Talk:Third-party logistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If some organization is a Third Party Logistics provider, who is the First and Second party?

Maybe if you were to think about it for a second you would figure it out. 1st party is the supplier and 2nd party is the company buying the product that was being stored by the 3rd party logistics provider.

Actually, the third party may never have ownership nor possession of the product at all. Rather it is just someone besides the Supplier and the Purchaser who arranges shipping or provides other logistics services, like freight bill payment..

Third party has no responsibility or ownership in the qulaity of the product at delivery, they don't care what the customer really want. Its still up to the First party to answer to the customer when alls wrong, as the customer will always come back to them.

Reply: The answer to the question (who are the 1st and 2nd parties) is simple. They are the Shipper and Consignee. The 3rd party is a facilitator. The 3rd party arranges and is billed for a freight shipment for which they are neither the shipper nor the consignee (hence the "3rd party" designation) and they in turn bill their customer, who may be the shipper or consignee, or a vendor or distributor acting on behalf of the shipper or consignee.

Simply put, the 3rd party is not a party to any transaction which causes freight to be shipped. Their role is to function as an intermediary to get their customer better pricing and service than they would get on their own. The 3rd party has two interests: pleasing their customer and making a profit. Spottacus 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Party Logistics

I have merged the 4PL article in here, because I cannot see that it warrants a separate article. I have moved all the text across, but I have omitted the list of 4PL vendors. --RichardVeryard 08:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that was the right thing to do. The term 4PL is just an unnecessary affectation, as far as I'm concerned. By the definition provided, a 4PL is merely what has long been known as a "non asset-based 3PL", which is described in the 3PL article. Giving 4PLs their own section in this article is a reasonable compromise with those who disagree.Spottacus 19:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between the two definitions of 4PL given. Both opinions [1. non-asset-owning service provider and 2. broader scope, managing (more of) the entire supply chain] are valid. Article should reflect this. Also 5PL is defined sometimes as broadening the scope further to e-business.

Good grief. Listen, 3PL stands for 3rd party logistics. These other inventions, 4pl and 5pl, are merely obnoxious affectations. The company in question is still nothing more than a 3rd party providing logistics consulation or management, no matter how advanced or far-reaching their service might be. So they're still 3PLs, the only difference is that they've invented a gimmicky title to set them apart from the crowd.Spottacus 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)