MXPA03000331A - Shared freight rate system and invoicing method. - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method and system for establishing freight rates or shipping charges associated with shipping goods in the trucking industry. More specifically, the present invention relates to a method for establishing the appropriate charge for shipping a partial load of goods when those goods are combined with other goods on the single truckload. The resulting system provides a shared cost/split invoicing system for combined less-then-truckload (LTL) shipments that: (i) is simple to implement, (ii) reduces the possibilities for human error, and (iii) fairly reflects each customer s fair and proportional cost to transport its goods from its selected point of origin to its selected destination. Also provided is the invoice resulting from the shared cost/split invoicing system which advantageously shows the customer both the charges for its portion of the combined load and how they were determined, while at the same time offering the customer a significant savings over prior art invoicing methods for shipping the same partial load.

Description

SYSTEM OF SHARED FREIGHT RATES AND BILLING METHOD REFERENCE TO RELATED REQUESTS This application claims priority of the provisional application of E.U.A. No. 60 / 217,197, filed July 10, 2000.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to a system and method for establishing freight rates or shipping costs associated with the shipment of items in the trucking industry, particularly partial loads.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The trucking industry supplies the shipment of a variety of items to a variety of locations. A single shipment of truck cargo often comprises items from numerous customers. Therefore, it is necessary to establish an appropriate expense for each client and for each particular shipment. The prior art to determine a shipping cost lower than a truck load (LTL) is a system that is based on rate tables, based on the classification of items and that follows a complex pattern. The system that is based on rate tables requires referring to a significant number of individual tables of tables, often by several different employees simply to perform the steps that are needed to determine the shipping cost. In the system that is based on tariff tables, the shipping cost is decided through a series of determinations and basic calculations for a particular load. First, the article is classified using the National Fleet Engineer Classification (NMFC) book. The NMFC groups the articles into 18 classes based on four mixed transport characteristics, prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Surface Transportation Board of the Department of Transportation. The four characteristics are 1) density; 2) storage capacity; 3) ease or difficulty of handling; and 4) risk. Thus, the NMFC classes are mainly based on the density and description of the product. The entire charging system is then based on this classification. Then, the basic point of origin and the basic point of destination are identified, to determine the total shipping distance. The total shipping distance is an additional factor that is used to generate the shipping rate for each shipment. Next, the customer chooses a carrier. The carrier applies the tariff or valuation based on the NMFC classification and the specific charging system of the carrier. The ability of each carrier to develop their own pricing system is another consideration for the customer, when choosing a carrier. Following this, a weight class is identified based on the weight of the shipping item. The weight class provides a range of weights that correspond to a specific valuation or rate. The carrier compares the identified number of the weight class and the NMFC classification number for the item, in order to determine the rate by class valuation. Then, the article's weight is multiplied by the class / 50 valuation rate, to determine the basic expense or subtotal shipping expense without deficit for the items. In addition, the carrier typically applies an additional expense for weight deficit by the amount of weight of the shipment that is below the normal weight. The expense of the weight deficit is added to the basic expense to obtain a gross shipping cost. And, finally, some discounts negotiated between the carrier and the customer are applied to determine the total shipping cost. The convoluted nature of the prior art system results from the existence of several tariff agencies established by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). With more than a dozen tariff agencies, each having its own shipping publications and dominating certain agencies to others, the complexity associated with determining the expense of the shipping fee is inevitable.

As can be seen, the prior art method requires referring to a number of different data sources, which are usually found in a variety of different books, catalogs and tables, while tracking deficit weights and shipping discounts. The system is a cumbersome and inefficient method to establish shipping costs. The significant possibility of human error when calculating rates is inherent in the existing methodology. The multiplicity of tasks that must be performed and the sources of data that must be consulted, combine to increase the probability of producing an incorrect * determination of the shipping costs. In effect, entire companies have been formed with the sole purpose of reviewing shipping rates and recovering erroneous expenses. In addition, the prior art method for determining such expenses is time consuming, expensive and difficult to learn. Additionally, in the system that is based on LTL tariff tables of the prior art, the cost of transporting a partial freight charge is based only on that portion of the cargo, i.e. the cost is determined independently of any other freight carried in the cargo. same shipment. Thus, the amount that the customer pays is predetermined, regardless of how much additional load of other customers is carried in the shipment. As a result, in the prior art, the rates collected from a combination of customers may exceed what is really necessary to cover the municipal, administrative and other costs for which it was designed and tried to consolidate the rate. As a result, customers may in many cases be paying excessive or disproportionate fees that do not reflect shipping costs that are otherwise economically justifiable for certain cargo shipments combined. Therefore, until the present invention, there was a need remaining in the art for a system to determine the loading costs for combined LTL shipments that: (i) is simple to carry out, (ii) reduce the chances of Human error and (iii) clearly reflects the proportional cost of each client to transport their items from the point of origin to the point of destination.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION The present invention provides a greatly simplified method of establishing shipping costs for combined LTL shipments. The method of the present invention avoids the need to use tariff tables and load classifications of the National Classification of Engine Fleet (NMFC), reducing the complexity of determining freight expenses and thus reducing the margin of human error. The method of the present invention also reduces the cost to the customer in comparison with the costs according to the system that is based on tariff tables of the prior art. The present invention establishes a fixed flat rate that is based on the weight of the bill of lading for each client, as a portion of the total shipment weight. According to the system of the present invention, each paying customer pays for the transported items a fair and proportioned shipping cost through a system of shared costs and divided billing. The invention provides a method of setting a shipping cost for combined shipments less than a truck load, based on the weight portion of a customer's freight of the total weight of the shipping freight, which comprises: calculating the total shipping rate total for the dispatch based on the total route mileage and the single shipping rate; calculate the cost per metric quintal per shipment based on the weight in metric centiles of the shipment (total weight of the shipment in kilograms, divided by 50); determine the weight in metric cents of the client's items in the shipment; and calculate the shipping cost for the customer. After the route has been determined, the total mileage is calculated by adding together all the mileage between each stopover on the route and using the postal codes of each location. The single shipping rate is determined by the dispatch, multiplying the total kilometers of the route by a fee for each kilometer negotiated with the client. The total shipping rate for the shipment includes the single shipping rate for the shipment, plus any additional fees and expenses. The weight in metric quintals of the customer's items is the weight, in kilograms, of the customer's shipment divided by fifty. The shipping cost of the customer is the weight in metric kilograms of the customer multiplied by the cost of the weight in metric centiles of the shipment. The shipping cost per customer is thus only the LTL freight weight portion of the customer's combined truck load shipment. The invention further provides a method of billing a customer of an LTL shipment based on the customer's portion of the total weight of the combined cargo, comprising: populating a database; insert data from any bill of lading to a computer system linked to the database; process the data for a selected route; and create an invoice for each customer's portion of the combined load on the route. According to the method, the populated database comprises the shipping route and the single tariff data. The processing of the data • also includes creating a total rate for the dispatch, calculating the weight in metric centres of the client and its cost. The invention also provides the invoice produced in accordance with the present methods and the shipping cost of a customer for the portion of freight weight less than a truck load (LTL) of a combined shipment of truck cargo. The resulting billing for each client includes the following data for each customer in a combined load: the bill of lading, the weight of each bill of lading and the sum of all bills of lading for the combined cargo, in which the invoice is prorated per client The billing for each client includes expenses and an amount to pay for each bill of lading, the cost per metric quintal for the client and the total amount to be paid for the portion of the combined load of that client. As a result, the invoice produced for each customer in accordance with the present methods is specific to the freight weight portion of the combined shipment of that customer's truck load. These and other objects, features and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent, if the drawings are taken into consideration, as well as the detailed description.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS The above brief description will be better understood, as well as the following detailed description of the invention, if read in conjunction with the appended drawings. For the purpose of illustrating the invention, certain modalities that are currently preferred are shown in the drawings. It should be understood, however, that the invention is not limited to the precise arrangements shown. Figures 1 and 2 are exemplary invoices illustrating a shipping charge, using the shared freight system in accordance with the present invention for a shipment of 381.5 kilograms of metallic material from Lake Bluff, IL to Fayette, AL. Figure 1 shows an exemplary invoice for the customer, Arvin Exhaust, for the first shipment section. Figure 2 shows an exemplary invoice for the same Arvin Exhaust customer, for the second tranche of the shipment.

Figure 3 shows an invoice for the same shipment that is invoiced in Figure 1, to which items from an additional customer have been added.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION The invention provides a method for determining a shipping cost and a method for billing shipments less than a truck load (LTL) based on the portion of the total weight of the customer's shipment. The system of shared load to establish a shipping cost and bill each client provides a system of pricing based on the freight weight of the items - of the customer as a portion of the total freight weight of the shipment. An embodiment of the present invention is described with the example and compared and contrasted with the system based on tariff tables of the prior art, although the description is not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Thus, in order to illustrate the advantages of the shared freight system of the present invention, an example using the system based on the above tariff is first described. This is followed by an exemplary embodiment of the present invention that shows a determination of the shipping expense, using the system of shared costs and split billing, which is followed at the same time by the description of the split billing method that is associated with the same.

I. - Determination of a shipping cost using the prior art system Tables 1 to 3 illustrate a shipping expense calculation for a real shipment in February 1994, using the system based on previous tariff tables. The shipping cost calculated for a shipment of 381.5 kilograms of metallic material, in the form of automotive components, from Lake Bluff, IL to Fayette, AL. it is $ 109.28. The following describes the numerous steps to arrive at the shipping cost according to the system that is based on tariff tables of the prior art. First, in this actual LTL shipment sketch, a truck • picked up the shipment from its local customer in Lake Bluff and shipped it to an "activity center facility" in Chicago, IL. An "activity center facility" is a facility used to combine and distribute items with common destinations. While they were at the Chicago activity center facility, items were classified according to the NMFC. The article was classified according to the appropriate classification of articles, established in the NMFC book. The NMFC classifications are based on the weight, density, fragility of the article and whether or not it is hazardous material. In this case, the article of metallic material was classified as class 70 of the NMFC. Following this, the basic points of origin and destination, ie the postal codes for Lake Bluff, IL (60044) and Fayette, AL, were identified (tables 1 and 3). (35555). Then, the transporter was chosen. The carrier chosen for this shipment was USF Holland. The carrier then applied a rate type developed by the carrier, in this case, TNT 502. Once the carrier was chosen, a database provided by the carrier provided diagrams, as shown in tables 1 to 3, to generate the rate. Once classified, items that had regional style common to a truck were loaded for transport to another activity center facility. In the present example, the second activity center was located in Nashville, TN, where the load is divided for transportation to smaller facilities of activity centers. For the items destined for Fayette, AL, the minor activity center facility would typically be "Birmingham, AL in Birmingham, the freight for dispatch was divided to the designated final destinations, for example Fayette, AL. Table 1, in this example, the article weight of 381.5 kilograms is between the weight class of M5C with a normal weight of 226.8 kilograms and M1M with a normal weight of 453.6 kilograms.When an article weight falls within the classes of weight, the rate used in the prior art is the smallest either of the weight of the article multiplied by the highest rate, or the weight of the article multiplied by the lowest rate plus the weight deficit multiplied by the lowest rate. The diagram shown in Table 1 has determined the weight range for this calculation and shows the maximum article weight for each weight class rate.Thus, as shown in Table 1, the weight of item or 381.5 kilograms according to the methods of the prior art would use the tariff of the M M class with an additional expense of weight deficit.

TABLE 1 Origin 60044 Destination 35555 Class 70 Weight range Weight rate MC 85.54 197 L5C 43.46 415 M5C 35.99 759 M1 M 27.32 1618 M2M 22.11 3530 M5M 15.61 7770 M10M 12.13 13652 M20M 8.28 24057 M30M 6.64 34698 M40M 5.76 - next class SHIFT + - class previous < - To move window - > ESC - Exit The expense of the weight deficit is based on the difference between the weight of the article and the normal weight of the weight class. Thus, an article weight of 381.5 has a weight deficit of 453.6 - 361.5 or 72.1.

As shown in Table 1, the class type rate for the origin and destination of the carrier of the present example, an NMFC classification of 70 and a weight class M1M, was 27.32. (This class type fee is also described in the NMFC class tables compared to the weight classes shown in table 4). The weight is multiplied of the articles by the class type rate / 50 to determine the basic shipping cost without deficit for the articles, ie 381.5 kilograms X $ 27.32 / 50 = $ 208.45. Next, the deficit expense was calculated, multiplying the weight deficit in kilograms by the class type rate. It was calculated that the expense of the weight deficit was 72.1 kilograms X $ 27.32 / 50 = $ 39.40. The basic shipping expense and the deficit of the peso were added to obtain a gross shipping cost, that is, $ 208.45 + $ 39.40 = $ 247.85 (table 2).

TABLE 2 TTN 502 Postcode of origin 60044 IL Postcode of destination 35555 AL Rate base # 00700B Finally, any discounts, agreed between the client and the carrier, are applied to the gross shipping cost to obtain the total shipping cost. As shown in table 2, in the present example that shows the methods of the prior art, the 60% discount was applied, the which equaled $ 247.85 X 0.6 = $ 148.75. Subtracting this discount from spending gross shipping of $ 247.85, the total expense for shipping 381.5 kilograms of NMFC class 70 items from Lake Bluff, IL to Fayette, AL was $ 109.28 (table 3).

TABLE 3 Class Weight Rate Expenditure 70 381.5 27.32 229.76 Deficit 72.1 27.32 43.44 Gross 453.6 273.20 Discount LTL 60.00% -163.92 Net Expense $ 09.28 ne F5 - options F7 - calculator is F6 - class notes < off > ESC - EXIT II.- Determination of a shipping cost, using the present system of shared freight In contrast to the methods of the prior art, figures 1 and 2 and table 4 reflect the simplified and less expensive mechanics of sending the same 381.5 kilograms of metallic material from Lake Bluff, IL to Fayette, AL, using the shared freight billing system of the present invention. Unlike the shipping expense systems of the prior art, the system of the present invention avoids all use of rate tables and thus eliminates the inherent complexities and potential for human error associated with such rate tables. The present system charges a user in proportion to the weight contribution of his articles to the total weight of a shipment. Accordingly, shipping costs are fairly and logically distributed among the various customers who pay to make a typical LTL shipment. As a result, in most cases the shipping costs paid to send certain items, using the shared freight billing system of the present invention, may be substantially less than those paid to send the same weight of items, using a system conventional that is based on the tariff tables. As shown in Figures 1 and 2 and Table 4, the shipment of items from Lake Bluff, IL to Fayette, AL involves a multi-leg trip. * In the first tranche, you can send the freight from Lake Bluff, IL to an activity center facility in Alexandria, IN. Total mileage, on round trip from Lake Bluff, IL to Alexandria, IN, as shown in Figure 1, for the dispatch used in this example, made on April 7, 2000, was 806.8 kilometers. First, a "single shipping rate" is determined by the entire truck, based on the total mileage and not based on the items that are shipped as in the system based on rate tables. Specifically, the "single shipping rate" is equal to the total mileage multiplied by a rate for each kilometer negotiated with the customer. In the first section of the present example, the rate for each kilometer negotiated with the client, for the Arvin Exhaust customer, was $ 0.709808 per kilometer. Thus, the single shipping rate in this example was 806.8 kilometers per 0.709808 per kilometer = $ 572.65 (rounded) for the round trip. As shown, there were no additional expenses or credits associated with this shipment. Therefore, the total total shipping rate for the round trip shipment was $ 572.75. The trucking industry uses the "metric quintal" to calculate the shipping costs, using the shipping weights. The "metric quintal" is the total weight divided by 50. Thus, the "cost per quintal metric" is the cost per 50 kilograms of freight. The use of the peso in metric quintals and the cost per metric quintal provides a means to understand the continuous costs regardless of the volume. Therefore, the weight of the freight carried by the truck for the round trip is divided in the first place by 50. In the present example, the weight of the total freight, 3,535.8 kilograms, divided by 50 is 70.7 kilograms. calculate the cost for each metric quintal, the total shipping cost is divided by the total freight weight (metric quintal) Thus, in the present example, the cost per quintal per shipment is $ 572.35 / 70.7 kilograms = $ 9.00 Therefore, since 381.5 kilograms (or 7.63 metric tons) of cargo are shipped at a cost for each metric quintal of $ 9.00, the shipping cost for sending 361.5 kilograms of items from Lake Bluff, IL to the facility of activity center of Alexandria, IN, using the shared freight billing system of the present invention, is $ 68.67 (7.63 quintales X $ 9.00 for each quintal metric) (table 4).

Similarly, Figure 2 shows the cost of the second tranche of the Alexandria, IN Activity Center facility trip to the final destination of Fayette, AL. As seen in Figure 2, the total mileage, in round trip, from Alexandria, IN to Fayette, AL for the dispatch used in this example, made on April 10, 2000, was 1773.5 kilometers. Also, the single shipping rate for the entire truck is determined, based on the total mileage and not on the items that are shipped. As stated previously, the single fare is equal to the total mileage multiplied by a fare expense for each kilometer negotiated with the customer. The second section of the present example, the tariff expense for each kilometer * for the Arvin Exhaust customer is $ 0.709808 per kilometer. Thus, the single shipping rate is 1773.5 kilometers X $ 0.709808 per kilometer = $ 1, 528.84. As in the previous example there were no additional expenses or credits associated with this shipment. Therefore, the total shipping rate for the round trip shipment was $, 258.84. The cost is then determined for each metric quintal for that shipment. The total freight weight carried by the truck for the second section was 27,181.6 kilograms, in round trip. The total price divided by 50 is 27,131.6 / 50 = 542.6 kilograms. The total shipping rate is then divided by the total weight to obtain the cost per metric quintal. In the present example, the cost per metric quintal for the second tranche is 1, 258.84 / 542.6 kilograms = $ 2.32 for each metric quintal.

Thus, since 381.5 kilograms (or 7.63 quintales metric) of cargo are shipped at a cost per metric quintal of $ 2.1875 for each metric quintal, the shipping cost for sending 381.5 kilograms of goods from Alexandria, II to Fayette, AL, using the shared freight billing system of the present invention is $ 17.70 (7.63 quintales metric X $ 2.32 per quintal metric) (table 4). Therefore, as shown in Table 4, the cost of the total shipment to the customer for the shipment from Lake Bluff, IL to Fayette, Al, using the shared freight system, is% 79.48 ($ 61.78 + $ 17.70). The savings made using the shared freight system, compared to the * conventional shipping that is based on rate tables, is therefore $ 29.80 - or 27.3% ($ 109.28 - $ 79.48).

TABLE 4 Shared pricing $ 79.78 (total) It is understood that the individual weight of the bill of lading of the paying customer, the total weight of round trip shipping, fuel rates and other parameters are subject to variation with each day and each shipment. As a result, the savings made by a paying customer, using the present invention as compared to conventional shipping based on tariff schedules, will also vary. This is because, in the shared freight weight system of the present invention, the customer pays only his portion of the freight weight of the total shipping freight weight. Additionally, the shared freight system overcomes the problem of the prior art, in which the customer is charged a fee independent of the contribution of the weight of the customer's items to the weight of the total shipment. In the shared freight system, not only the cost of the client is always based on its portion of the total shipping weight, but since the total weight of the shipment is increased, the cost per each metric quintal decreases for each individual customer. As shown in figure 3, the addition of the articles of another client (Tenneco) in the first tranche of the shipment (of the Lake Bluff stretch) significantly decreases the shipping cost for the client of the present example, Arvin Ex aust. As described earlier in Figure 1, with the total shipping freight weight of 3535.8 kilograms, the cost per metric quintal for Arvin Exhaust was $ 8.0978 per one-hundredth metric. With the added items, the total shipping freight weight of Figure 3 is 17,233.3 kilograms or 344.7 quintals. Using the method of the present invention for this shipment, the cost per each quintal metric for Arvin Exhaust is then calculated as $ 572.65 / 344.7 kilograms = 1.6613 for each quintal metric. Thus, the cost of shipping the 381.5 kilograms (or 7.63 quintals) of cargo is $ 12.68 (7.63 quintales metric X 1.6613 for each quintal metric). With the addition of more items to the shipment, the cost for each quintal metric for Arvin Exhaust is reduced from 9.00 to 1.6613 and the cost is also reduced from $ 61.78 to $ 12.68. Consequently, the greater the total weight of the articles per round trip, the lower the total shipping cost burden of each paying customer, according to the present invention. As each paying customer uses the available space and weight of the truck more fully, each paying customer benefits by reducing the cost per one-hundredth metric. Thus, using the present invention, cost savings are restricted only by the cubic capacity of the truck and the remote weight limitations of the Department of Transportation (DOT).

III. Billing method of the shared freight system. The shared freight system also provides a unique system for billing customers. Normal customer information, such as the billing method, minimum expenses, credits and fixed costs. At the initiation of each route of shipment, the route information is loaded (populates) to the computer system, for example identification of all the scales, total kilometers, trips and bridge expenses. It also inserts the individual costs of the tariff for each kilometer of the client. Thus, the previous loading of the computer system makes it possible for the carrier to request any or all routes for a particular day. Once the Information has been loaded into the computer system, the information is then available to track shipping and billing routes. The specific information about the client is inserted for each route, as the truck proceeds through the route. For example, information about each bill of lading is transmitted to the computer for insertion. As a result, both the information for each client and for the total dispatch is then available on the computer. The insertion of the appropriate weight for the articles of each client allows the generation of the invoice based on the weight of the client's articles as a portion of the total weight of the shipment. Figures 1 and 2 show exemplary "split" invoices for a specific customer for a selected route. The "divided" invoice is an invoice provided to a client, which shows unique information about the client together with specific information for that client and the same information specific to each client of a particular shipment. The percentage contribution by the client is therefore evident. A similar invoice is generated for each customer who participates in a particular shipment. In the exemplary invoice, the specific information displayed for each customer is a freight weight. The invoice lists all the customers that participate in the combined load of a selected route, with the specific weight contributions of each bill of lading identified for each client. Accordingly, since the invoice is based on the freight weight of the customer's items as a portion of the combined weight of the entire shipment, the invoice is prorated by customer. In the company of each customer identifier, the invoice shows: the bill of lading number; the outbound, return weight and the total of each bill of lading. It also shows the sum of freight weight for that customer. The total weights are added for each client and the total freight weight is shown by the dispatch. This allows each customer to examine their freight weight as a portion of the total shipping freight weight. Although the invoice for a specific route shows the * bill of lading weights for all customers participating in the route, only the one-time expenses for a particular customer are provided on that customer's bill. For example, the rate may vary for each kilometer negotiated by each client; thus, the single rate and the total rate shown on the invoice of a particular client applies only to the client on the selected route. Likewise, the expenses, such as the minimum expenses, for each client appear only in the invoice of that client. As shown in the exemplary invoice shown in Figure 1, the shipping route and the date are first identified as Lake Bluff, route # 2008d, operation date 07/04/2000. The total kilometers for the route are shown as 806.8. This information is not exclusive to a customer and will appear on all invoices for all customers on the particular route. It also shows the single rate, any additional costs and the total shipping fee. On the exemplary invoice of figure 1, the single rate of $ 572.64, without additional expenses or credits, results in a total shipping cost of $ 572.64, which is a cost that is exclusive to that particular customer. For these categories, similar information, unique to each customer, will appear on each customer's invoice for the particular route. The invoice then lists, segmented by customer, customer identification, bill of lading number, weight associated with each bill of lading and specific expenses segmented by customer. As shown in Figure 1, each invoice list: all customers, their bill of lading, the return weight, departure weight and the total for "each bill of lading and the total contribution in weight for each client participating in The combined load for the selected route Based on the exemplary invoice shown in Figure 1, the total weight for the customer, Arvin Exhaust, is 3,152.5 kilograms, and the total shipping weight of 3,535.8 kilograms is also shown on the exemplary invoice. Therefore, along with the list of each bill of lading, the invoice provides the customer, in this case Arvin Exhaust, with its freight weight as a portion of the total freight weight of the combined shipment. specific expenses for each bill of lading only on that customer's invoice In the present example, the shipment of the Arvin Exhaust customer, of 381.5 kilograms (bill of lading number 16771) generates a tariff of shipping of $ 61.78. Using the shared freight system described above, each bill of lading is itemized for the customer and the total gas for the customer is shown on the bill as $ 1167.36. Thus, the present billing method provides the customer with detailed information of the expenses. In addition, the invoice provides each customer with the information used to generate the expenses based on the customer's portion of the total freight weight of the combined cargo for the selected route. Thus, the present billing method not only advantageously shows the customer the expenses of their portion of the combined charge, but also how they were determined, while at the same time providing the customer with significant savings with respect to the billing methods of the prior art. to send the same partial load. Each and all of the patents, patent applications and publications cited in the foregoing specification are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. Although the foregoing specification has been described with respect to certain preferred embodiments and many details have been set forth for purposes of illustration, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the invention may be subject to various modifications and additional modalities and may be varied considerably. some of the details described herein, without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention. It is also intended that such modifications, equivalent variations and additional embodiments be within the scope of the appended claims.

Claims (18)

NOVELTY OF THE INVENTION CLAIMS

1. -A method of establishing a shipping cost for combined shipments smaller than a truck load (LTL), based on the weight portion of the total freight of the weight of the shipping freight of a customer, characterized because it comprises: calculating the total rate shipping by e! dispatch, based on the total mileage of the route and the single shipping rate; calculate the cost per metric quintal for the shipment, based on the metric quintals of the shipment, including additionally dividing the total weight of the shipment, in kilograms, by 50, determining the metric quintals of the client's items in the shipment; and calculate the shipping cost for the customer.

2. - The method according to claim 1, further characterized in that after determining the route the method additionally comprises calculating the total mileage, summing all the mileage between each scale on the route.

3. - The method according to claim 1, further characterized in that the total kilometers of the route are calculated from the postal codes for the origin of the dispatch and the destination of the dispatch.

4. - The method according to claim 1, further characterized in that the single shipping rate for dispatch is the total kilometers of the route multiplied by a rate for each kilometer negotiated with the customer.

5. - The method according to claim 1, further characterized in that the total shipping rate for the shipment includes the single shipping rate for the shipment, plus any additional fees and expenses that may be required.

6. - The method according to claim 1, further characterized in that the weight in metric quintals of the customer's articles is the weight, in kilograms, of the dispatch of the tooth divided by fifty.

7. - The method according to claim 1, further characterized in that the cost of shipping by the customer is the weight in metric kilograms of the customer multiplied by the cost per quintal metric of the shipment.

8. - The method according to claim 1, further characterized by the shipping cost produced according to the method of claim 1 for the portion of the weight of the LTL freight of a customer of a combined cargo truck.

9. - A method of billing a customer of an LTL shipment, based on the customer's portion of the total weight of the combined cargo shipment, characterized in that it comprises: populating a database; insert data from each bill of lading to a computer system linked to the database; process the data for a selected route; and create an invoice for each customer's portion of the combined load on the route.

10. - The method according to claim 9, further characterized in that the populated database comprises data on the shipping route and the single tariff.

11. - The method according to claim 9, further characterized in that the processing of the data further comprises creating a total rate for the dispatch.

12. - The method according to claim 9, further characterized in that the processing of the data comprises "additionally calculating the weight in metric centres of the client

13. The method according to claim 12, further characterized in that the data processing additionally comprises calculating the cost per weight in metric centres of the client. according to claim 9, further characterized by the fact that the billing for each client comprises the compilation of the following data for each customer in a combined load: information of each bill of lading, the weight of each bill of lading and the sum of all the bill of lading for the combined cargo and in which the information on the invoice is prorated by the customer 15. - The method according to claim 9, characterized in that the billing for each client includes: expenses and an amount to be paid for each bill of lading for the portion of that customer of the combined cargo. 16. - The method according to claim 9, further characterized in that the billing for each customer comprises the cost per metric quintal for the portion of that customer of the combined load. 17. - The method according to claim 9, further characterized in that the billing for each customer comprises the total amount to be paid for the portion of that customer of the combined cargo. 18. The invoice produced according to the method of claim 9 for the shipping cost of a customer for the LTL freight weight portion of the customer of a combined truck load dispatch.