EGW as gross weight qualifier

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

EGW as gross weight qualifier

kev160967
Hi,
Just seen your blog post on EGW as opposed to G as the gross weight qualifier. Coincidentally we have been making the same mistake until it was brought to my attention this morning. I'd like to switch to EGW, but we have a number of terminals receiving COPRAR from us using "G". I can't find anywhere official defining EGW, and before switching I'd like to be able to point anyone who complains at a suitable standards reference. Do you have one? Is it acceptable in 95B?

Also, less important, what do you make of the following:

   AAE    Item gross weight
             Gross weight at line item level.
   AAG    Gross weight (item level)
             Self explanatory.

Self explanatory to whom, I can't help wondering...

Kev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EGW as gross weight qualifier

gekseppe
Administrator
Hello Kev;

First of all welcome to the forum !

I have uploaded here ITIGG recommendation JM4/ITIGG/101/cor2.

It's about the use of the MEA segment within the EQD group and, in my personal opinion, it's a really good reference to point to in case of any complaints from your EDI customers :)

About codes AAE /AAG I have never used and no one of my customers asked about them...

I hope this help you.

Kindest regards,
Gekseppe
My EDI Notes admin

http://myedinotes.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EGW as gross weight qualifier

kev160967
Thanks Gekseppe, it's great to find a place like this, I was I had known about it for longer. I am the EDI "specialist" (for want of a better word) for a large UK company. We own ports, terminals and a few shipping lines, so deal with all manner of EDI. Whilst you can often find very good documentation online, this is the first place I've found where you can talk about it informally, and I'm looking forward to using it in the future :-)

Kevin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EGW as gross weight qualifier

gekseppe
Administrator
You are welcome mate ! :)
Gekseppe
My EDI Notes admin

http://myedinotes.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EGW as gross weight qualifier

kev160967
And our first complaint from ECT terminals in Rotterdam. Why am I so sure that despite being in the right I'm going to be coding a special exception rule!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: EGW as gross weight qualifier

gekseppe
Administrator
That's funny that just ECT, which in my personal opinion was on the top in UN/EDIFACT interchange, makes this kind of mistake :)

Have a look here in the COPRAR D95B MIG: they just refer to qualifier G as the Cargo Weight + Tare weight of the container...

If you want to get rid of any responsibility about weight/stowage cargo issues you could use this trick:

(...)
LOC+11+CAMTR:139:6'
LOC+7+CATOR:139:6'
MEA+AAE+T+KGM:4550'
MEA+AAE+G+KGM:22730'

TMP+2+012:CEL'
(...)

Then it's up to ECT choose what to do...
Gekseppe
My EDI Notes admin

http://myedinotes.blogspot.com