Re: Luxfer Trade in Offer

Your handle is appropriate. You like to attack. If you say that Luxfer and
others didn't have any input into the formulation of the aluminum alloy used
for scuba, excuse me, high pressure cylinders then your saying that the
government is the culprit and little ol' Luxfer is just a poor victim.

I remember when the cylinders first came out, some started to develop "pin
holes" (Luxfer's term). Luxfer said they were not dangerous and to just
replace them to the customer. Luxfer said that would not explode. This
happened in the late 70s. Now, do you think DOT or any other organization
wrote poor little innocent Luxfer a nice letter explaining that the alloy
was still safe after many failed. Some of the tanks would pass hydro after
exhibiting leaks. (I watched tests to see what would happen. No leaking
tanks were put back into service). When the cylinders started to explode,
Luxfer started to try and blame the retailer.

Back in the early 80s, Luxfer bought it's alloy from China. The cylinders
produced had a significantly higher content of lead than previous alloys
used. Did DOT say "that's ok Luxfer. Go ahead and build your tanks". Those
are the cylinders with the highest failure rate.

You didn't comment on Luxfer's development and sale of the Visual Plus
machine. Was that just good will or was that a way to catch and remove the
dangerous tanks from the rest of the bad ones.

You sound just like Bill High. His organization was financed and promoted by
Luxfer. He is hardly a neutral party. It's like asking Hillary what she
thinks about Bill.

Now about the terrible dive shop guys:

> snip....snip
> The dive shop industry is at least half the problem. If you pikers
> weren't so dedicated to minimal wages and training, you might be
> able to keep competent employees around.

We pay our staff way, way over min wage. We give them free health insurance.
We give them two weeks paid vacation. We give them eqipment at below cost
and we let them decide what they want. Our staff's average length of service
with us is 8 years. All of our people came to us with extensive dive
experience. They are all over qualified. They work in our stores and teach
because they love it.

I know you can order a
> pallet of 80's with boot and valve for less than $100/unit, and
> that you turn around and mark them up to $150. If you were really
> concerned about safety, you would do something about it, like
> ordering pallets of raw 80's(no boot/no valve), and offer them
> to the 6351 public at YOUR COST, reduced by Luxfers trade-in, net
> of shipping...At $50/unit or less, the 6351's would disappear from
> service overnight.
>
> But, "Nooooo...!". Your dedication to public safety is as noteworthy
> as your motivation, skippy. You should be ashamed, in my opinion.

We provide the exchange service with on the spot credit for the old
defective cylinder. We charge the customer $105 after the rebate for the new
cylinder with a new valve, 10 free fills, and Visual Inspection. A hydro
with Visual Plus would run the customer $50 and they wouldn't get any free
fills. So in effect, the customer is getting a new tank, new vlave, $40
worth of air and peace of mind for $55 dollars over what they would pay for
a Hydro and visual.

You should be ashamed for making generalized accuations about my business
and our staff.

> I think we should all hold dive shop operators responsible for not
> thoroughly investigating Luxfer, and determining better standards
> in the first place. It fits well with you rationale. If the buck is
> going down the chain, why take the second stop? The real criminals
> are the pushers. With all your inside knowledge that Luxfer is the
> culprit, you have surely known all along.

No. Luxfer is the culpret and the DOT is negligent. As one retailer in a
state with more dive stores per capata than any other, I can't fight what I
see as criminal behavior with out putting my business, family and staff in
jepordy of loosing their income.

"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:tOYJa.3252$og.1646@news.cpqcorp.net...
| In article <nDJJa.5095$h84.1801592881@newssvr12.news.prodigy. com>,
| "Chris Guynn" <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> writes:
|
| >| To further suggest that reailers should pay for a problem that is the
| >| manufacturers problem (if anybody's) is absurd.
| >
| >And if the retailer is recouping the cost of the tank and shipping, how
are
| >they paying for the problem?
|
| Apparently you (and possibly others) do not consider overhead a real cost.
| It is. If this "at cost exchange" is not paying its share of overhead,
| then either other prices must be raised or profits will be reduced.
| Most business owners would consider that if they have less money in thier
| pocket they are paying for something.

The overhead will be there anyway. There is a loss of storage space so that
the shop can stock some tanks, but the amount of lost storage would probably
be minimal. You might lose a few minutes of salesperson time in the
transaction, but that too is minimal. IT doesn't cost any extra electricity
or gas or telephone costs. There mishgt be a small amount of time lost
entering the tanks into a computer system, but those are about the only
costs I can think of. If the shop wanted to throw in an extra $5-$10 fee
for the process to cover these costs, I would not complain and I would more
than likely purchase other items from them at the same time.

|
| --
| Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
| (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
| All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
|

X-No-Archive: yes
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:45:59 -0400, "Skip Commagere" <force_e@sprynet.com> wrote:
>You should be ashamed for making generalized accuations about my business
>and our staff.

Did I mention your business skippy?

That's rhetorical. No I did not. I avoided that, skippy.
I said the "Dive Shop Industry" - believe it or not it wasn't
about you. For your sake, I avoided pointing out your prurient
interest in selling scuba tanks. You have financial interest
in condemning tanks, all tanks, any tanks, because you
figure to sell replacements.

Now that you let the cat out of the bag though, the readers
can draw their own conclusions about your point of view.

BTW skippy, I don't want a new valve, a new boot, or a
VIP sticker. You more than anyone else knows that the VIP
for a new tank is bogus. There is no purpose served and
no value added - the cost to you is $0.001 for the sticker,
and as a matter of fact, it's O2-clean right out of the box.

My valves are O2-clean and prepped, and so are my aging Luxfers.
You will no doubt want to charge me for O2 cleaning the new valves
I don't want or need.

Thanks though for detailing the extent of your willingness to
be part of the solution.

>
>> I think we should all hold dive shop operators responsible for not
<<snip>>
>
>No. Luxfer is the culpret and the DOT is negligent. As one retailer in a

You evidently lack a sense of humor and don't know sarcasm when
you see it.

>state with more dive stores per capata than any other, I can't fight what I

Are you sure about that skippy? If there is even one dive shop in
South Dakota, it would probably beat Florida on a per capita basis.

>see as criminal behavior with out putting my business, family and staff in
>jepordy of loosing their income.

Yours views on crime are not supported by the DOJ, DOT or law enforcement.
Best argument for gun control I've seen to date.

But just exactly how does dive store density impede your ability to
fight crime?

In article <74_Ja.4720$jP2.3789@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com> , "Chris Guynn" <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> writes:
>
>"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
>news:tOYJa.3252$og.1646@news.cpqcorp.net...
>| In article <nDJJa.5095$h84.1801592881@newssvr12.news.prodigy. com>,
>| "Chris Guynn" <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> writes:
>|
>| >| To further suggest that reailers should pay for a problem that is the
>| >| manufacturers problem (if anybody's) is absurd.
>| >
>| >And if the retailer is recouping the cost of the tank and shipping, how
>| >are they paying for the problem?
>|
>| Apparently you (and possibly others) do not consider overhead a real cost.
...
>The overhead will be there anyway. ...

Yes, It will. Obviously, we differ in our understanding of how much
of a cost it is. Cosider: If the store is using its resources to provide
replacement tanks "at cost", then those resources are not being used
to generate profits. To a very limited extent, this can be written off
as "good will", but "good will" doesn't translate directly into income.

Meanwhile, we've not even considered the various direct cost associated
with ordering, receiving, financing and paying for these no-profit tanks.

If an LDS decides to forgo a $50-75 profit, I can understand that they
might want to see a more real value the "good will".

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:hq0Ka.3274$rC.1580@news.cpqcorp.net...
| In article <74_Ja.4720$jP2.3789@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com> , "Chris Guynn"
<chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> writes:
| >
| >"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
| >news:tOYJa.3252$og.1646@news.cpqcorp.net...
| >| In article <nDJJa.5095$h84.1801592881@newssvr12.news.prodigy. com>,
| >| "Chris Guynn" <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> writes:
| >|
| >| >| To further suggest that reailers should pay for a problem that is
the
| >| >| manufacturers problem (if anybody's) is absurd.
| >| >
| >| >And if the retailer is recouping the cost of the tank and shipping,
how
| >| >are they paying for the problem?
| >|
| >| Apparently you (and possibly others) do not consider overhead a real
cost.
| ..
| >The overhead will be there anyway. ...
|
| Yes, It will. Obviously, we differ in our understanding of how much
| of a cost it is. Cosider: If the store is using its resources to provide
| replacement tanks "at cost", then those resources are not being used
| to generate profits. To a very limited extent, this can be written off
| as "good will", but "good will" doesn't translate directly into income.
|
| Meanwhile, we've not even considered the various direct cost associated
| with ordering, receiving, financing and paying for these no-profit tanks.
|
| If an LDS decides to forgo a $50-75 profit, I can understand that they
| might want to see a more real value the "good will".
|

I can understand that as well. However, I would definitely choose to make
purchases at the place that gave me the really great deal on the replacement
scuba tank in the future as opposed to going to their competition who didn't
make any such deal. In this case, it might be referred to as a loss
leader...

| --
| Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
| (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
| All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
|

In article <L90Ka.4751$eJ6.4266@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com> ,
"Chris Guynn" <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> writes:

>I can understand that as well. However, I would definitely choose to make
>purchases at the place that gave me the really great deal on the replacement
>scuba tank in the future as opposed to going to their competition who didn't
>make any such deal. In this case, it might be referred to as a loss
>leader...

I think that many shops would contend that even at the regular price,
tanks are a loss leader -- not carrying their proportional share of
overhead. Whatever we may think, it is clear that few if any shops
consider this a worthwile opportunity to create good will.

If I were a dive shop owner looking to generate good will, I would look
for something that would work for all or most of my potential customers.
Replacing 6351 tanks speaks only to a small and dwindling number of
divers.

(Luxfer made its last 6351 tanks in 1987. One suspects that many or
most of them have already gone out of service for one reason or another.)

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

Thanks for your clarity Bull Shark. Now that I know who and what you are,
I'll avoid contact and hopefully even the proximity. Have a nice day.

Skip or as you say "Skippy".


"bullshark" <bullshark@scubadiving.com> wrote in message
news:bupgfvofkrscocgm93h1mvud7u9ns76cri@4ax.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:45:59 -0400, "Skip Commagere"
<force_e@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >You should be ashamed for making generalized accuations about my business
> >and our staff.
>
> Did I mention your business skippy?
>
> That's rhetorical. No I did not. I avoided that, skippy.
> I said the "Dive Shop Industry" - believe it or not it wasn't
> about you. For your sake, I avoided pointing out your prurient
> interest in selling scuba tanks. You have financial interest
> in condemning tanks, all tanks, any tanks, because you
> figure to sell replacements.
>
> Now that you let the cat out of the bag though, the readers
> can draw their own conclusions about your point of view.
>
> BTW skippy, I don't want a new valve, a new boot, or a
> VIP sticker. You more than anyone else knows that the VIP
> for a new tank is bogus. There is no purpose served and
> no value added - the cost to you is $0.001 for the sticker,
> and as a matter of fact, it's O2-clean right out of the box.
>
> My valves are O2-clean and prepped, and so are my aging Luxfers.
> You will no doubt want to charge me for O2 cleaning the new valves
> I don't want or need.
>
> Thanks though for detailing the extent of your willingness to
> be part of the solution.
>
> >
> >> I think we should all hold dive shop operators responsible for not
> <<snip>>
> >
> >No. Luxfer is the culpret and the DOT is negligent. As one retailer in a
>
> You evidently lack a sense of humor and don't know sarcasm when
> you see it.
>
> >state with more dive stores per capata than any other, I can't fight what
I
>
> Are you sure about that skippy? If there is even one dive shop in
> South Dakota, it would probably beat Florida on a per capita basis.
>
> >see as criminal behavior with out putting my business, family and staff
in
> >jepordy of loosing their income.
>
> Yours views on crime are not supported by the DOJ, DOT or law enforcement.
> Best argument for gun control I've seen to date.
>
> But just exactly how does dive store density impede your ability to
> fight crime?
>
>

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:20:12 +0000, hammon wrote:

> (Luxfer made its last 6351 tanks in 1987. One suspects that many or

That was only in the States. They were still selling them in the UK until
1995 according to their press release.

Jason

--
See http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Caribbean trip reports
including Cuba, Grand Bahama, Barbados, St Lucia and Mexico

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 05:51:51 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !\]-N1k-X#k^l8]+]UQMkPtS_ (Encoded at Airnews!)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Disposition-Notification-To: jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en

Jason wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:20:12 +0000, hammon wrote:
>
>
>>(Luxfer made its last 6351 tanks in 1987. One suspects that many or
>
>
> That was only in the States. They were still selling them in the UK until
> 1995 according to their press release.
>
> Jason
>


With or without a DOT stamp?


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

jer wrote

> > >(Luxfer made its last 6351 tanks in 1987. One suspects that many or

> > That was only in the States. They were still selling them in the UK
until
> > 1995 according to their press release.

> With or without a DOT stamp?

Has anybody ever sold tanks with U.S. DOT stamps in the UK?

Lee