Consolidated freight (LTL, less-than-truckload) is when you ship not a full truck, but only part of its capacity, sharing transportation with other shippers. Sounds logical: you pay only for your “slice” of space—so you save money. And often that’s true. But LTL has its own personality: more transloading, more control points, and more chances for “one package went somewhere” or “it was packed fine, but arrived… sad.”
A common beginner mistake is comparing LTL and FTL only by the base rate. In reality, the gain comes not from “the format itself,” but from choosing the right scenario: when the deadline allows a delivery window, packaging is prepared, labeling is rock-solid, and the receiving/claims process is not at the level of “we’ll text in chat.” Let’s break down when LTL is truly profitable, which risks pop up most often, and how to build a process so savings don’t turn into a paid adventure.
What it is: LTL is shipping “part of a truck,” while FTL is “a full truck.”
How it’s measured: volume (m³), weight (kg), pallet spaces, and sometimes loading meters.
Why it matters: if you regularly load 70–90% of a truck, LTL may be more expensive and riskier than FTL. In LTL, you pay for the consolidation/sorting process—not only for the road.
What it is: cargo is gathered at a terminal, sorted by destination, transloaded to the line-haul vehicle, then sorted again in the destination region.
How it’s measured: by the number of terminals/transloads (1–3 or more) and the time spent at each.
Why it matters: each transload adds risk of damage/mis-sort and adds time. The more complex the lane, the more packaging and labeling matter.
What it is: LTL lead time is usually a range (“3 to 7 days”), not a fixed date.
How it’s measured: average transit time plus variability (stability often matters more than the average number).
Why it matters: if you have strict receiving windows or penalties for lateness, LTL may be a poor fit even with an attractive rate.
What it is: LTL is often charged by whichever is greater: actual weight or volumetric weight (based on m³), and density (kg/m³) is frequently considered.
How it’s measured: weight (kg), volume (m³), and density (kg/m³).
Why it matters: light but bulky cargo (“air in the box”) becomes surprisingly expensive. Classic example: soft products shipped in oversized cartons without packaging optimization.
What it is: loading/unloading, storage, relabeling, repacking, delivery to address, carry-up, waiting time, etc.
How it’s measured: as separate line items in invoices and conditions defined in the SLA.
Why it matters: LTL stays “cheap” until add-ons kick in. And they kick in often—and not always with a warning—if you didn’t agree on them upfront.
| Parameter | What to check | Why it’s critical for LTL |
|---|---|---|
| Number of packages | How many boxes/pallets and how they’re labeled | More packages = higher mis-sort risk |
| Packaging | Rigidity, corner protection, stretch wrap, crating | Transloads “love” weak packaging |
| Density | kg/m³ | Determines whether you pay for weight or volume |
| Lead time | Range and stability | Terminals increase variability |
| Surcharges | Storage, address delivery, carry-up, waiting | Can wipe out the “savings” |
When it fits: small batches, regular shipments, standard cargo with no special requirements, lead time can be a corridor, typical addresses.
Pros: lower cost for small volumes; easy to scale; you can build a shipping schedule (e.g., twice a week).
Limitations: less time flexibility; dependence on terminal and line-haul schedules; consolidation can introduce delays.
Risks: damage during transloads; package mis-sorts; harder to prove when damage occurred without photo evidence.
When it fits: many small shipments going to the same direction, but you want to reduce mis-sort risk and control packaging quality.
Pros: better control; fewer terminal-side operations; you can optimize packaging and density, reducing the tariff.
Limitations: requires warehouse resources: space, staff, and process discipline; strong labeling and completeness checks are mandatory.
Risks: if warehouse control is weak, you “consolidate chaos” and end up with bigger problems than you started with.
Scenario 1: starting point—an e-commerce store ships 10–15 small orders per week to different cities. Actions—switched to LTL via a terminal network; introduced “package/total packages” labeling, mandatory photo evidence, and a packaging standard. Result—cost per order dropped and “missing packages” became rarer because disputes became easier: everything is documented.
Scenario 2: starting point—a manufacturer ships small batches to one distributor, but the cargo is fragile and often gets damaged during transloads. Actions—kept LTL but reinforced packaging (rigid cartons, corner protection, proper palletizing) and reduced extra transloads by choosing a route with fewer terminals. Result—damage decreased while LTL savings remained. We’ve worked in this field for over 13 years—and by industry feel, LTL is “not about luck,” it’s about discipline in packaging and documents.
1) When is LTL definitely profitable?
When you ship small batches, you have regularity, and you don’t need a strict “deliver at this exact hour.” Plus, you can ensure solid packaging and labeling. With all that in place, LTL usually delivers savings on total cost.
2) Why does LTL damage cargo more often than FTL?
Because of transloading and sorting. In FTL, cargo typically travels “as one piece” from shipper to consignee. In LTL, it’s handled more times. It’s not “bad,” it’s just reality—and you manage it with packaging and control.
3) What is the most important thing to implement in an LTL process?
Three things: standardized packaging, unique labeling of every package, and strict receiving/claim discipline. Without these, LTL becomes a lottery. With them, it becomes a controllable cost-saving tool.