis to determine whether to accept the director’s previously tendered irrevocable resignation and will submit such recommendation for prompt consideration by the Board. In considering whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation, the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board will consider any factors they deem relevant. Any director who fails to receive a majority of the vote for re-election pursuant to this provision of the Corporate Governance Guidelines will not participate in the Nominating and Governance Committee recommendation or Board consideration regarding whether or not to accept the tendered resignation.

What happens if a nominee is unable to stand for election?

If a nominee is unable to stand for election, the Board of Directors may either reduce the number of directors to be elected or select a substitute nominee. If a substitute nominee is selected, the proxy holders will vote your shares for the substitute nominee unless you have withheld authority.

How many votes are required to approve the proposals other than the director nomination proposal?

The advisory approval of the compensation of Saia’s Named Executive Officers and the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as Saia’s independent registered public accounting firm each require the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present at the meeting in person or by proxy and entitled to vote. With respect to the proposal to provide an advisory vote on the frequency of the advisory vote on executive compensation, the option that receives the greatest number of votes cast – “EVERY YEAR,” “EVERY TWO YEARS,” or “EVERY THREE YEARS” – shall constitute the shareholder’s advisory vote on the frequency of voting by stockholders on the compensation of Saia’s Named Executive Officers.

What effect will abstentions and broker non-votes have on the proposals?

Shares voting “ABSTAIN” with respect to any nominee for director or on the advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation will be excluded entirely from the vote and will have no effect on the proposal. Shares voting “ABSTAIN” on the advisory vote on executive compensation, and the ratification of the appointment of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm will be treated as shares present for quorum purposes and entitled to vote, so they will have the same practical effect as votes against the proposals. In tabulating the voting results for any particular proposal, shares that constitute broker non-votes are not considered entitled to vote on that proposal. Thus, broker non-votes will not affect the outcome of any matter being voted on at the meeting, assuming that a quorum is obtained.

4

When will the Company announce the voting results?

We will announce the preliminary voting results at the annual meeting. The Company will report the final results in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within four business days following the annual meeting.

5

PROPOSAL 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The Board of Directors currently consists of nine directors divided into three classes (Class I, Class II and Class III). Directors in each class are elected to serve for three-year terms that expire in successive years. The terms of the Class III directors will expire at the upcoming annual meeting. The Board of Directors has nominated John P. Gainor, Jr., Randolph W. Melville and Björn E. Olsson for election as Class III directors for three-year terms expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2020 and until their successors are elected and qualified. Messrs. Gainor, Melville and Olsson currently serve as Class III directors.

Each nominee has consented to being named in this proxy statement and has agreed to serve if elected. If a nominee is unable to stand for election, the Board of Directors may either reduce the number of directors to be elected or select a substitute nominee. If a substitute nominee is selected, the proxy holders will vote your shares for the substitute nominee, unless you have withheld authority.

Because this is considered an uncontested election under the Company’s Bylaws, a nominee for director is elected to the Board if the votes cast for such nominee’s election exceed the votes cast against such nominee’s election. Abstentions will not affect the election of directors. In tabulating the voting results for the election of directors, only “FOR” and “AGAINST” votes are counted. If an incumbent director fails to receive a majority of the vote for re-election, the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board will act on an expedited basis to determine whether to accept the director’s previously tendered irrevocable resignation and will submit such recommendation for prompt consideration by the Board. In considering whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation, the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board will consider any factors they deem relevant. Any director who fails to receive a majority of the vote for re-election pursuant to this provision of the Corporate Governance Guidelines will not participate in the Nominating and Governance Committee recommendation or Board consideration regarding whether or not to accept the tendered resignation.

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “FOR” THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE THREE NOMINEES.

The following tables set forth certain information regarding each nominee for director and continuing director of the Company. The information presented includes information provided to the Company by each nominee and continuing director including such person’s name, age, principal occupation and business experience for at least the past five years, the names of other publicly-held companies of which such person currently serves as a director or has served as a director during the past five years and the year in which the nominee first became a director of Saia.

The Board of Directors has determined that the following directors are deemed “independent” pursuant to the NASDAQ Global Select Market’s (“NASDAQ”) definition of independent director: William F. Evans, John P. Gainor, Jr., John J. Holland, Randolph W. Melville, Björn E. Olsson, Douglas W. Rockel and Jeffrey C. Ward.

In addition to the information presented below regarding the specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of each nominee and director that led the Board of Directors to the conclusion that such person should serve as a director, the Board also believes that all of the nominees and continuing directors have a reputation for high personal and professional ethics, integrity, values and character. Each nominee and continuing director brings a strong and unique background and set of skills to the Board of Directors giving the Board as a whole competence and experience in a wide variety of areas, including corporate governance and board service, executive management, sales and marketing, the less-than-truckload (“LTL”) and transportation industry, accounting and finance, and risk assessment. They have demonstrated business acumen and an ability to exercise sound judgment, as well as a commitment of service to the Company and the Board. Each nominee and continuing director is committed to achieving, monitoring and improving on the Company’s business strategy.

6

Current Nominees

NOMINEES FOR ELECTION AS

CLASS III DIRECTORS FOR A THREE-YEAR
TERM EXPIRING AT THE 2020 ANNUAL MEETING

7

8

Continuing Directors

CLASS I DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE
WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE AT THE 2018 ANNUAL MEETING

9

CLASS II DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE
WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE AT THE 2019 ANNUAL MEETING

10

11

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

THE BOARD, BOARD MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES

The system of governance practices followed by the Company is memorialized in the Company’s Bylaws, in the charters of the three standing committees of the Board of Directors (the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee) and in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines. The committee charters and Corporate Governance Guidelines are intended to provide the Board with the necessary authority and practices to review and evaluate the Company’s business and to make decisions independent of the influence of the Company’s management. The Corporate Governance Guidelines establish guidelines for the Board with respect to Board meetings, Board composition, selection and election of directors, director responsibility, director access to management and independent advisors and non-employee director compensation.

The committee charters and the Corporate Governance Guidelines are reviewed annually by the Board and updated as necessary to reflect evolving governance practices and changes in regulatory requirements. The Corporate Governance Guidelines and each of the Board’s committee charters are available free of charge on the Company’s website (www.saiacorp.com) under the investor relations section.

The Company has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applicable to all directors, officers and employees, including its principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is filed as Exhibit 14.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, and incorporated by reference into the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Board Leadership Structure

Saia’s Board structure provides for a Chief Executive Officer separate from the Chairman of the Board. The Board believes having a separate Chairman and Chief Executive Officer allows each to more fully focus on their applicable responsibilities. Further, maintaining separate roles allows the Chairman to oversee the Chief Executive Officer’s performance and remain more impartial when governing the Board. The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for setting the strategic direction for the Company and managing the day-to-day operation and performance of the Company, while the Chairman provides guidance to the Chief Executive Officer, sets the agenda for Board meetings and presides over meetings of the full Board.

The Lead Independent Director is “independent” under all applicable rules of the NASDAQ Global Select Market and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is elected annually by the independent directors. For 2016, the Lead Independent Director was Björn E. Olsson. The primary responsibilities of the Lead Independent Director are to:

12

In addition, the Lead Independent Director has the authority to call meetings of independent directors. If requested by major stockholders, the Lead Independent Director will make himself reasonably available for direct communication.

Meetings

The Board of Directors held five meetings in 2016. Each director attended at least 75% of the meetings convened by the Board and the applicable committees during such director’s service on the Board during 2016.

Executive sessions of non-employee directors and separate executive sessions of independent directors are held as part of each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. The sessions of the independent directors are chaired by the Lead Independent Director.

Board Committees

The Board of Directors has an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Nominating and Governance Committee, each of which is comprised entirely of independent directors. Current Committee memberships are as follows:

Through her retirement from the Board of Directors in February 2017, Linda French was a member of the Compensation Committee.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee has been established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Securities Exchange Act of 1934”). The Audit Committee held five meetings in 2016. The functions of the Audit Committee are described in the Audit Committee charter and include, among others, the following:

Each member of the Audit Committee meets the independence and experience requirements for audit committee members as established by The NASDAQ Global Select Market. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Evans, Mr. Holland and Mr. Rockel are “audit committee financial experts,” as defined by applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

13

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee held five meetings in 2016. The functions of the Compensation Committee are described in the Compensation Committee charter and include, among others, the following:

Each member of the Compensation Committee qualifies as (i) an independent director under applicable NASDAQ rules and Rule 10C-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (ii) an “outside director” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Internal Revenue Code”), as amended; and (iii) a “non-employee director” for purposes of Rule 16b-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Nominating and Governance Committee

The Nominating and Governance Committee held two meetings in 2016. The functions of the Nominating and Governance Committee are described in the Nominating and Governance Committee charter and include, among others, the following:

Each member of the Nominating and Governance Committee meets the definition of an independent director under applicable NASDAQ rules.

Risk Oversight

The Board of Directors oversees an enterprise-wide approach to risk management, designed to support the achievement of Company objectives, improve long-term Company performance and create stockholder value. A fundamental part of risk management is not only understanding the risks the Company faces and what steps management is taking to manage those risks, but also understanding what level of risk is appropriate for the Company. The involvement of the full Board of Directors in setting the Company’s business strategy and objectives is integral to the Board’s assessment of the Company’s risk and in determining what constitutes an appropriate level of risk for the Company. The full Board of Directors conducts an annual risk assessment of the Company’s financial risk, legal/compliance risk and operational/strategic risk. The Board typically reviews at least one risk element in detail at each regular Board meeting and addresses individual risk issues throughout the year as necessary.

While the Board of Directors has the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, the Board delegates responsibility for certain aspects of risk management to its committees. In particular, the Audit Committee focuses on key business and financial risks and related controls and processes. Per its charter, the Audit

14

Committee discusses with management the Company’s major financial reporting exposures concerning risk assessment and management and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures. The Company’s Compensation Committee strives to create incentives that encourage a level of risk-taking behavior consistent with the Company’s business strategy and objectives and helps ensure that the Company’s compensation policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Compensation Committee structures the Company’s executive compensation program to reduce the possibility that Saia’s executive officers, either individually or as a group, make excessively risky business decisions that could maximize short-term results at the expense of long-term value.

Finally, the Company’s Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for overseeing the Company’s major non-financial reporting enterprise risk assessment and management processes. The Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee discusses with both the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee the processes used in the oversight of the non-financial reporting enterprise risk assessment and management processes.

The Board believes its leadership structure enhances overall risk oversight. While the Board requires risk assessments from management, the combination of Board member experience, continuing education and independence of governance processes provide an effective basis for testing, overseeing and supplementing management assessments of risk.

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Election to the Company’s Board of Directors in a contested election is by a plurality of the votes cast at any meeting of stockholders having a quorum. An election will be considered contested if (i) the Secretary of the Company receives a notice that a stockholder has nominated a person for election to the Board of Directors in compliance with the advance notice requirements for stockholder nominees for director set forth in the Company’s Bylaws and (ii) such nomination has not been withdrawn by such stockholder on or before the 10th day before the Company first mails its notice of meeting for such meeting to the stockholders. If directors are to be elected by a plurality of the votes cast, stockholders are not permitted to vote against a nominee.

In an uncontested election, directors are elected by a majority of the votes cast “FOR” and “AGAINST” at any meeting of stockholders having a quorum. If an incumbent director fails to receive a majority of the vote for re-election in an uncontested election, the Nominating and Governance Committee will act on an expedited basis to determine whether to accept the director’s previously tendered irrevocable resignation and will submit such recommendation for prompt consideration by the Board. In considering whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation, the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board will consider any factors they deem relevant. Any director who fails to receive a majority of the vote for re-election pursuant to this provision of the Corporate Governance Guidelines will not participate in the Nominating and Governance Committee recommendation or Board consideration regarding whether or not to accept the tendered resignation. The election of directors at the 2017 annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders is an uncontested election.

The Board will nominate for election or re-election as director only candidates who agree to tender irrevocable resignations that will be effective upon (i) the failure to receive the required vote at the next annual meeting at which they will face re-election and (ii) Board acceptance of such resignation. The Board will fill director vacancies and new directorships only with candidates who agree to tender, promptly following their appointment to the Board, the same form of resignation tendered by other directors in accordance with the Corporate Governance Guidelines.

15

CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTOR NOMINEES

Director Qualifications

The Corporate Governance Guidelines include director qualification standards which provide as follows:

While the selection of qualified directors is a complex, subjective process that requires consideration of many intangible factors, the Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that directors and candidates for director generally should, at a minimum, meet the following criteria:

In considering whether to recommend any candidate as a director nominee, including candidates recommended by stockholders in accordance with the procedures discussed below, the Nominating and Governance Committee will apply the criteria set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Nominating and Governance Committee seeks nominees with a broad range of experience, professions, skills, geographic representation and backgrounds. The Nominating and Governance Committee does not assign specific weights to the criteria and no particular criterion is necessarily applicable to all prospective nominees. The Nominating and Governance Committee believes that the backgrounds and qualifications of the directors, considered as a group, should provide a significant composite mix of experience, knowledge and abilities that will allow the Board to fulfill its responsibilities. The Nominating and Governance Committee assesses the effectiveness of the Corporate Governance Guidelines, including with respect to director nominations and qualifications and achievement of having directors with a broad range of experience and backgrounds, through completion of the committee’s annual self-evaluation process.

Procedures for Recommendations and Nominations by Stockholders

Stockholder Recommendations

The Nominating and Governance Committee has adopted policies concerning the process for the consideration of director candidates recommended by stockholders. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider director recommendations from stockholders. Any stockholder wishing to recommend a candidate for consideration should send the following information to the Secretary of the Company, Saia, Inc., 11465 Johns Creek Parkway, Suite 400, Johns Creek, Georgia 30097:

16

The recommendation must be accompanied by the information concerning the candidate required to be disclosed in solicitations of proxies for election of directors in an election contest, or is otherwise required, in each case pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules adopted thereunder, generally providing for the disclosure of:

The recommendation must describe all relationships between the candidate and the recommending stockholder and any agreements or understandings between the recommending stockholder and the candidate regarding the recommendation. The recommendation shall describe all relationships between the candidate and any of the Company’s competitors, customers, suppliers or other persons with special interests regarding the Company.

The recommending stockholder must furnish a statement supporting its view that the candidate possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Nominating and Governance Committee for director nominees, and briefly describing the contributions that the candidate would be expected to make to the Board and to the governance of the Company. The recommending stockholder must state whether, in the view of the stockholder, the candidate, if elected, would represent all stockholders and not serve for the purpose of advancing or favoring any particular stockholder or other constituency of the Company.

The recommendation must be accompanied by the consent of the candidate to be interviewed by the Committee, if the Committee chooses to do so in its discretion (and the recommending stockholder must furnish the candidate’s contact information for this purpose), and, if nominated and elected, to serve as a director of the Company.

If a recommendation is submitted by a group of two or more stockholders, the information regarding recommending stockholders must be submitted with respect to each stockholder in the group.

The Secretary of Saia will promptly forward such materials to the Nominating and Governance Committee Chair and the Chairman of the Board of Saia. The Secretary will also maintain copies of such materials for future reference by the Committee when filling Board positions.

If a vacancy arises or the Board decides to expand its membership, the Nominating and Governance Committee will seek recommendations of potential candidates from a variety of sources (potentially including incumbent directors, stockholders, the Company’s management and professional recruitment firms). At that time, the Nominating and Governance Committee also will consider potential candidates submitted by stockholders in accordance with the procedures described above. The Nominating and Governance Committee then evaluates each potential candidate’s educational background, employment history, outside commitments and other relevant factors

17

to determine whether he or she is potentially qualified to serve on the Board. The Nominating and Governance Committee seeks to identify and recruit the best available candidates and it intends to evaluate qualified stockholder candidates on the same basis as those submitted by other sources.

After completing this process, the Nominating and Governance Committee will determine whether one or more candidates are sufficiently qualified to warrant further investigation. If the process yields one or more desirable candidates, the Nominating and Governance Committee will rank them by order of preference, depending on their respective qualifications and Saia’s needs. The Nominating and Governance Committee Chair, or another director designated by the Nominating and Governance Committee Chair, will then contact the desired candidate(s) to evaluate their potential interest and to set up interviews with the full Nominating and Governance Committee. All such interviews are held in person and include the candidate, members of the Nominating and Governance Committee and other non-employee directors as determined by the Nominating and Governance Committee. At its sole discretion, the Nominating and Governance Committee may include other non-employee directors in the interviewing process. Based upon interview results, the candidate’s qualifications and appropriate background checks, the Nominating and Governance Committee then decides whether it will recommend the candidate’s nomination to the full Board.

Stockholder Nominations and Proposals at Annual Meetings

To nominate a director candidate for election or submit a proposal for other business at an annual meeting, a stockholder must deliver timely notice of such nomination or proposal to the principal executive offices of the Company in accordance with, and containing the information required by, the Company’s Bylaws. To be timely, the notice must be received at the Company’s principal executive offices no later than the close of business on the 90th calendar day or earlier than the 120th calendar day prior to the first anniversary date of the immediately preceding year’s annual meeting.

To be in proper form, the stockholder’s notice must set forth the following information regarding the stockholder submitting the notice and the beneficial owner, if any, on whose behalf the nomination or proposal is made:

18

If the stockholder’s notice relates to the nomination of a person to serve as a director, then such notice must also set forth the following information:

The Company may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information as may reasonably be required by the Company to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as an independent director or that could be material to a reasonable stockholder’s understanding of the independence of such nominee.

If the stockholder’s notice relates to any business other than the nomination of a director, the notice must contain a brief description of the business desired to be brought before the meeting, the text of the proposal or business (including the text of any resolutions proposed for consideration and the language of any amendments to the Bylaws), the reasons for conducting such business at the meeting and any material interest of such stockholder and the beneficial owner, if any, in such business, and a description of all agreements, arrangements and understandings between such stockholder and beneficial owner, if any, and any other person or persons (including their names) in connection with the proposal of such business by such stockholder or beneficial owner.

The summary above is qualified entirely by reference to the applicable provisions of the Company’s Bylaws, which have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and copies of which are available from the Company upon request. No stockholder nominations or proposals have been made in connection with the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders.

19

STOCKHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board of Directors has adopted procedures for stockholders to send communications to the Board or individual directors of the Company as follows:

Stockholders seeking to communicate with the Board of Directors should submit their written comments to the Secretary of the Company, Saia, Inc., 11465 Johns Creek Parkway, Suite 400, Johns Creek, Georgia 30097. The Secretary of the Company will forward all such communications (excluding routine advertisements and business solicitations and communications which the Secretary of the Company, in his or her sole discretion, deems to be a security risk or for harassment purposes) to each member of the Board of Directors, or if applicable, to the individual director(s) named in the correspondence. Subject to the following, the Chairman of the Board and the Lead Independent Director will receive copies of all stockholder communications, including those addressed to individual directors, unless such communications address allegations of misconduct or mismanagement on the part of the Chairman or Lead Independent Director. In such event, the Secretary of the Company will first consult with and receive the approval of the Lead Independent Director or Chairman, as applicable, before disclosing or otherwise discussing the communication with the director subject to the allegation.

The Company reserves the right to screen materials sent to its directors for potential security risks and/or harassment purposes and the Company also reserves the right to verify ownership status before forwarding stockholder communications to the Board of Directors.

The Secretary of the Company will determine the appropriate timing for forwarding stockholder communications to the directors. The Secretary will consider each communication to determine whether it should be forwarded promptly or compiled and sent with other communications and other Board materials in advance of the next scheduled Board meeting.

Stockholders also have an opportunity to communicate with the Board of Directors at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders. The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that absent unusual circumstances, directors are expected to attend all annual meetings of stockholders.  Nine of the then ten members of the Board of Directors attended the 2016 annual meeting of stockholders. 

20

STOCK OWNERSHIP

Directors and Executive Officers

The following table sets forth the amount of Saia’s common stock beneficially owned by each director and each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table on page 41 and all directors and executive officers as a group, as of January 15, 2017. Unless otherwise indicated, beneficial ownership is direct and the person indicated has sole voting and investment power.

21

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The Named Executive Officers who appear in the compensation tables of this Proxy Statement are:

Executive Summary

The following provides an overview of Saia, Inc.’s compensation philosophy and programs, including the focus on pay for performance, best pay practices and alignment of the interests of Saia’s executives with those of Saia’s stockholders. Details about the compensation awarded to Saia’s Named Executive Officers can be found in the Summary Compensation Table and related compensation tables.

The Company designs executive compensation programs to link pay with performance and to attract, motivate, reward and facilitate the retention of executive talent required to achieve corporate objectives. Elements of the compensation programs are generally targeted to provide compensation opportunity at the 50th percentile of the peer group. The following elements comprise the total compensation awarded to Saia’s Named Executive Officers: base salary, cash-based annual incentive awards, equity-based long-term incentive awards, customary benefits and perquisites and severance benefits.

Other than base salary, which is targeted at the 50th percentile of the peer group, all significant elements of executive compensation are based on stock price performance, operating income and the operating ratio (operating expenses divided by operating revenues), which the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) believes has a direct impact on the Company’s stock price.  For 2016, the annual incentive awards provided incentives based on achieving operating income and operating ratio targets. For 2016, the long-term incentive plan utilized a combination of common stock grants based on the Company’s total stockholder return over a three-year period and stock options with an exercise price set at the closing price of Saia’s stock on the grant date. For 2017, the Committee added a restricted stock component to the long-term incentive plan. Saia’s stock option plan strictly prohibits re-pricing of stock options.

The following tables highlight Saia’s financial performance for fiscal years 2014-2016:

22

In accordance with the recommendations of its stockholders in 2011, Saia holds a stockholder advisory “say-on-pay” vote on an annual basis. In 2016, holders of 96.3% of Saia’s stock voting on the matter approved, on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to Saia’s Named Executive Officers as described in the 2016 proxy statement.  The Compensation Committee believes that this level of approval of our executive compensation program is indicative of our stockholders’ strong support of our compensation philosophy and goals and the decisions made by the Committee. Based on these favorable results, the Committee reaffirmed the Company’s executive compensation philosophy and programs.

None of the members of the Committee have relationships with the Company or its management other than as directors of the Company. All the Committee members are experienced in making executive compensation decisions. The Committee also obtains advice in setting executive compensation from Mercer US, Inc., an independent expert in executive compensation plans and programs.

Key Features of Saia’s Executive Compensation

23

Executive Compensation Philosophy and Oversight

Saia’s executive compensation philosophy is determined by the Compensation Committee. The Committee believes the executive compensation program should link pay with performance and should attract, motivate, reward and facilitate the retention of the executive talent required to achieve corporate objectives and to create value for the Company’s stockholders. To this end, Saia integrates several key compensation components that are designed to align rewards with the short- and long-term performance of the Company and of each executive. These components are:

Risk Considerations

The Compensation Committee reviews the risks and rewards associated with the Company’s compensation programs. The programs are designed with features that mitigate risk without diminishing the incentive nature of the compensation. We believe our compensation programs encourage and reward prudent business judgment and do not encourage excessive risk taking over the short-term or the long-term.

Pay equity

To create stockholder value and motivate its employees, the Company is committed to internal and external pay equity. With respect to internal equity, the Compensation Committee monitors, on an annual basis, the relationship between the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer to that of other Named Executive Officers and salaried employees generally.

The Company does not have a policy regarding the target ratio of total compensation of the Chief Executive Officer to that of the other Named Executive Officers or salaried personnel, but the Committee does review compensation levels to ensure that appropriate equity exists. During the past three years, the Chief Executive Officer’s total direct compensation (salary and short- and long-term incentive awards) has been approximately 2.2 times the total direct compensation of the next highest paid Named Executive Officer, which the Committee believes is an appropriate multiple.

To test external pay equity, the Committee annually reviews compensation data for similar positions at peer group companies, described below, in the transportation industry with revenues comparable to Saia’s.

24

Compensation Review Peer Group

To assist the Compensation Committee in determining the appropriate design, components and levels of compensation for the Company’s executive officers, the Committee annually reviews compensation data for similar positions at comparable, like-sized companies in the transportation industry. The peer group companies are selected with input from Mercer and are comprised of U.S. publicly-traded transportation companies with annual revenues of approximately one-half to two times Saia’s revenues. The Committee focuses on revenue because of the correlation between pay levels and company size as measured by revenue. The peer group was used to review base salary, annual incentives and long-term incentives. The Committee has selected the market 50th percentile or market median (using the peer group) as the targeted positioning for compensation of the Company’s executives.

The peer group used in the review for 2016 and 2017 was:

Some of the peer group companies have substantial stock ownership by executives. If the ownership amounts were disclosed by the peer group company to have a material impact on executive compensation levels, the specific compensation element is excluded from the competitive data and associated analysis.

2015, 2016 and 2017 Executive Compensation Decisions

Based on the Committee’s annual executive compensation reviews conducted in 2015 and 2016, the Committee has concluded and reported to the Board that the amounts payable to each Named Executive Officer under each individual compensation component, as well as each Named Executive Officer’s total compensation in the aggregate, were reasonable given then-current Company financial performance. The Committee further concluded that the Company’s executive compensation program met the objectives of attracting, retaining, motivating, and rewarding talented executives who can contribute to Saia’s long-term success and thereby build value for Saia stockholders. Decisions with respect to each component of executive compensation are described below.

25

Pay Mix

The following graph sets forth the key components of compensation and pay mix for the Named Executive Officers based on target payout levels for 2016:

Base Salary

For each Named Executive Officer, the Committee considered the factors identified under “Executive Compensation Philosophy and Oversight,” giving special attention to individual and Company performance, experience, future advancement potential, impact on Saia’s results, pay mix, internal and external pay equity, and the importance of executive retention. In July 2015 and 2016, the Company implemented salary and wage increases of approximately 4% and 3%, respectively, for all of its employees, including the Named Executive Officers. Further, the Committee has made adjustments to the base salaries of the Named Executive Officers as part of a continuing, multi-year process to better align their base salaries with the market median, provide for executive retention and recognize individual performance.  The Committee recommended to the Board, and the Board approved, salary increases in January 2016 ranging from 0% to 10.0% for the Named Executive Officers.

Annual Incentives

Annual incentive awards are used to provide all officers and other salaried employees the opportunity to receive cash payments based on Company performance for the year. The awards include a threshold, target and

26

maximum payout level for each executive and an associated performance goal to achieve the payout levels. Threshold for the annual incentive plan is set at 25% of target and maximum is set at 200% of target.

In 2015, the stockholders approved the Annual Cash Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”) to govern annual cash incentive awards to salaried employees starting in 2016. The annual incentive awards granted in 2016 and 2017 were made pursuant to the Bonus Plan. The awards under the Bonus Plan are designed to be tax-deductible under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Please see “Tax Policies” below on page 38 for a discussion of the Committee’s approach to Section 162(m) deductibility.

For 2016 and 2017, the potential payout levels under the annual incentive awards for the Named Executive Officers are as follows:

Potential Payouts of Annual Incentives for 2016 and 2017

For 2015, the annual incentive awards for the Named Executive Officers were structured to provide cash incentives based 50% on the achievement of an annual corporate earnings per share target and 50% on achievement of an annual operating ratio target. Commencing in 2016, the annual incentive awards were changed to provide incentives based 50% on achieving the Company’s annual operating income target and 50% on achieving the Company’s operating ratio target. The Committee began using operating income as a target to eliminate the effect of tax costs in the earnings per share calculation and to conform to common peer group practice. For 2017, the Committee used the same annual incentive plan structure as it did in 2016.

The Committee believes using an operating income target aligns the interests of the executives with those of Saia’s stockholders. Saia uses operating ratio as a performance goal for its annual cash incentive awards because it is an objective measure of profitability of Saia’s business and is a common measure of profitability within the industry.   Operating ratio for a given fiscal period is defined as operating expenses divided by operating revenue.

The Committee believes using operating ratio as a performance measure is particularly relevant to Saia’s business because it focuses executives on improving profitability, which drives cash flow for capital allocation, including capital expenditures, and debt reductions.  Creating stockholder value through disciplined capital allocation is a strategic priority of the Company.

Performance Targets and Actual Performance for 2016

The operating income and operating ratio performance goals for 2016 were set by the Compensation Committee considering past performance, the strategic plan, current economic conditions and other forecasts of future results. The Compensation Committee considered these factors along with discussions with management to

27

set the target levels. Threshold and maximum operating ratio goals were set considering the incremental performance between the minimum and target, and target and maximum goals.

The Committee strives to set the threshold, target and maximum performance goals at levels such that the relative likelihood that Saia will achieve such goals remains consistent from year to year. It is the intent of the Committee that the threshold goals should be attainable a majority of the time, target goals should, on average, be reasonably expected to be achieved and maximum goals should be attained a minority of the time. These levels of expected performance are taken into consideration based on the compensation philosophy and evaluation of compensation previously discussed. Establishing the expected performance goals relative to these criteria is inherently subject to considerable judgment on the part of the Committee.

Long-Term Incentives

The Committee has chosen to provide long-term incentives to the executive officers as a means to stimulate performance superior to other companies in Saia’s industry, to tie compensation to stockholder value creation and to encourage executive retention. All Company officers are eligible to participate in the long-term incentive program. For 2015 and 2016, 50% of a Named Executive Officer’s long-term incentive opportunity was granted in performance stock units and 50% in stock options (valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model). This mix of awards was selected to balance the focus between relative and absolute stock performance and reflects competitive practices.  For 2017, 50% of a Named Executive Officer’s long-term incentive opportunity was granted in performance stock units, 25% in stock options (valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model), and 25% in restricted stock (valued using the intrinsic-value pricing model).  The Committee began awarding restricted stock in 2017 to conform to common peer group practice and for executive retention.

At the 2016 Annual Meeting, the stockholders approved the Second Amended and Restated Saia, Inc. 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (“Omnibus Incentive Plan”). This amendment (i) provided for the availability of restricted stock unit awards for issuance; (ii) increased the total shares authorized and reserved for issuance under the Omnibus Incentive Plan to 2,350,000 shares; (iii) increased certain sub-limits for annual and aggregate awards under the Omnibus Incentive Plan; and (iv) provided for minimum one-year vesting for stock options and stock appreciation rights, subject to certain exceptions.

28

In February 2016, the Company granted long-term incentive awards in the form of 209,310 stock options and 72,365 performance stock awards to its officers. In February 2017, the Company granted long-term incentive awards in the form of 22,116 shares of restricted stock, 56,150 stock options and 44,239 performance stock awards to its officers.

For 2016 and 2017, the target long-term incentive as a percentage of base salary for the Named Executive Officers was as follows:

Long-term Incentive Plan Targets

To determine the total value of the long-term incentives granted to each Named Executive Officer each year, the Committee uses market data prepared by Mercer. Mercer analyzed the types and 50th percentile targets of long-term incentives granted to comparable officers at the peer group companies listed in the “Compensation Review Peer Group” section above. The Committee then used the Mercer analysis and pay mix, position, and internal equity factors to determine the appropriate target percentages of base compensation. The specific grants for each officer were based on the Company stock price on the grant date for restricted stock and performance stock units, and on the Black-Scholes option pricing model for stock option grants.

Once the targets and values were determined, the key elements of the awards were established, as described below.

Stock Options

The role of stock options is to reward executives for increasing absolute long-term stockholder value. For 2016, the value of each stock option award was equal to 50% of the target long-term incentive award for the executive using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.

Stock option grants have historically been awarded in the first quarter of the fiscal year. The Company typically grants annual equity awards to the Company’s executive officers, including the Named Executive Officers, on the third trading day following the release of the Company’s financial results for the prior fiscal year. The exercise price of the stock options is equal to the closing share price of Saia common stock on NASDAQ on the grant date. The Company’s equity plans strictly prohibit re-pricing of stock options. All stock options granted to date have been non-qualified stock options.

All stock options granted to date vest on the basis of passage of time, subject to earlier vesting upon a change in control and, as to Mr. O’Dell, subject to his employment agreement described below. The Committee believes time-vested awards encourage long-term value creation and executive retention because generally executives can realize value from such awards only if the Company’s stock price increases and they remain employed at Saia at least until the awards vest.  Providing for a vesting period over a number of years also helps ensure against executives taking excessive or unnecessary risks that might threaten the long-term value of the Company.

In February 2016, the Company granted a total of 134,250 stock options to the Named Executive Officers, representing 64% of the total stock options granted at that time. Stock options granted in February 2016 have an exercise price equal to the closing share price of Saia stock on the date of grant and a three-year cliff vesting

29

schedule and a seven-year term. The grant date fair value of the stock options was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

For awards made in 2017, the value of each stock option award was reduced to 25% of the total long-term incentive award for the executive using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The stock option percentage was reduced in 2017 to facilitate the addition of restricted stock grants. In February 2017, the Company granted a total of 35,720 stock options to the Named Executive Officers, representing 64% of the total stock options granted at that time. Stock options granted in February 2017 have an exercise price equal to the market closing price of Saia stock on the date of grant and a three-year cliff vesting schedule and a seven-year term.

Commencing in February 2015, the stock option grants (other than those made to Mr. O’Dell) have included non-competition and employee and customer non-solicitation provisions, as well as provisions designed to protect Saia’s intellectual property. As described below, Mr. O’Dell’s employment agreement already includes non-competition and employee and customer non-solicitation provisions.

See the “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” section for a description of the effect of termination of employment or a change in control of the Company on the stock options awarded to the Named Executive Officers.

Performance Stock Units

Fifty percent of the Named Executive Officers’ long-term incentive opportunity is awarded in performance stock units. The role of performance stock units is to reward executives for long-term value creation relative to peer companies. Since the size of the peer companies is not critical in assessing relative total stockholder returns, the peer group used for performance stock unit comparison (“PSU Peer Group”) is broader than the peer group used for determining base salaries, annual incentives and long-term incentives. The PSU Peer Group includes public companies in the broader transportation industry, regardless of revenues, because this provides a wider spectrum from which to determine rewards tied to the creation of longer-term stockholder value. The companies included in the PSU Peer Group for open performance periods are as follows:

30

Performance stock units are paid in shares of the Company’s common stock.  The number of shares of stock that are paid to a participant is based on the total stockholder return of Saia compared to the total stockholder return of the PSU Peer Group over a three-year performance period. Total stockholder return is calculated by taking the average closing common stock prices for the 60 days prior to the beginning of the performance period and comparing it to the average closing common stock prices for the 60 days prior to the end of the performance period. At the end of the performance period, the percentile rank of the Company’s total stockholder return is calculated relative to the total stockholder return of each of the peer companies. Any peer company that is no longer publicly traded is excluded from this calculation. Over the performance periods beginning in 2015, 2016 and 2017, the payouts will be determined as follows:

Because the amount of an executive’s payout is based on the Company’s total stockholder return compared to that of members of the PSU Peer Group over a three-year period, the exact amount of the payout (if any) cannot be determined at this time. The Committee generally makes the performance stock unit grants each year in February at the time of grants of stock options. The payout associated with the Company’s percentile rank is based on the chart above with payouts interpolated for performance between the 25th and 50th percentiles and the 50th and 75th percentiles. The Committee believes that setting the payout percentage based on the Company’s total stockholder return over the three-year measurement period compared to that of the PSU Peer Group aligns the incentive value with the interest of stockholders. Aligning the incentive value with the interests of Saia stockholders further helps to ensure against executives taking excessive or unnecessary risks that might threaten the long-term value of the Company.

For awards made in 2017, if the Company’s total stockholder return for the three-year performance period is negative, any payouts of the target incentive are reduced in half. For example, if the Company’s total stockholder return is negative, but the PSU Peer Group results are such that the Company’s total stockholder return compared to the PSU Peer Group is at the 50^th percentile, the associated payout percentage will be 50%, not 100%. Previously, if the Company’s total stockholder return over the performance period was negative, no payouts of performance stock units were made for the performance period, even if Company performance was strong compared to other companies in the peer group. Given the cyclical nature of the transportation industry, the Committee made this change to reward executive performance relative to the PSU Peer Group in instances of an economic downturn affecting the entire industry and to conform to peer group practice generally.

Payouts for the performance stock units are made in shares of common stock in order to reduce earnings volatility associated with cash based awards. The number of shares paid is based on the number of shares of target stock awarded to an executive and the Company’s total stockholder return relative to the peers as described above.

The following table details the payouts for the performance stock units over the last three years:

Performance stock unit awards are not scheduled to be paid out, if at all, until the first quarter of 2018 for the performance period beginning in 2015, the first quarter of 2019 for the performance period beginning in 2016 and the first quarter of 2020 for the performance period beginning in 2017.

31

In February 2016, the Company granted performance stock units for 46,421 shares (at target) to the Named Executive Officers, representing 64% of the total target units granted at that time. In February 2017, the Company granted performance stock units for 28,180 shares (at target) to the Named Executive Officers, representing 64% of the total target units granted at that time.

See the “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” section for a description of the effect of termination of employment or a change in control of the Company on the performance stock units awarded to the Named Executive Officers.

Restricted Stock Awards

The Company has traditionally used restricted stock grants from time to time to address concerns about long-term executive retention, as part of a total compensation package granted upon initial hiring of an executive and to recognize the significant promotion of an executive. Restricted stock grants have historically vested over a five year period in order to promote executive retention.

In connection with promotion to Chief Customer Officer on May 1, 2015, Mr. Ramu received 3,651 shares of restricted stock of the Company (initially valued at $150,000 using the closing price of Saia common stock on NASDAQ on the grant date). The shares of restricted stock vest 25% on May 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019, with the remaining 50% vesting on May 1, 2020. The restricted stock award immediately vests upon a change in control of the Company.

On February 9, 2016, Mr. Holzgrefe received 18,215 shares of restricted stock of the Company (initially valued at $500,000 using the closing price of Saia common stock on NASDAQ on the grant date) in recognition of his strong performance as Chief Financial Officer since joining the Company and to promote executive retention.  These shares of restricted stock vest 25% on February 9, 2019, and February 9, 2020, with the remaining 50% vesting on February 9, 2021. In connection with joining the Company as Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer on September 10, 2014, Mr. Holzgrefe received 7,936 shares of restricted stock of the Company (initially valued at $400,000 using the closing stock price on the grant date). The shares of restricted stock granted in 2014 vest 25% on September 10, 2017, and September 10, 2018, with the remaining 50% vesting on September 10, 2019. Both restricted stock awards immediately vest upon a change in control of the Company.

In February 2017, the Committee elected to use restricted stock as a part of the long-term incentives granted for 2017.  The value of the restricted stock grants was equal to 25% of the target long-term incentive award for the executive.  The Company granted a total of 14,089 shares of restricted stock to the Named Executive Officers, representing 64% of the total restricted stock awards granted at that time. Restricted stock granted in February 2017 has a three-year cliff vesting schedule. The Committee elected to add restricted stock to the long-term incentive awards to better align the Company’s long-term compensation practices with its peers and for executive retention.

See the “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” section for a description of the effect of termination of employment or a change in control of the Company on the restricted stock granted to the Named Executive Officers.

Other Benefits and Perquisites

Benefits

The Company provides customary employee benefits to substantially all employees, including the Named Executive Officers. These benefits include paid holidays and vacation, medical, disability and life insurance and a defined contribution retirement plan. The defined contribution retirement plan is a 401(k) savings plan to which employees may elect to make pre-tax contributions. The Company has the discretion to match 50% of all employee contributions, up to a maximum employee contribution of 6% of annual salary.

32

Deferred Compensation Plan

In addition to the benefits provided to all employees, the Company has established for officers (including all of the Named Executive Officers) and certain other employees a Capital Accumulation Plan, which is a non-qualified deferred compensation plan. The deferred compensation plan was implemented to motivate and promote the retention of key employees by providing them with greater flexibility in structuring the timing of their compensation and tax payments. The Committee believes that the Company’s deferred compensation plan provides a valuable benefit to senior executives with minimal cost to the Company.

The Company typically makes an annual discretionary contribution under the Capital Accumulation Plan for each participant equal to 5% of his or her base salary and annual incentive payment. In addition, to the extent a participant’s contribution to the 401(k) savings plan is limited under restrictions placed on “Highly Compensated Employees” under ERISA, the participant may elect to contribute the amount so limited to the Capital Accumulation Plan. To the extent the Company is unable to match participant contributions under the 401(k) savings plan because of the ERISA limitations, the matching contributions will be made by the Company to the Capital Accumulation Plan. The Company’s regular annual 5% contribution has a five-year vesting period.

The Capital Accumulation Plan also allows a participant to make an elective deferral each year of up to 50% of base salary and up to 100% of any annual incentive plan payment. The participant must irrevocably elect the base salary deferral before the beginning of the year in which compensation is being paid and the annual incentive deferral no later than six months into the performance period.

The Capital Accumulation Plan provides the same investment options to participants as are available under the 401(k) savings plan, except that participants may also elect to invest in Saia stock under the plan. Participants may elect to transfer balances between investment options without restriction at any time throughout the year, except that any investment in Saia stock is an irrevocable election and upon distribution that investment will be paid out in Saia stock, rather than cash. Vested plan balances become distributable to the participant upon termination of employment subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

Perquisites

The types and amounts of perquisites provided to the Named Executive Officers have been determined by the Committee with input from Mercer based on perquisites granted to comparable officers by companies in the executive compensation review peer group. The Company provides these perquisites because many companies in the peer group provide similar perquisites to their Named Executive Officers, and the Committee believes they are necessary for retention purposes. However, the perquisites that the Company provides are generally fewer and less valuable than those provided by members of the peer group. The Committee reviews the perquisites provided to the Named Executive Officers in an attempt to ensure that the perquisites continue to be effective in the retention of executive talent and appropriate in light of the Committee’s overall goal of designing a compensation program that maximizes the interests of Saia’s stockholders.

The perquisites provided to the Named Executive Officers for 2016 include the following (see the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table):

33

Post-Employment Compensation

The Committee believes that severance and change in control arrangements are an important part of overall compensation for the Named Executive Officers because they help secure the continued employment and dedication of the Named Executive Officers notwithstanding any concern the executives might have regarding their own continued employment. The Committee also believes that these arrangements are important as a recruitment and retention device, because many of the companies with which Saia competes for executive talent have similar agreements for their senior employees.

Commencing in February 2015, stock option grants (other than options granted to Mr. O’Dell) included non-competition and employee and customer non-solicitation provisions, as well as provisions designed to protect Saia’s intellectual property. In conjunction with entering into these restrictive covenants in 2015, the Company entered into severance agreements with each employee who received a stock option grant at that time, including each of the Named Executive Officers other than Mr. O’Dell (Mr. O’Dell’s severance arrangements are governed by the terms of his employment agreement and Executive Severance Agreement). These severance agreements provide for severance payments equal to 12 months of base salary for any employee whose employment with Saia is involuntarily terminated without cause as defined in the agreements. To receive the severance payments, the employee must sign a general release of claims against the Company and must comply with the employee’s obligation under any other agreement with the Company, including the restrictive covenants in the employee’s stock option agreement. The employee will not receive payments under this agreement if the employee is otherwise eligible to receive payment under the Executive Severance Agreement described below.

The Company has entered into change in control agreements with each of the Named Executive Officers (the “Executive Severance Agreements”). These agreements include a “double trigger,” meaning they provide for severance payments and other benefits only if there is a change in control of the Company and only if after the change in control the executive’s employment is terminated involuntarily (other than for cause) or voluntarily with good reason within two years after the change in control. The Executive Severance Agreements are reviewed periodically by the Committee to ensure they are consistent with the Company’s compensation philosophy.  The Committee also receives input from Mercer and outside legal counsel to confirm that the agreements remain generally consistent with competitive practices. The Committee believes these agreements reward service and tenure and help to address the need for financial security for key executives when employment ends.

The specific payments to be made to the Named Executive Officers upon termination of employment in connection with a change in control of the Company under the executive severance and change in control agreements are based on peer group and general industry practices and are described in the “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” section.

Employment Agreement

To provide an incentive for executive retention and help support certain non-competition and non-solicitation provisions, the Company entered into an employment agreement with the Chief Executive Officer in 2006. Mr. O’Dell’s employment agreement is for a two-year initial term (renewing daily) and provides for a minimum base salary. The Committee with the assistance of Mercer establishes Mr. O’Dell’s salary on an annual basis consistent with the discussion under 2015, 2016 and 2017 Executive Compensation Decisions – Base Salary, subject to the minimum base salary provided in the employment agreement. The employment agreement includes a severance payment and benefits to Mr. O’Dell in the event of his employment termination under certain circumstances. All severance payments and benefits under the employment agreement are conditioned upon Mr. O’Dell’s compliance with the non-disclosure, non-competition and employee and customer non-solicitation provisions of the employment agreement. The Company believes these provisions help ensure the long-term success of the Company and facilitate executive retention.

The material terms of the employment agreement are reviewed periodically by the Committee with input from Mercer and outside legal counsel to confirm that they remain generally consistent with competitive practices. The Committee believes it is important to continue this employment agreement with Mr. O’Dell to provide continuity and stability in the Company’s leadership.

34

The payments to be made to Mr. O’Dell upon termination of employment or a change in control of the Company under his employment agreement are described in the “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” section.

Oversight

Compensation Committee

The executive compensation program is administered by the Committee, which is made up entirely of independent directors. The Committee establishes base salaries, determines specific grants of long-term incentives under the Company’s Omnibus Incentive Plan and makes specific annual incentive awards under the Bonus Plan for the Named Executive Officers. A complete description of the Committee’s responsibilities is provided in the Committee’s charter which is approved by the Board of Directors and can be found on the Company’s website (www.saiacorp.com) under the Investor Relations section.

The Committee annually reviews the Company’s compensation philosophy, the overall design of the compensation program and the design elements of each component of compensation. In making annual decisions about compensation for the Named Executive Officers as described in the tables above, the Committee takes the following factors into consideration, although none of these factors is determinative individually:

Compensation Consultant

The Committee has retained Mercer US, Inc. (“Mercer”) as its executive compensation consultant to provide information, analysis and advice regarding executive and director compensation. While it is necessary for the Committee’s independent consultant to interact with management to gather information, the Committee has adopted protocols governing if and when the consultant’s advice and recommendations can be shared with management. The Committee regularly meets with the Mercer consultant outside the presence of management to discuss executive compensation philosophy and specific levels of compensation and to ensure that Mercer receives from management the information required to perform its duties on a timely basis. The Committee formally evaluates the performance of Mercer on an annual basis and may terminate the services of Mercer at any time.

For 2016, the Company paid Mercer $95,251 for executive and director compensation services rendered to the Compensation Committee. Mercer is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (“MMC”). For the past few years, including during 2016, the Company has used Marsh USA, Inc., an affiliate of MMC, to provide insurance brokerage services, based on a determination made by management in consideration of the expertise of Marsh USA, Inc. in providing insurance brokerage services for the transportation industry. The Company paid Marsh USA, Inc. $569,928 in fees in 2016 for such insurance brokerage services (this amount does not include insurance premiums that are paid through Marsh USA, Inc. to insurance carriers on behalf of Saia).

35

In connection with the Committee’s consideration of the independence of Mercer, the Committee confirmed with Mercer that:

In its evaluation of the relationship with Mercer, the Committee also reviewed the protocols used by the Committee in its dealings with Mercer which include:

Following this assessment of the relationship of Mercer and its affiliates with the Company, the Compensation Committee concluded that Mercer’s work for the Committee does not raise any conflict of interest and that Mercer qualified as independent.

Risk Assessment in Compensation Programs

The Committee regularly assesses the Company’s compensation programs, policies and practices and believes that they do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Committee assessed the Company’s executive and broad-based compensation and benefits programs to determine if they create undesired or unintended risk of a material nature. Although the Committee reviews all executive compensation programs, it focuses on those programs with variability of payout, and reviews the ability of a participant to directly affect payout, the controls on participant action and actual payouts. Saia’s culture supports the use of base salary, performance-based compensation, and retirement plans that are generally uniform in design and operation for all levels of salaried employees.

The Committee does not believe Saia’s compensation programs encourage employees to take unnecessary or excessive risks. The following features of the compensation programs help to mitigate risk taking:

36

Based on the foregoing, the Committee believes that Saia’s compensation policies and practices do not create inappropriate or unintended significant risk to the Company as a whole. The Committee also believes that Saia’s incentive compensation arrangements do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage significant risks; are addressed by effective internal controls and the risk management practices of Saia; and are supported by the oversight and administration of the Compensation Committee with regard to executive compensation programs.

Other Compensation Policies

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Because the Company is committed to aligning the executives’ interests with those of Saia stockholders, the Board has adopted stock ownership guidelines for all officers who are eligible to receive long-term incentives, including all of the Named Executive Officers. The number of shares each officer is required to retain is determined by multiplying his or her current base salary by the multiple noted below and dividing by the current share price. The current guidelines for the Named Executive Officers are as follows:

Executives are to satisfy the guidelines within five years of becoming subject to the guidelines. Until the guidelines are met, executives are encouraged to hold 75% of the realized share value (net of taxes) attributable to option exercises, performance stock unit payouts and vesting in restricted stock. The Committee reviews the stock ownership guidelines at each regular meeting of the Committee and monitors the progress towards, and continued compliance with, the stock ownership guidelines. The types of equity counted for purposes of the stock ownership guidelines are common stock, including restricted stock, and Company stock units held in the deferred compensation plan.

37

Although there are no formal penalties for not fulfilling the requirements of the ownership guidelines, non-compliance may affect future equity awards. The foregoing sets forth the Company’s current ownership guidelines for executives. The Board (or any committee designated by the Board) may, at any time, amend, modify or terminate the guidelines in full or in part. The Board (or any committee designated by the Board) may also grant waivers of the guidelines in the event of special circumstances or as otherwise determined advisable or in the best interest of the Company in given circumstances.

Prohibition Against Short Sales, Hedging and Margin Accounts

Employees subject to the Company’s insider trading policies, including the Named Executive Officers, may not engage in short sales of Saia common stock or in transactions involving puts, calls, or other derivative securities or in hedging transactions with respect to the Company’s stock. Additionally, such employees, including the Named Executive Officers, are prohibited from holding Saia stock in a margin account and from pledging Saia common stock as collateral for indebtedness.

Clawback Policy

The Board of Directors has adopted a policy that provides that the Company will, to the extent permitted by governing law, require reimbursement of all or a portion, as applicable, of any performance-based compensation paid to any participant in the Company’s long-term incentive plans where (a) the payment was predicated upon the achievement of certain financial results that were subsequently the subject of a material restatement, and (b) a lower payment, or no payment, would have been made to the participant based upon the restated financial results. In each such instance, the Company will, to the extent practicable, seek to recover the amount by which the individual participant’s performance-based compensation exceeded the amount that would have been paid based on the restated financial results, plus a reasonable rate of interest.

Tax Policies

In establishing the cash and equity incentive compensation programs for executive officers, the Committee believes that the potential deductibility of the compensation payable under those programs should be only one of a number of relevant factors taken into consideration, and not the sole or primary factor. The Committee believes that cash and equity incentive compensation must be maintained at the requisite level to attract and retain the executive officers essential to Saia’s financial success, even if all or part of that compensation may not be deductible by reason of the limitations of Section 162(m).

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, imposes a $1 million limit on the amount that a public company may deduct for non-performance based compensation paid to the company’s CEO or any of the company’s three other most highly compensated executive officers (other than the CFO) who are employed as of the end of the year. The Company’s annual and long-term incentive plans have been structured with the intent of meeting the exception to this limitation for “performance-based” compensation, as defined in Section 162(m), so that these amounts may be fully deductible for income tax purposes. However, annual incentive payments for years prior to 2016 and grants of restricted stock do not qualify as “performance-based” compensation. To maintain flexibility and the ability to pay competitive compensation, we do not require all compensation to be deductible.

Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code regulates deferred compensation that was not earned and vested prior to 2005. The Committee considers Section 409A in determining the form and timing of compensation paid to executives.

Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code limit Saia’s ability to take a tax deduction for certain “excess parachute payments” (as defined in Code Sections 280G and 4999) and impose excise taxes on each executive that receives “excess parachute payments” related to his or her severance from the Company in connection with a change in control. The Committee considers the adverse tax liabilities imposed by Code Sections 280G and 4999, as well as other competitive factors, in structuring certain post-termination compensation payable to the

38

Named Executive Officers. The potential adverse tax consequences to the Company and/or the executive, however, are not necessarily determinative factors in such decisions.

Accounting Policies

The Company accounts for its employee stock-based compensation awards in accordance with ASC Topic 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation. ASC Topic 718 requires that all employee stock-based compensation is recognized as a cost in the financial statements and that for equity-classified awards such costs are measured at the grant date fair value of the award.

39

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT
OF SAIA, INC.

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has submitted the following report for inclusion in this Proxy Statement:

Our Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis contained in this Proxy Statement with management. Based on the Committee’s review of and the discussions with management with respect to the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and in this Proxy Statement.

The foregoing report is provided by the following directors, who constitute the Committee:

Compensation Committee Members
John J. Holland, Chair

Randolph W. Melville

Jeffrey C. Ward

40

2016 SUMMARY COMPENSATION

The following table sets forth the compensation awarded to, earned by or paid to the Named Executive Officers for services rendered in all capacities within Saia during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

41

The Company is a party to an employment agreement with Mr. O’Dell, dated October 24, 2006, as amended. The employment agreement is for a two year initial term (renewing daily) and provides for a base salary that is to be reviewed annually, with the amount of such base salary not to decrease from the rate then in effect without Mr. O’Dell’s consent. The agreement also provides that Mr. O’Dell is to participate in the Company’s annual bonus plan, long-term incentive award plan and other benefits that are or may become available to senior executives of Saia. Mr. O’Dell’s agreement includes non-competition and customer and employee non-solicitation provisions that continue during the term of Mr. O’Dell’s employment and until two years after the date he ceases to be employed by the Company. The agreement also includes provisions designed to protect the intellectual property of Saia. See “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control — Employment Agreement — Richard D. O’Dell” for additional provisions concerning benefits available upon termination of employment.

On February 9, 2016, Mr. Holzgrefe received 18,215 shares of restricted stock of the Company (initially valued at $500,000 using the closing price of Saia common stock on NASDAQ on February 9, 2016) in recognition of his strong performance as Chief Financial Officer since joining the Company and to promote executive retention.  The shares of restricted stock vest 25% each on February 9, 2019, and February 9, 2020, with the remaining 50% vesting on February 9, 2021. In connection with joining the Company as Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer on September 10, 2014, Mr. Holzgrefe received an initial compensation package structured to be consistent with the compensation paid to the retiring Chief Financial Officer, adjusted for changes in market compensation. The package was comprised of an annual base salary of $325,000, a guaranteed bonus for 2014 of $195,000 and 7,936 shares of restricted stock of the Company (initially valued at $400,000 using the closing stock price on the grant date). The shares of restricted stock granted in 2014 vest 25% on each September 10, 2017 and September 10, 2018 with the remaining 50% vesting on September 10, 2019. Each of Mr. Holzgrefe’s restricted stock awards immediately vest upon a change in control. See also “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” for additional information that could affect the vesting of the restricted stock awards and details concerning Mr. Holzgrefe’s change in control severance agreement.

On May 1, 2015, in connection with his promotion to Chief Customer Officer, Mr. Ramu received 3,651 shares of restricted stock of the Company (initially valued at $149,983 using the closing price of Saia common stock on NASDAQ on May 1, 2015).  The shares of restricted stock vest 25% each on May 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019, with the remaining 50% vesting on May 1, 2020.  Mr. Ramu’s restricted stock award immediately vests upon a change in control.  See also “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” for additional information that could affect the vesting of the restricted stock award and details concerning Mr. Ramu’s change in control severance agreement.

42

ALL OTHER COMPENSATION

The following table sets forth the detail of other compensation awarded to, earned by or paid to Saia’s Named Executive Officers for services rendered in all capacities within Saia during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

43

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

The following table sets forth the detail of grants of plan-based awards to Saia’s Named Executive Officers for services rendered in all capacities during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. See further details regarding these grants in the description of “Long-Term Incentives” beginning on page 28 of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included above.

2016 Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table