How to Plan a Mixed Container Order for Different Chair Models

A furniture wholesaler needed to restock upholstered dining chairs, add metal bar stools to its kitchen furniture range and introduce accent chairs for the first time. The buyer kept the new category small while giving priority to dining chairs with an established sales record.

After selecting quantities, the buyer confirmed the packing details with us:

The 30 accent chairs represented about 5.5% of the unit count but 21.1% of the packed volume. Looking only at the number of chairs would have understated the space committed to the trial.

The buyer retained the 30-chair trial quantity and kept the main purchasing allocation with the proven dining chair range. We then assessed the loading arrangement against carton sizes, gross weights and stacking limits. The 57 m³ total was a planning input, not a guarantee that the order would fit a particular container.

An importer planned to purchase 400 dining chairs together with bar stools. The original dining chair packaging held two chairs per carton in an 80 × 60 × 50 cm box.

After reviewing the chair structure, we proposed packing the legs separately within each carton. The revised carton still held two chairs, with external dimensions of 60 × 60 × 50 cm.

The packaging comparison showed a reduction of 12 m³, or 25%. At 0.150 m³ per bar stool carton, that space was equivalent in volume to 80 bar stool cartons. This was a volume comparison; the loading layout and weight still had to be checked before confirming any additional quantity.

The buyer also needed to compare assembly labor, hardware control, instructions and protection for the separated parts. A packaging sample was the point at which to verify those details before approving the production arrangement.

The measurable benefit was lower packed volume. It should not be described as a 25% reduction in the shipment’s freight bill: the saving depends on whether the change affects the equipment, number of shipments or other charged services.

A furniture retailer ordered light-colored upholstered dining chairs and metal bar stools. The dining chair cartons weighed 16 kg each; the bar stool cartons weighed 24 kg each. Their external dimensions were different.

During the loading review, the buyer identified the risk of heavy cartons resting on boxes with insufficient compression strength, unsupported carton edges and movement during transport. Filling whichever gaps remained would not have resolved those problems.

Before loading, we checked the permitted stacking layers and load-bearing capability of both carton types, arranged internal protection for the upholstery and metal parts, and reviewed the upper and lower carton positions against the confirmed packaging limits. The plan also addressed weight distribution, gap filling and cargo securing. Carton markings identified the model, color, quantity and relevant handling instructions.

The IMO/ILO/UNECE CTU Code provides guidance on packing and securing cargo transport units. It is a useful reference for loading discussions, but it does not replace the assessment of a particular chair package and load. [1]

For the 550-chair order described earlier, the ocean freight amount allocated across the products was USD 3,420. Dividing it equally across all chairs would give an average of approximately USD 6.22 per chair.

The buyer instead allocated that amount over the order’s 57 m³ of packed volume:

This revealed the problem with the unit average: assigning USD 6.22 to every chair would substantially understate the accent chair’s share of ocean freight. That would weaken the buyer’s pricing and margin calculation for the new range.

These figures cover the ocean freight amount in this order only. They exclude duties, destination charges, inland transport and storage. The volume allocation was an internal costing method, not a carrier’s separate quotation for each model or a freight rate available for another shipment.

When comparing supplier quotations, align the named delivery terms and locations and list which charges are included. Otherwise, a lower quoted price may simply cover fewer services.

A wholesaler ordered three chair types for one container. The dining chairs and bar stools were complete, but the accent chairs needed another ten days because of a fabric delay.

The buyer compared waiting for all three models with shipping the finished products first. Based on the revised shipping schedule and stock position, the buyer estimated that waiting could cause USD 1,800 in lost contribution margin on the dining chairs. The freight forwarder’s split-shipment option added approximately USD 950 in total costs compared with shipping together.

On that comparison, splitting deserved priority if the earlier shipment would actually shorten the stockout. The USD 850 was the difference between the decision estimates, not a claim of verified profit after delivery.

For another buyer with sufficient stock to cover the wait, the additional shipment might be unnecessary. Before deciding, confirm the revised completion date, both arrival schedules, the second shipment’s charges and the cost of receiving goods twice.