[Question] New Zealand — has anyone got a straight answer on lane
New Zealand — has anyone got a straight answer on lane, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion.
Why this board reports by lane and not by supplier.
Two members ordering from the same operation, in the same month, can see completely different transit times because they are on different routes with different carriers and different clearance points. Averaging them produces a supplier-level number that predicts nothing for either of them.
A lane — origin, destination, carrier, month — is the smallest thing that behaves consistently enough to be worth measuring. Once a route has a dozen reports behind it the median is genuinely useful, and that is what the tables on the source pages are built from.
The rigid outer with no rattle in it was the thing that told me most about that supplier, before I had tested anything.
Clearance took three days and the carrier took nine. I had been blaming the wrong half for two years.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Four observations is not a distribution. The lane tables here only became predictive once individual routes had a dozen or more reports behind them.
Tracking number redacted. No exceptions on this one — it identifies both ends of a shipment.
[removed by moderator]
the median is more useful than the fastest anybody ever got
Disagree. That is a customs hold, not a carrier delay, and lumping them together makes the lane table wrong.
customs clearance time is not carrier time and they get conflated
Asked ERP which lines they hold regionally before ordering and got a straight list back. Changed what I ordered and when.
Origin, destination, carrier and month?
Origin, destination, carrier and month?
This is why the lane table is organised the way it is. The supplier is not the unit.
What was the packaging like on arrival?
What was the packaging like on arrival?
chidi_demir is right about regional stock. It changes the shape of the distribution, not just the mean.
Correction: that was clearance time, not carrier time. The lane table separates them for exactly this reason.
Push back: comparing a July transit with a February one on the same lane is not a comparison.
Split one order across two months on purpose to compare summer and winter. Four days apart, same carrier, same route.
Yes — median rather than best case. The fastest anybody ever got is not a plan.
Agreed. Reporting by lane rather than by supplier is what made the tables here actually predictive.
Small fix — shipped from the regional warehouse, not from origin, which is why the number looks unusual.
regional stock changes everything about transit
A lane is an origin, a destination, a carrier and a season. Change any one and the distribution changes, which is why supplier-level shipping averages are close to meaningless.
Agreed.
Agreed — and the decomposition matters. Most people are blaming the international leg for a last-mile problem.
Posted my first lane report here without the month and got asked for it. Fair, and the table is better for the fussiness.
Was it shipped from a regional warehouse or from origin?
That is the quoted lead time, not the observed transit. Both belong in the report and they are different columns.
- 1Four observations is not a distribution. The lane tables here only became…12 comments in this branch · started by u/protein_first_p
- 2Push back: comparing a July transit with a February one on the same lane is…8 comments in this branch · started by u/marta_trevino