LONG post about a dispute with my LDS

[KC_Scubabunny]

Originally posted by art.chick
I have even heard that some companies rate customers based on how much they've spent there annually, & if it is less than a certain amount, the company chooses to withhold the expense of acknowledging complaints! (They never seem to skimp on the collections dept.)

My company rates customers and it determines everything about your service, including how long you wait listening to muzak and whether we offer you special deals if you try to cancel service to entice you to stay. We have whole area in our call centers for CS reps that are called "loyalty" reps who work on keeping good customers who spend lots of money with us each month and pay their bills on time.

I work for a wireless communications provider who has chosen to target customers who spend a lot of time on their mobile phones and try to discourage customers who only carry their phone for emergencies and have the $19 a month plan. That is our business strategy so we would be less concerned about a complaint from someone who is on a $19 a month plan as opposed to a $119 a month plan. The more average cost per customer that we can generate, the cheaper we are doing business.

I am not saying any of this is "right". Just telling you that it is a fact.

KC_Scubabunny

 

[Crrink]

Well, I doubt that my actions will have that much of an impact on this LDS. They are a very small business, and I had the impression that they are struggling from the moment I walked in the door.

A friend of mine had gotten certified with them two years prior when they were in a different location, and apparently under different management....a lot can change in two years.

I would hope that this teaches them the lesson that it's often better to communicate than stonewall, but because of the differences between what the LDS employee told me and what he apparently told the owner, I don't think they'll even learn that lesson.

 

[ChasingRichard]

:wacko:
My Cert for me and my daughter was $300 for both of us. She could not clear her ears on the open water with the group and went out on a private shore dive with an instructor and they only charged me $50 more.
I think you are in the right.
Most dive shops I have been to are not ran that well and you have to shop around for a good one.
Richard

 

[NudeDiver]

Due to such short notice, the cheapest place I could find in Hawaii to do our OW referrals was for $400, bringing the total cost of two full beginner OW certs to $1100.

Local dive shop here charges $900 each ($1800 for two people) for the OW class, complete with everything. So, where I'm sitting, you still got one hell of a deal.

At any rate - I think the LDS is was unreasonable with the tank situation. Nevertheless, I would have gone and got the tanks, completed the class, and after it was over, let the owner know what I thought about his business, pointed out that would be the last of my business with him, and that I would be sure to tell my story and mention him and his shop by name on a website that I was creating in his honour.

I wouldn't have expected a refund, either way.

 

[vladimir]

NudeDiver, Crrink last visited the ScubaBoard on December 6, 2003. But I'm sure he'd appreciate your insight, however belated it may be. I think he was probably using 2003 dollars though.

 

[NudeDiver]

NudeDiver, Crrink last visited the ScubaBoard on December 6, 2003.

I don't check a person's last login time everytime I post. Hell, I don't even check my OWN last login time.

 

[vladimir]

Just above the user name is the time of the post--in Crrink's case it was June 26th, 2002, at 11:25 PM. From that quick glance you could tell it's a very stale discussion, if the big warning in red letters that "the last post to this thread was..." didn't tip you off. Not that there's anything wrong with resurrecting old threads sometimes, but this seems like an odd one to intentionally bring back to life.

 

[NudeDiver]

Just above the user name is the time of the post--in Crrink's case it was June 26th, 2002, at 11:25 PM.

I generally don't look at such details. I look at the topic - if it strikes me as interesting, I'll read the thread.

Besides - I hadn't posted yet, so it wasn't stale to me.

 

[RJP]

I generally don't look at such details. I look at the topic - if it strikes me as interesting, I'll read the thread.

Besides - I hadn't posted yet, so it wasn't stale to me.

Again, begs the question...

How on earth does someone even come across a SEVEN year old thread?

 

[vladimir]

It came up in a search for "pointless bickering," I'm guessing.