consolidation + deconsolidation scenario

[pmalin]

Need to make such scenario, but itinerary cant has both consolidation and deconsolidation.

from A to F
from B to F
from C to G

I successfully did consolidation and delivery to E, but when try to make deconsolidation planning fails with error

Itinerary {1=null} has both consolidation and deconsolidation checked

Have any ideas to realize this?

[rj5316]

Re: consolidation + deconsolidation scenario

Hi,

can u share the setups you did for conslidated load to be delivered to E...

Appriciate ur help..

Rgds-

[salsharm]

Re: consolidation + deconsolidation scenario

I successfully configured a very similar scenario some time back. Consolidation and Deconsolidation together. If you provide more details, I will try to see what is going wring.

Regards,
-Salil

[rj5316]

Re: consolidation + deconsolidation scenario

Hi,

we are trying a simple deconsolidation scenario:

2 order releases going on a TL shipment to a deconsolidation location and then getting split into 2 LTL shipments . I.e common source but diff destinations... On using the bulk plan OTM creates 2 TL shipments form the origin instead of one TL... we have raised a SR for this... but have not got any firm solutions on this....we are on CU 4...

rgds--

[rj5316]

Re: consolidation + deconsolidation scenario



hi we were able to solve this ... (may be a work around).....by assigning a cross dock role to the loctaion, which as per the help file / core comp should function as a deconsol pool....

the same scenario (i.e 1 TL and 2 subsequent LTLs) works with a deconsol role in cu2 / 3 and as a x dock in cu 4. If we use a deconsol role in cu 04 we get 2TLs and 2 LTLs.... ?

we have raised a SR for this ....

In the meanwhile any help .. suggestions wuld be welcome.... or if any one can share how they have used a deconsol location role in cu 04, it would also be of gr8 help to understand the above issue

rgds--

[rj5316]

Re: consolidation + deconsolidation scenario

Hi,

Just got an update from oracle that the issue has been registered as a BUG ID 7217620 and would be resolved in 5.5 CU 5 roll up 3 which is due in jan 09....

lets keep our fingures crossed..!!

Rgds--