Why have a zipper on a wing, if you can't........ (warning a longish rant follows)

[redacted]

Makes you wonder how what appears to be a revolutionary manufacturer in the scuba industry really differs from a manufacturer like scubapro who charges you extra for a external adjustment on your 1st stage regulator that you are not supposed to touch.

At least they sell some parts.

 

[buddhasummer]

Makes you wonder how what appears to be a revolutionary manufacturer in the scuba industry really differs from a manufacturer like scubapro who charges you extra for a external adjustment on your 1st stage regulator that you are not supposed to touch.

At least they sell some parts.

Shame it doesn't include bladders.

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

As the OP, I'll take responsibility for letting my frustration slip into my posts, thus causing the thread to "drift off course" a wee bit: :chairfight: .


Tobin did a good job answering why it may often not be in the customer's best interest to let them service their wings themselves.

I do agree that the customer is not always right.

I really am capable of doing this type repair, but I don't expect someone who has never met me to trust me on that.

If I owned DSS wings I would have happily sent them in for service since I know Tobin & staff would do a superb and fast repair.

And a happy ending: I spoke to Chris at Edge/HOG this morning. He has sent out new improved bladders (yesterday).

Time to give this thread "last rites": :blessing:

Best wishes.

 

[halocline]

A brief reprieve to return to the original topic.....

I think the issue that gets me the most is that the manufacturer is refusing to sell a customer a part for his wing. Certainly I can see a manufacturer recommending that the customer return the wing for repair, or preferring to do the repair themselves, but requiring that it be done by refusing to sell parts is wrong. Imagine if auto parts sales (or anything else, for that matter) were restricted like this. Nobody would tolerate it.

I have had this same experience with dive rite, a company that otherwise I've always had good customer service from. Strangely, I called them about a different wing with a pinch tear at a different time, and they just sent me the bladder.

Bottom line, if I buy something that has parts, I ought to be able to buy the parts as well. Let me decide whether I'm qualified to fix it.

Now, back to the exciting fight!

 

[cool_hardware52]

A brief reprieve to return to the original topic.....

I think the issue that gets me the most is that the manufacturer is refusing to sell a customer a part for his wing. Certainly I can see a manufacturer recommending that the customer return the wing for repair, or preferring to do the repair themselves, but requiring that it be done by refusing to sell parts is wrong. Imagine if auto parts sales (or anything else, for that matter) were restricted like this. Nobody would tolerate it.

I have had this same experience with dive rite, a company that otherwise I've always had good customer service from. Strangely, I called them about a different wing with a pinch tear at a different time, and they just sent me the bladder.

Bottom line, if I buy something that has parts, I ought to be able to buy the parts as well. Let me decide whether I'm qualified to fix it.

Now, back to the exciting fight!

I hate to break it to ya, but there are lots of products where the end user cannot purchase parts, or some subset of parts. Firearms are a classic example. Many parts are "factory installed only"

It's also common for replacement "assemblies" to be offered, but not every small part these assemblies may include.

It is manufacturer that has to deal with both protecting their brand and keeping liability insurance coverage. It should be their choice.

Tobin

 

[cool_hardware52]

Once again I'll point out that it would be much cheaper for most companies to simply sell whatever parts the customer demands.

Repairs are *not* a profit center.

The fact that few choose this approach, and instead choose to commit the resources to doing repairs should tell you that doing so is problematic.

Tobin

 

[redacted]

Once again I'll point out that it would be much cheaper for most companies to simply sell whatever parts the customer demands.

Repairs are *not* a profit center.

The fact that few choose this approach, and instead choose to commit the resources to doing repairs should tell you that doing so is problematic.

Tobin

Nonsense. In general, scuba manufacturers restrict the sale of parts in the USA to force the consumer to be dependent on their local dealers.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Nonsense. In general, scuba manufacturers restrict the sale of parts in the USA to force the consumer to be dependent on their local dealers.

Ah, well, maybe for reg parts, but that's not what we are discussing here is it now. Are the the scuba wing brands saying you must return your wing to the dealer, or to the manufacturer for bladder replacement?

Seems to be *to the manufacturer* How does that impact the dealer at all?

Here's the reality; Most BC's don't have replaceable bladders, and most dive shops sell mostly conventional BC's. That means most dive shops may not be well acquainted with how the Typical "wing" is built, or how to service it. Some may, but most don't even want to try. That's why the wings end up going back to the manufacturer.



Tobin

 

[redacted]

Tobin did a good job answering why it may often not be in the customer's best interest to let them service their wings themselves.

I do agree that the customer is not always right.

Experience has however shown me that furnishing whatever the customer demands regarding spare parts is far less likely to actually solve the problem in a timely manner. Often the customer thinks they have one problem when they have another, or the customer orders only one part when they might need more than that. That causes more frustration, more delays and more cost.

The customer may not always be right but he is always the customer - the one creating the demand and spending the $$$.

I am really trying to put a positive spin on LT's statement and I keep coming up short. Are we saying the customer can dive HIS wing (or other scuba gear) all he wants, but he should not be ALLOWED to repair HIS wing? I have lots of trouble with that idea (which is probably the root of so much of my frustration with the scuba industry). Sure, some customers can't be trusted to change a tire. Should auto manufacturers withhold jacks and spare tires for the good of those few who might just make things worse? I can see instructing customers, cautioning customers, warning customers; but denying them access just turns me off. I can buy and install brakes, or just about any thing else, on my car but not parts for my scuba gear. The industry should be ashamed that they choose to do in the USA market what consumer protection laws in Europe and other countries forbid them from doing.

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

The customer may not always be right but he is always the customer - the one creating the demand and spending the $$$.

I am really trying to put a positive spin on LT's statement and I keep coming up short. Are we saying the customer can dive HIS wing (or other scuba gear) all he wants, but he should not be ALLOWED to repair HIS wing? I have lots of trouble with that idea (which is probably the root of so much of my frustration with the scuba industry). Sure, some customers can't be trusted to change a tire. Should auto manufacturers withhold jacks and spare tires for the good of those few who might just make things worse? I can see instructing customers, cautioning customers, warning customers; but denying them access just turns me off. I can buy and install brakes, or just about any thing else, on my car but not parts for my scuba gear. The industry should be ashamed that they choose to do in the USA market what consumer protection laws in Europe and other countries forbid them from doing.

Awap,

No need to put a positive spin on what I was trying to say, as a "DIY" guy I was not feeling very "positive" when I wrote it.

I do feel that I should be able to buy the parts I need to repair the gear I own. It should be completely up to me to determine if I am capable of performing the repair.

Even if I am a total idiot.


I just meant that I do understand Tobin's position. I may not completely agree with it, but I understand how he arrived at his policy.

But access to regulator parts.... don't even get me started....

Best wishes.