Talk:Freight forwarder

message: I doubt any of this information would be challenged by any editor, I don't think it required references! -- Librarianofages 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: There really is no need for separate pages on:
*Freight forwarder
*International Freight Forwarder
*Logistics
*Third-party logistics
*Non-vessel operating common carrier
These are all the same thing, just different 'buzz words' like the ridiculous '4PL' and even now more ridiculous '5PL'. Freight forwarders have re branded as Logistics providers and now re branding as 3PL. I know of haulage companies calling themselves logistics companies these days! These pages all need to combined, with a section in each explaining the difference, (if there really is much, as it depends on the company rather than the label). The pages and any other names can therefore be redirected to a main article. Any objections, and if so, please, please explain. --Pnb73 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NVOCC have to file a tariff much like a restaurant publishes a menu. The Freight Forwarder is much like the waiter who gets a tip and he does not have to file a tariff.  The NVOCC becomes the shipper and is liable for destination charges and ultimate fate of the ocean cargo shipment whereas the Freight Forwarder acts as the agent for the shipper on the Bill of Lading therefore any liabilities at destination fall on the shipper or consignee.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.207.43 (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess! 

message: Plus every single external link was promoting a company. I've removed them all. This page will bear watching. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with providing information on the freight industry is that the vast majority who know anything worth knowing about the industry are those actually working in it. And with profit margins so tight, they don't have time to spend on writing about themselves; or at least not without some Return on Investment. As long as the info is just that - information and not promotion i.e. "A freight forwarder is...." rather than "XYZ company is the best freight forwarder..."- I think it should be fine for companies to link to their sites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crofty84 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspam

message: Non Vessel Operating Container Carrier.  Should we add this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.9.200 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps checking the Federal Maritime Commission's website www dot fmc dot gov would be helpful in definitions and answers.12.14.47.2 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NVOCC 

message: Although I think this section is cool, it isn't encyclopedic--Test35965 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Typical day for a freight forwarder" 

message: I think the offending material was excised long ago.  I don't see any COI content - this reads like a normal article now.  I also made some other changes to clean it up a bit (see edit notes).Timtempleton (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the COI tag