Re: Luxfer Trade in Offer

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 06:54:40 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !\JL>1k-Wjl?#Ea0Kgp]h>dNU (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

Lee Bell wrote:
> 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
>
>


I don't think so, but maybe Jason knows something I don't - that's why
I was asking about the 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

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:20:12 GMT, hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie
Hammond) wrote:

>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.

It is at least implicit in most, if not all, forms of retail that the
retailer accepts a certain amount of responsibility for the products
he sells. Generally the shop's share of the warranty service is not
profit-making, or at least not to the same extent as regular service.

Having previously (presumably) made some profit makes it incumbent on
him to follow through with the remedies offered by the manufacturer.
If he does this cheerfully and enthusiastically he has a perfect
opportunity to garner a little publicity and goodwill. The people who
take advantage of the offer will probably enthusiastically recommend
his shop to others, even if they didn't prior to this.

JF

http://www3.sympatico.ca/johnfrancis/scubachat.htm

In article <fsbjfv0a1dvr4mkh4s1ahadgg8fsi88jur@4ax.com>,
John Francis <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca.remove> writes:

>It is at least implicit in most, if not all, forms of retail that the
>retailer accepts a certain amount of responsibility for the products
>he sells. ...
>
>Having previously (presumably) made some profit makes it incumbent on
>him to follow through with the remedies offered by the manufacturer.

One problem with this is that it is very doubtfull that tanks sold
fifteen or more years in the past are being "returned" to the same
shop that sold them. Thus one cannot presume that shop made some profit.

Another issue relates to time -- a failed tank returned within a few
weeks or months, or even within a year or two -- is one thing. A tank
returned after 15+ years -- and still passing VIP and hydro -- is
another.

On top of this, I think that shops ARE honoring the Luxfer trade/discount
deal, so they are "follow[ing] through with the remedies offered by the
manufacturer.

My objection was to the idea that shops should sell replacement tanks
at cost without any assistance from the manufacturer. This would represent
a real cost (reduction in overall profits) to the shop for something for
which they do not, at least in my opinion, bear any responsibility.

--
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.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:37:00 GMT, hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie
Hammond) wrote:

>
>One problem with this is that it is very doubtfull that tanks sold
>fifteen or more years in the past are being "returned" to the same
>shop that sold them. Thus one cannot presume that shop made some profit.

Good point. Perhaps the tank owners should be required to contact the
company and then be directed to a shop with whom the company has made
some arrangement for handling this. Perhaps the company should ship
the replacements to the local shop to protect the local guy's
inventory stocks.

And you're right. Considering the time span, the shop should get some
benefit from this exchange . I suppose in some cases the shop might
earn a new customer though, out of appreciation.

>My objection was to the idea that shops should sell replacement tanks
>at cost without any assistance from the manufacturer. This would represent
>a real cost (reduction in overall profits) to the shop for something for
>which they do not, at least in my opinion, bear any responsibility.

The shop should be compensated for their time and investment in
inventory. At worst the shop should not be out anything for cost of
inventory, time spent, and possible loss of business to customers
prepared to pay retail, or at least more than what the dealer has
invested. The company should pay for any prepping and fills required.

JF

http://www3.sympatico.ca/johnfrancis/scubachat.htm

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:40:44 -0400, Lee Bell wrote:

>> With or without a DOT stamp?
>
> Has anybody ever sold tanks with U.S. DOT stamps in the UK?

Well you can sell them, but without a BS 5045 stamp on it, no commercial
operator is allowed to fill them.

Jason

--
http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Aussie diving reports including
Cape Tribulation, Cairns, Airlie Beach, Exmouth and the HMAS Swan

Jason wrote

> > Has anybody ever sold tanks with U.S. DOT stamps in the UK?
>
> Well you can sell them, but without a BS 5045 stamp on it, no commercial
> operator is allowed to fill them.

That's pretty much what I figured. Of course, the reverse is true here in
the States.

In article <te3kfvghki1mvn91f8jsotq4vcfinu72ou@4ax.com>,
John Francis <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca.remove> writes:

>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:37:00 GMT,
>hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond) wrote:

>>My objection was to the idea that shops should sell replacement tanks
>>at cost without any assistance from the manufacturer. ...
...
>The shop should be compensated for their time and investment in
>inventory. At worst the shop should not be out anything for cost of
>inventory, time spent, and possible loss of business to customers
>prepared to pay retail, or at least more than what the dealer has
>invested. The company should pay for any prepping and fills required.

We agree.

At least on other poster suggested that shops should do this as a
service to the SCUBA community, without compensation. I agree that
this is a "nice idea", but I think the actual cost (loss/reduction
of profit) is a bit more that reasonable, considering that the shops
are not a fault.

--
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.

> >>My objection was to the idea that shops should sell replacement tanks
> >>at cost without any assistance from the manufacturer. ...
> ..
> >The shop should be compensated for their time and investment in
> >inventory. At worst the shop should not be out anything for cost of
> >inventory, time spent, and possible loss of business to customers
> >prepared to pay retail, or at least more than what the dealer has
> >invested. The company should pay for any prepping and fills required.

Yeah, and they should pay the same thing for it that I have to. Simple
Green wash . . . $45.

> We agree.
>
> At least on other poster suggested that shops should do this as a
> service to the SCUBA community, without compensation. I agree that
> this is a "nice idea", but I think the actual cost (loss/reduction
> of profit) is a bit more that reasonable, considering that the shops
> are not a fault.

I'm not so sure they're not at least partly responsible. Granted they're
not primarily responsible, but they, the generic they are the ones that sold
and profited from the original tanks. If we have to be nice to the Chinese
just because we worked their ancestors to death building railroads, why
don't the dive shops have to repay us for their past sins? OK, not funny,
still, the shops did profit from the original sale. If I buy a car and it
does not live up to what the dealer said when he sold it, I expect the
dealer to make it good. I don't care whose fault it is or who pays for it
as long as it's not me.

Speaking of responsible, how many shops do you suppose do the VIP plus test
for free or even for an amount equal only to the proportion of the unit's
cycle life used? None? That's my guess too. Since I'm asking embarassing
questions, how many shops do you know of that charge the same for a visual
of a steel tank as they do for a visual and Visual Plus of an aluminum one .
.. . an aluminum one that's not made of the suspect alloy, one that is made
by a company that never used that particular alloy? If they're profiting
from the tests, isn't that enough?

Lee

"Skip Commagere" <force_e@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> 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.


This sounds quite reminiscient of the metallurgy problem that caused
broken slides in M9 Beretta pistols around ten years ago.


Bottom line is that a change in supply added a trace element that wasn't
in the Specification Standard (to be measured at all), and which
resulted in a change in material properties that wasn't realized until
many cycles later.

Now when it comes to placing reponsibility for allowing those failures
to occur, who should be held responsible: the manufacturer who changed
suppliers, the Government Agency whose standard qualified the old
supplier, or should no one be blamed for something that took years and
years to finally show up in the field?



-hh

Lead and Aluminum alloys???

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Scott

"H. Huntzinger" <{rm_to_reply}hummer@webspan.net> wrote in message
news:{rm_to_reply}hummer-39B8E5.06512501072003@east.giganews.com...
> "Skip Commagere" <force_e@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> This sounds quite reminiscient of the metallurgy problem that caused
> broken slides in M9 Beretta pistols around ten years ago.
>
>
> Bottom line is that a change in supply added a trace element that wasn't
> in the Specification Standard (to be measured at all), and which
> resulted in a change in material properties that wasn't realized until
> many cycles later.
>
> Now when it comes to placing reponsibility for allowing those failures
> to occur, who should be held responsible: the manufacturer who changed
> suppliers, the Government Agency whose standard qualified the old
> supplier, or should no one be blamed for something that took years and
> years to finally show up in the field?
>
>
>
> -hh