As the second half of 2025 begins, the less-than-truckload (LTL) sector finds itself—like much of the freight market as a whole—facing both headwinds and ready to take on emerging opportunities. 

Recent tonnage reports paint a challenging picture for major LTL carriers. May data from industry leaders including Old Dominion, Saia, and XPO revealed continued year-over-year declines in tonnage per day and shipments, reflecting persistent sluggish demand from shippers. Manufacturing sector contraction through May has further dampened industrial freight volumes, though some carriers like ArcBest’s asset-based segment managed to buck the trend with a 6% increase in total tons per day. 

FedEx’s announcement of internal leadership for its anticipated FedEx Freight spinoff drew mixed reactions from Wall Street analysts who had hoped for external talent acquisition. Meanwhile, XPO reports seeing minimal direct conversion from LTL to truckload, contrasting with earlier trends observed by competitors as shippers previously capitalized on historically low truckload rates. 

Perhaps most significantly, the National Motor Freight Traffic Association’s (NMFTA) new classification system takes effect July 19, transitioning from traditional item-based classifications to a streamlined density-based structure. This change will impact approximately 45% of LTL activity and require updated systems and processes. 

The persistent invoicing challenge 

While market conditions and operational strategies vary significantly, one challenge remains remarkably consistent throughout the LTL space: invoicing complications. These administrative inefficiencies create cash flow issues and operational friction that carriers, brokers, and shippers can ill afford in today’s competitive environment. 

In this article, we’ll examine the most common LTL invoicing challenges and provide actionable strategies to address them effectively. 

Typical LTL invoicing pain points 

The invoicing landscape in LTL transportation presents challenges that impact carriers, shippers, and brokers alike. Understanding these pain points is essential for developing effective mitigation strategies. 

Billing discrepancies: The 30-40% problem 

Industry veterans consistently report that 30% to 40% of LTL invoices contain discrepancies where shipper expectations don’t align with actual billing. This figure represents a massive operational inefficiency. These discrepancies fall into two primary categories of roughly equal proportion: location-related service fees (such as residential and limited access charges) and reweigh/reclassification fees. 

The financial impact is substantial—these discrepancies can erode profit margins by 15-20% when assumptions about shipment volumes or pickup efficiencies prove inaccurate.  

Freight classification and dimension errors 

Inaccurate weight and dimension entries rank among the most frequent billing errors in LTL shipping. These mistakes create cascading effects throughout the billing process, leading to significant cost discrepancies between quoted and actual charges. When shippers’ recorded freight measurements differ from carriers’ dimensional assessments, costly reclassifications and chargebacks often result. 

To help address the issue, the new NMFTA classification system will begin to be used. This density-based approach will significantly hinder the existing use of Freight of All Kinds (FAK) as a blanket classification code. However, industry experts predict that measurement mismatches will increase substantially, creating additional bottlenecks in already strained billing processes. 

Accessorial charges: The hidden cost multiplier 

Unexpected accessorial fees represent a persistent challenge for LTL stakeholders. These charges can quickly accumulate and disrupt carefully planned budgets. Common accessorials include liftgate service, inside delivery, limited access location fees, detention charges, and re-delivery expenses. 

The challenge intensifies when these charges appear unexpectedly on invoices. Re-delivery fees, reclassification charges, and specialized handling requirements can substantially impact budget forecasts and increase operational costs. Without proper anticipation and planning, these accessorial charges become profit margin-eroding factors that many companies struggle to control. 

Payment term mismatches: The cash flow squeeze 

Payment term mismatches are a challenge in LTL payment cycles that particularly impacts freight brokers. These intermediaries face a classic cash flow squeeze: they must pay carriers within 30 days while shippers often take 60 to 90 days to settle invoices. This 30-60 day gap creates persistent cash flow challenges that force many brokers to seek financing solutions like factoring. 

This payment timing mismatch creates a particularly acute challenge for freight brokers, who serve as intermediaries managing relationships with both carriers and shippers while absorbing the financial risk of extended payment cycles. Carriers need prompt payment to maintain operations, while shippers operate on extended payment cycles that reflect their own cash flow management strategies. 

Manual processes and data entry vulnerabilities 

Despite technological advances, many LTL operations still rely heavily on manual data entry processes. These manual touchpoints increase error risks, leading to inaccuracies, delays, and billing disputes that consume valuable operational resources and brain power.  

The administrative burden extends beyond data entry. Manual invoice reconciliation, dispute resolution, and exception handling create inefficiencies that prevent teams from focusing on value-added activities. These processes often require specialized knowledge and consume disproportionate amounts of time relative to their contribution to operational success. 

Strategic recommendations for improving invoicing 

Addressing LTL invoicing challenges requires an approach combining technology investment, process optimization, and strategic planning. The most effective solutions create shared digital workspaces where brokers and carriers can collaborate in real-time to resolve discrepancies with structured, auditable workflows. 

Technology for billing and invoice matching automation 

Adopting systems that automate invoicing processes and integrate with existing platforms and APIs minimizes manual errors and improves operational success. Advanced platforms now leverage API and EDI integrations to automatically match broker TMS records with carrier billing systems, potentially automating resolution for the majority of routine invoices while flagging exceptions for human review. 

The automation approach can also include reconciliation capabilities that detect duplicate billing, validate fuel surcharge applications, and ensure contract compliance. By reducing manual touchpoints, companies can achieve the benefits of improved accuracy and reduced administrative overhead. 

Implement automated dimensioning systems 

Technology investment in automated dimensioning is an effective strategy for reducing classification errors. The sensors in these systems provide precise measurements in seconds, eliminating guesswork and human error from the freight classification process. Combined with integrated scales, dimensioning systems quickly calculate shipment density, which will be critical under the new NMFTA classification structure. 

Automated dimensioning systems often include photo-capture capabilities that help mitigate loss, damage, and shortage claims. When accurate dimensional data accompanies every bill of lading—preferably electronic BOLs—carriers gain the information needed for optimal daily planning. 

Conduct regular freight audits 

Comprehensive freight auditing identifies billing errors and process inefficiencies that might otherwise go unnoticed. Industry experience suggests that regular audits can generate cost savings between 2% and 5% of total transportation costs. These audits should encompass billing accuracy, contract compliance, accessorial charge validation, and carrier performance assessment. 

The most effective solutions create shared digital workspaces where brokers and carriers can collaborate in real-time to resolve discrepancies, replacing email chains and phone calls with structured, auditable workflows. 

Conclusion 

The LTL invoicing landscape presents significant challenges, but strategic approaches combining technology investment, process optimization, and performance measurement can dramatically improve outcomes. Industry leaders recognize that while approximately 75% of invoicing issues can be automated through proper system integration, the remaining 25% of complex cases require streamlined collaborative processes to prevent them from consuming disproportionate resources. 

As the industry continues evolving—particularly with the July 19 NMFTA classification changes—companies that proactively address invoicing inefficiencies will gain competitive advantages. 

TL;DR

The problem: 30-40% of LTL invoices contain billing discrepancies that erode profit margins by 15-20%. Freight brokers face a cash flow squeeze—paying carriers in 30 days while waiting 60-90 days for shipper payments. Manual processes compound errors and delays.

Key pain points:

• Billing discrepancies from location fees and reweight/reclass charges
• Freight classification errors potentially disrupted by July 19 NMFTA changes
• Unexpected accessorial charges disrupting budgets
• Manual data entry creating cascading errors

Solutions that work:

• API/EDI integration to auto-match broker TMS records with carrier billing
• Automated dimensioning systems for accurate freight classification
• Shared digital workspaces enabling real-time broker-carrier collaboration
• Regular freight audits delivering 2-5% cost savings

Bottom line: Technology can automate ~75% of routine invoice matching, while streamlined collaborative processes handle the remaining 25% of complex cases that typically cause the biggest headaches.