No parts returned on annual overhaul

[ams511]

You really think we'd risk a reputation built over the last 40 years on something like $8 in parts? Uh... No.

You were the one that said people in your neck of the woods are cheap, not me. LOL

There are manufacturers that only provide parts guarantees provided we give the manufacture back the parts. SO.... I send in old parts, they send me new parts... There's no question in my mind that when they are giving us new parts in exchange for old parts, that the manufacturer owns the parts.

Your not comparing apples to apples here. Certainly if it is a warranty claim I understand that the parts would need to be shipped back to the manufacturer. But if the client is paying for the service then doesn't the old parts belong to the client? Also does the manufacturer really want to see the used o-rings and seats from an annual or do they only want to see other parts replaced such as a diaphragm or piston?

 

[redacted]

You really think we'd risk a reputation built over the last 40 years on something like $8 in parts? Uh... No.

---------- Post added December 13th, 2013 at 11:00 AM ----------



There are manufacturers that only provide parts guarantees provided we give the manufacture back the parts. SO.... I send in old parts, they send me new parts... There's no question in my mind that when they are giving us new parts in exchange for old parts, that the manufacturer owns the parts.

When you provide free parts, then you are trading old for new at no charge to the customer and I agree the old parts are yours (or the manufacturer's). But when you charge the customer for parts, it is a different story unless established up front as part of the contract.

You may not risk your reputation, but not all operations are not like yours. I would have more trust in a service provider that offers to return replaced parts to the owner. After all, it is so easy to short-change a service since they are mostly unnecessary anyway. But there is also the problem of what to do with the unused parts as would occur with Scubapro cave cone HP seats. I guess they should belong to the person who paid for them also. Wouldn't that get interesting.:shocked2:

Also does the manufacturer really want to see the used o-rings and seats from an annual or do they only want to see other parts replaced such as a diaphragm or piston?

I suspect the manufacturer wants to see them all to prevent some of their less scrupulous dealers from claiming parts were provided free in a PFL program and then sold to other customers. I suspect that problem may have been an issue that generated the change in the Scubapro program.

 

[ams511]

To use EPA terminology, if someone has the "Intent to dispose", then it's trash. It's basura. It has no intrinsic value, because it's purpose has been fulfilled. It is no longer regulator parts, that time has passed. It no longer has even the potential to be regulator parts, because if you're hiring a tech to rebuild your regulator, you probably can't/won't/don't want to rebuild it yourself, therefore the used parts are worthless to the regulator owner. If they have no worth, then they are trash, and trash belongs in the landfill.

This part of your post is pure BS, the EPA does not regulate anything to do with regulator servicing. So their definition has no meaning in this context.

 

[Superlyte27]

You were the one that said people in your neck of the woods are cheap, not me. LOL




Your not comparing apples to apples here. Certainly if it is a warranty claim I understand that the parts would need to be shipped back to the manufacturer. But if the client is paying for the service then doesn't the old parts belong to the client? Also does the manufacturer really want to see the used o-rings and seats from an annual or do they only want to see other parts replaced such as a diaphragm or piston?

I'm not FROM my neck of the woods. I just live here. And yes, the manufacturer does want the old o-rings and seats in order to credit us for the new stuff.

 

[Fishpie]

Well, I reuse old parts.......not through choice, but when my kit sources dry up I'm not left with many options.
If I could walk into a shop and pick up a rebuild kit from the display tree by the cash register I would be very happy.

 

[KD8NPB]

Is it your contention that those parts belong to you? Do you advise your customers in advance that, as part of your service contract with them, they must give you all the used parts?

I underestand that most people do not care about the old parts and have no problem if you keep them. But, if a customer who is paying for new parts want those old parts back, what give you the right to keep them?

I've never had anyone ask.

Used parts = right in the 5 gallon bucket trash bin next to the service bench.

I guess if anyone asks for parts, I'll just have to hand them the bucket and ask them to pick out which parts are theirs...

It'd be kinda insulting to me as a tech to think I would want to kill someone over something as trivial as ~$40 in parts. Most of my customers are pretty good about keeping within the "Free Parts for Life" program anyways.

 

[Superlyte27]

I suspect the manufacturer wants to see them all to prevent some of their less scrupulous dealers from claiming parts were provided free in a PFL program and then sold to other customers. I suspect that problem may have been an issue that generated the change in the Scubapro program.

Are you a professional in the diving industry? Do have a single clue what you are talking about, or is this just your assumptions and conjecture? The way some of these programs work is... We send in old parts, they send us new parts. No questions asked. They don't even ask who's regulator they went in. The parts guarantee moves with the regulator, not with the original owner. It's not contingent on an annual service +/- 1 month. We simply send in old parts, they send us new parts. Before this approach was implemented, the PFL required extensive documentation. It requires so much paperwork and headaches that it's hardly worth it to the LDS to offer brands with PFL programs.

The change with scubapro was simply because SP didn't want to A. Carry parts for regulators that were 20+ years old, and B. wanted to pad their bottom line. (Admittedly, the second part was conjecture and assumption on my part.)

 

[ams511]

The change with scubapro was simply because SP didn't want to A. Carry parts for regulators that were 20+ years old, and B. wanted to pad their bottom line. (Admittedly, the second part was conjecture and assumption on my part.)

1) Which kits did they remove from service? Under Scubapro's FPL program if the regulator can no longer be serviced they usually replace it with a new model regulator which seems to be more expensive then just carrying the parts.
2) I agree it helps their bottom line.

 

[boulderjohn]

You really think we'd risk a reputation built over the last 40 years on something like $8 in parts? Uh... No.

I've heard that before.

When I was a new diver, I purchased a Mares Abyss. I had it serviced faithfully every year. After a few years, I started working as a contract instructor for the shop, and I realized that they only serviced certain brands of regulators themselves and sent the others--including my Mares Abyss--to another shop for servicing. I continued to have it serviced annually. One year I took it on a liveaboard trip a number of months after the servicing, months in which I had only done a handful of dives. The regulator had problems on the trip, and a staff member of the liveaboard played with it to make it work better. He said he thought it was in need of servicing.

So even though it was well under a year since its last servicing, I had the shop send it to its service guy when I got back. Soon after I got it back, I was on another trip and had problems again. I took it into a shop, and the guy there played with it and said he thought it had old parts in it.

When I went back to my shop, I told them what had been said, and the manager said that no one would risk their reputation for a few dollars in parts. The shop decided that the regulator must need more major work, and they sent it to Mares. This was a little over a month after the regulators second service of the year.

It came back from Mares working perfectly. The comment from Mares said that it was obvious from the regulator's condition that it had been far, far too many years since its last service.

 

[Superlyte27]

I guess in all walks of life you'll find someone willing to screw you out of $8 bucks.