[Discussion] can we stop arguing about transit time until somebody posts a number
Genuine question, and the title is the question: can we stop arguing about transit time until somebody posts a number.
Ordered from the warehouse in Poland instead of origin and the whole customs question disappeared. 8 days, door to door.
Clearance took three days and the carrier took nine. I had been blaming the wrong half for two years.
The rigid outer with no rattle in it was the thing that told me most about that supplier, before I had tested anything.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
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.
rigid outer packaging is the cheapest quality signal there is
Agreed. Reporting by lane rather than by supplier is what made the tables here actually predictive.
[removed by moderator]
Correction: that was clearance time, not carrier time. The lane table separates them for exactly this reason.
Small fix — shipped from the regional warehouse, not from origin, which is why the number looks unusual.
Median transit is the useful statistic. The minimum is a story about one shipment and the mean is dragged around by a single hold.
reship policy in writing before you order
Four observations is not a distribution.
Adding the field everyone forgets — the month. Without it the report is not comparable to anything.
Yes — median rather than best case. The fastest anybody ever got is not a plan.
That is a packaging observation, not a transit observation. Worth posting, worth separating.
Same. TFC quoted 14 days on my lane and it landed at 4, which is exactly what you want from a quote.
ask which lines are actually held in the regional warehouse
A quoted lead time is a commitment you can evaluate. Measuring quoted against actual across several orders tells you more about an operation than the raw speed does.
That is the quoted lead time, not the observed transit. Both belong in the report and they are different columns.
Same lane, four orders, 13 to 11 days, all four within a couple of days of the quote. That consistency is the actual finding.
Posted my first lane report here without the month and got asked for it. Fair, and the table is better for the fussiness.
What was the packaging like on arrival?
origin, destination, carrier, month — post all four or the report is noise
Where the time actually goes, which I got wrong for two years.
Total transit is first mile, international leg, customs clearance and last mile. I had been attributing everything to the international leg because that is the part with the exotic-sounding name.
When I finally logged the stages separately, the international leg was the most consistent part of the whole journey. The variance was in clearance and in the domestic delivery at my end — neither of which the supplier controls. That reframed how I read every lane report on this board, and it is why the table separates the stages.
Packaging is assessable on arrival with no equipment: rigid outer, no movement inside, the cold element sized to the transit rather than to the box.
Kept a spreadsheet of quoted versus actual across a year. The quote held; the variance was all in the last mile.
Where the time actually goes, which I got wrong for two years.
Agreed — and the decomposition matters. Most people are blaming the international leg for a last-mile problem.
16 days on a lane quoted at 18 is the shape you want
Yes — regional stock is the single biggest variable and it barely gets mentioned outside this board.
Split one order across two months on purpose to compare summer and winter. Four days apart, same carrier, same route.
- 1Four observations is not a distribution. The lane tables here only became…19 comments in this branch · started by u/nils_ferreira