The rise of dimensioning machines will make LTL trailer space allocation more efficient than ever. It will also eventually end shippers' 80-year free rate ride.
Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
For nearly eight decades, less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers have been giving away their trailer space. Not all of it, obviously. But enough to make a difference in their revenues and profits, and enough to have provided shippers with backdoor rate cuts that have kept on giving since Franklin D. Roosevelt was president.
Change doesn't happen overnight in the hidebound LTL trade. But change is in the air, and it's being driven by so-called dimensionializing, or dimensioning, machines that precisely calculate the amount of space a shipment will occupy in a trailer. The machines allow the carrier to price its capacity based on the amount of space a shipment takes up, and not rely on a 78-year-old commodity classification formula that, over time, has robbed carriers of billions of dollars of legitimate revenue, often due to the carriers' own missteps.
The machines measure a shipment's dimensions—arrived at by multiplying length, width, and height—and provide proof of their calculations. A high-end "static" machine designed to measure stationary objects sells in the low to mid-$80,000s. The payoff can be rapid—30 to 60 days, depending on how a carrier uses the machine and how it calculates return on investment (ROI), according to Jerry Stoll, market manager-Americas, transportation and logistics for Columbus, Ohio-based equipment maker Mettler-Toledo International Inc. Stoll said he's seen strong demand from carriers looking to put new shippers who may never have been exposed to the classification-based rating system on space-occupied pricing right away.
Clark Skeen, president of CubiScan, a Farmington, Utah-based manufacturer of dimensioning systems, declined to give ROI data mainly because his customers are loath to give them. "I've been told that if they divulged details of the machines' value, they'd fear we'd have to raise our prices on them," he joked.
Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., a Thomasville, N.C.-based carrier, has used dimensioning equipment since 2009. By year's end, YRC Worldwide Inc., based in Overland Park, Kan., will have installed 38 "dimensioners" in facilities operated by YRC Freight, its long-haul unit. Shift Freight, an LTL carrier based in Santa Fe Springs, Calif., has used dimensioners exclusively since its launch in 2013. Carriers like UPS Freight and FedEx Freight, LTL units of highly visible companies that have used dimensioners in their parcel operations for decades, are going that way as well, though neither will force their customers to follow along.
SUN SETS ON CLASS RATES
As the equipment gains popularity, the sun appears to be slowly setting on the old formula used to rate LTL shipments. The National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC) system, developed during the Great Depression by the National Motor Freight Traffic Association, classifies goods based on four elements—density, stowability, handling, and liability—that reflect a shipment's "transportability." However, William W. Pugh, general counsel of Dynarates, a consultancy, said the ratings from the system are not derived from the dimensions of the actual shipment. "Rather, the NMFC class is typically based on the average density of a nonscientific sample of products that may be quite different from the products comprising the shipments, although they are covered by the same item," he said.
For example, two shipments of skateboards may have different densities, may occupy differing amounts of space per trailer, and should be priced accordingly, Pugh said. Instead, they are given the same rate because the classification system indicated that they are the same product, he added. Pricing the skateboards based on their dimensions and their fit in a trailer ends this confusion, Pugh said.
For many carriers, dimensioners can't come soon enough. By relying on metrics that don't accurately calibrate their cost of carriage with what they should charge, carriers routinely misclassify their freight and underprice their trailer space, experts said. It is commonplace for carriers to use tape measures and rulers to estimate a shipment's configuration and how it fits in a trailer. They are also in the somewhat discomfiting position of accepting a shipper's information at face value.
Jett McCandless, chairman of Shift Freight, estimated that carriers leave 7 to 9 percent of revenue on the table due to misclassifications. Satish Jindel, president of consultancy SJ Consulting, reckoned the figure is in the mid- to high-single-digit range.
To complicate matters, once a misclassification is identified, a carrier has to take time to research it and go back to the shipper or intermediary with the correct information. This often leads to upward price adjustments, not to mention time and expense on the shipper's part for auditing the bills and haggling with the carrier.
ORIGINS OF THE SYSTEM
The truck class rate system was patterned after a similar structure already used by the railroads. NMFC compliance was required by law until the trucking industry was deregulated in 1980. There are 18 pricing classes categorized in numerical order. The lower-numbered classes apply to items like bricks and mortar that have the highest weight range per cubic foot and thus qualify for the lowest rates. Higher-numbered classes apply to lighter-weight items like Ping-Pong balls and deer antlers that have low weight ranges per cubic foot and are generally charged the highest rates.
Ironically, the system does what it was originally intended to do: establish a rate class based on a shipment's proper density. McCandless said that as long as a shipment is correctly classified, the class rate almost always correlates with the shipment's density. McCandless thought the scenario of widespread misclassifications unimaginable until he detected an obvious pattern in his company's transactions. Shift uses the traditional system to rate its shipments once they've been run through the dimensioners.
The problem, according to McCandless and others, lies not in the formula but in the implementation. Never a first-mover in technology, the LTL industry still lacks the visibility into what's coming its way, making it hard to accurately price what it can't see. Only 30 percent of LTL shipments are today tendered via electronic manifesting, according to Jindel. By contrast, he noted that 95 percent of all parcel shipments hit the carriers via electronic means, a testament to the obsession that UPS and FedEx have with IT-driven precision.
The classification methodology has also failed to keep up with the times. It was not designed to accommodate the changes in modern-day production methods, where goods tend to be lighter and generally cube out in a trailer before they weigh out. Jindel cites the example of footwear, where the classification was changed about four years ago to reflect the increasing use of lighter materials swaddled in excess packaging to create bulkier dimensions. It was the first time in 26 years that class rates for the commodity had been updated, he said.
There is also a desire of shippers to maintain the upper hand they've held in pricing. Some shippers misclassify shipments by accident or out of ignorance, experts said. Some do it deliberately to obtain lower rates. Some are just more effective negotiators than their carrier counterparts are. It could be a combination of all three. Whatever the case, carriers afraid to lose business have routinely acquiesced to the shipper's input, giving what Jindel characterized as a "free ride" to shippers for many years.
Because carriers lack the means to precisely measure a shipment's dimensions, they often resort to "Freight All Kinds" (FAK) rates, pricing that applies to a hodgepodge of items classified at different levels. About half of all LTL shipments are classified as FAK, according to Jindel. Though rates based on FAK classifications sometimes reflect accurate freight charges, often they do not. The industry would experience a mid-single-digit improvement in operating revenue if all FAK shipments were replaced with a class rating for each shipment, Jindel said.
SHIPPER PUSHBACK
Unsurprisingly, carriers are encountering shipper resistance to changing the status quo. Though Old Dominion has pushed dimensional pricing for five years, it has had few shipper bites, according to Chip Overbey, senior vice president, strategic planning. Most of the support instead comes from Old Dominion's third-party partners, which account for about 25 to 30 percent of its customer base, Overbey said. Those customers tender such large volumes that they don't want to be bothered with the intricacies of the class rate structure, Overbey said.
Todd Polen, Old Dominion's vice president of pricing and costing, said the carrier tries to show shippers that moving from class to dimensional rates would eliminate arduous negotiations over commodity classes, end freight payment disputes, and preclude the need to constantly update classification criteria. "The simplicity is the sell," Polen said. "You can't promise freight savings."
Yet the pledge of back-end efficiencies has so far failed to persuade shippers who don't want to allocate resources to change their legacy systems, according to Overbey. Old Dominion has offered to use its own dimensionalizing machines to measure the freight. However, many customers are loath to relinquish such a level of control to a vendor, no matter how trusted, Overbey said.
C. Thomas Barnes, who was recently hired to run the fledgling LTL business of broker Coyote Logistics LLC, said dimensioners will not go mainstream, and shippers will not be forced to use them, until 70 to 80 percent of the largest LTL carriers by revenue roll them out. The industry is far from that threshold, he said. Two or three are truly prepared, while several others are in testing but are not active with a formal process and IT platform to support the equipment, Barnes said.
In addition, carriers will need to understand how they can use these tools to rationalize their own costs, which will, in turn, put them in a better position to discuss pricing options with shippers, Barnes said. That, too, will take time, he said.
Jindel of SJ said the days of shippers strong-arming their carriers in rate negotiations have disappeared as capacity tightens, demand strengthens, and carriers maintain the pricing discipline they've shown for the past three or so years. As dimensioners gain traction, shippers will find themselves paying more and sacrificing service to keep the status quo, or they will work to improve the density of their shipments, according to Jindel. The latter approach has much potential as LTL shippers have never paid a great deal of attention to optimizing the physical characteristics of their freight, he said.
Pugh of Dynarates said the space-occupied model will open up new avenues of shipper-carrier collaboration. They could more effectively coordinate pickup and delivery times to minimize carrier costs, and fill excess capacity at locations where the equipment is located, he said. Shippers could streamline their packaging methods to occupy less space on a trailer and receive rate reductions as a result, he added.
Sophisticated shippers will acknowledge that the move away from the class system is "inevitable" and that they will welcome a shift from the "mystery and needless complexity" inherent in it, according to Pugh. Those shippers reluctant to embrace change will likely be the ones who lack the clout to prevent it, he added.
Overbey of Old Dominion said the carrier is confident the classification system will eventually disappear as shippers recognize the benefits of a dimension-based model. But the legacy systems will be around for a while, and it may take action by a very prominent shipper to meaningfully move the needle, he added.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."