Conference 7.286::digital

1171.0. "DEC freight charges ripoff?" by OTOO01::POND () Wed Aug 29 1990 13:27

Folks,

Here is a 'letter to the electronic editor' I copied from the July 1990
issue of DEC Professional, which is a trade rag that is usually VERY 
pro-Digital and is an excellent magazine for MIS managers and users.
The section this is taken from is 'ARISTALK', which is an online bulletin
board to which readers can post notes.

I am concerned by the tone of the letter, and the fact that the respondent
actually agrees with the writer.  

Perhaps this could be forwarded to the appropriate people in Digital for
action.

Regards,
Jim Pond
Ottawa Software Specialist



DEC FREIGHT CHARGES
-------------------

QUERY:

Ray Stone (SIG 91/MESS 92):  Do you ever check your DEC freight bills?  We
received an invoice for our VAX 3100 a few days before the hardware arrived.
The invoice listed freight charges for six pieces totalling 3429 pounds.  We
awaited the shipment with trepidation, because we're on the second floor of a
building with no elevator.

When it arrived, the six boxes were easily handled, making us wonder what the
total weight really was.  We weighed them and they totalled about 400 pounds.
We called DEC and received a credit.

A few years ago I had a similar experience with shipping charges and DECdirect
over the method used and the cost for shipping us one manual.  I wonder if I've
stumbled on a DEC revenue-enhancement policy.

What bothers me is that the original invoice looks like the output from a 
billing program that has the weight built in for this standard package.  What
must be the weights for much larger standard packages?  Are we an isolated 
case?

REPLY:

Robert G. Schaffrath (SIG 91/MESS 93):  I received an LN03R, which according to
the invoice weighed 120 pounds.  When I got the printer, the shipping label
stated that it weighed about 60 pounds.  I'd say it's definitely a revenue
enhancer, because DEC seems to create the bill before it determines the
actual shipping charges.

Maybe those are the weights if the items were shipped to, say, Jupiter or
Saturn.  Gotta check the fine print...

Seriously, it seems wrong, and I hope that someone is able to enter an
official response - either explaining why it's not wrong or stating that
the problem will be corrected.

    I'm told that Herb Shumway is the senior US Distribution person.
    If someone has contact with him, perhaps this message could be relayed
    to him.
    
    

    The message has already been relayed to the appropriate individuals in
    WMO & NQO.
    
    ep

    As someone who ships for DEC Direct, I can tell you that it's
    easy to make a date entry error, say 3429 pounds instead of
    429. In some modes the system calculates freight charges per
    weight entered. We do have charts showing the weight of each item
    we ship, as well as tables for calculating charges for each
    method of transportation - overnight, second day, UPS, common
    carrier. 

    Your competition, MacConnection has the computer (which the knows the
    weight of each item) figure out the total weight of the shipment and
    calculate the shipping charge.  One less chance for error, and it is
    faster.

    I think the sort of system described in .4 is prone to error, not just
    from data entry mistakes.  I used to work in Manufacturing, and I know
    we talked about an average weight system, or a calculated one based
    upon system configuration etc.  However, if you take a typical system
    type, it could be configured a million different ways due to memory,
    disk drives, etc., each having an effect upon the overall weight. 
    There are so many different variations, and so many new options and
    possibilities becoming available all the time, that a calculated system
    would always have drawbacks.  I think an appropriate method would have
    a weigh scale that produces the documents etc. (that is how we do it in
    Canada).
    
    Jim