Fresh and Easy

[sf]

Is it really true that they didn't just cut and run, but they put it
up for sale? I was hoping Trader Joe's or Mi Pueblo would move into
the location in Willow Glen. I have no option for the location on 3rd
St... SF. Trader Joe's would be good, but I don't think the area is
yuppified enough yet for TJ's to be interested. That location is next
door to the latest Limon, but it's the only Limon without a full bar
license - so I'm not sure what the restrictions are in that area. The
F&E location in the Richmond is so close to Sea Cliff that a TJ's
would be fully utilized. There's an empty Cala on Geary not too far
away from there that could be fully utilized by a company with good
name recognition. I'd like to see a Nugget market open in SF and I
think that location would work, but Mollie Stone's could move in and I
wouldn't complain.

Hey, I can dream - can't I?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[spamtrap1888]

There's a Mollie Stones in the Castro -- is that too far for you?

[sf]

There's a Mollie Stones even closer to me. I was talking about empty
or soon to be empty buildings that could use a new tenant. That said,
I really wish Nugget would come to town - but they don't seem to be
interested.

[sms]

On 4/27/2013 6:49 PM, sf wrote:
>
> Is it really true that they didn't just cut and run, but they put it
> up for sale?

Yes, but they have nothing to sell. They don't own their locations, they
lease them. Their concept was a failure. No one will want to take over
the leases.

[sf]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:36:26 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

So, putting it up "for sale" is a way to count it as a loss?

[sms]

On 4/28/2013 10:46 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:36:26 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2013 6:49 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it really true that they didn't just cut and run, but they put it
>>> up for sale?
>>
>> Yes, but they have nothing to sell. They don't own their locations, they
>> lease them. Their concept was a failure. No one will want to take over
>> the leases.
>
> So, putting it up "for sale" is a way to count it as a loss?

I have no idea, but if I had to guess, they made that statement as a
face-saving gesture for their share-holders. The reality is that it's a
total loss. Their locations, at least in my area, are terrible and not
even independent stores would want to lease them. The fixtures in the
stores they can probably sell for 20% of their new value. They're stuck
in their leases since the company is not declaring bankruptcy.

They thought that they could compete as a Trader Joe's alternative
without understanding why Trader Joe's is so popular. Their real estate
choices were horrendous. Their prices were way too high.

If there's a convenience store chain that wants a quick entry into the
markets in the U.S. where Fresh and Easy has its stores then maybe
they'll find a buyer. Their locations are good for a 7-11 type chain.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <kljt3q$1od$1...@dont-email.me>,

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>The reality is that it's a total loss. Their locations, at least
>in my area, are terrible and not even independent stores would
>want to lease them. The fixtures in the stores they can probably
>sell for 20% of their new value. They're stuck in their leases
>since the company is not declaring bankruptcy.

The one near me does a bustling business, and apparently makes
money. The staff there is saying they want to find a way to keep
it open in some way.

They'd probably do better in a smaller space, although they were
smart enough to divide the space from what it had been previously.
If they were to get rid of the self-checkout things, that would
solve my main complaint.

But if I really had my wish, that space would become a Chinese
market again.

Still, it's certainly been better than nothing.

[sf]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:29:00 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>

wrote:

> On 4/28/2013 10:46 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:36:26 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/27/2013 6:49 PM, sf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Is it really true that they didn't just cut and run, but they put it
> >>> up for sale?
> >>
> >> Yes, but they have nothing to sell. They don't own their locations, they
> >> lease them. Their concept was a failure. No one will want to take over
> >> the leases.
> >
> > So, putting it up "for sale" is a way to count it as a loss?
>
> I have no idea, but if I had to guess, they made that statement as a
> face-saving gesture for their share-holders. The reality is that it's a
> total loss. Their locations, at least in my area, are terrible and not
> even independent stores would want to lease them. The fixtures in the
> stores they can probably sell for 20% of their new value. They're stuck
> in their leases since the company is not declaring bankruptcy.
>
> They thought that they could compete as a Trader Joe's alternative
> without understanding why Trader Joe's is so popular. Their real estate
> choices were horrendous. Their prices were way too high.

As well as stocking products no one wanted to buy and providing no
customer service what so ever, including at the checkout stand.

>
> If there's a convenience store chain that wants a quick entry into the
> markets in the U.S. where Fresh and Easy has its stores then maybe
> they'll find a buyer. Their locations are good for a 7-11 type chain.

I know that Trader Joe's was bidding for their Willow Glen location,
but the property went to F&E - so your assessment of who would be
interested in their locations doesn't ring true to me. I also think
an upscale grocery store that doesn't mind occupying a small building
would do well in their Sea Cliff location (outer Clement St). I
mentioned Mollie Stones because it fits my criteria. MS is upscale
and doesn't mind being a small store. It took over Tower Market on
Portola and the transition was smooth. Whole Foods is also going
small, so that's another alternative. I'd like to see Nugget move
into the empty Cala location on Geary. That part of town needs some
decent grocery stores.

[sf]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:42:11 +0000 (UTC), mcc...@medieval.org (Todd
Michel McComb) wrote:

> The one near me does a bustling business, and apparently makes
> money. The staff there is saying they want to find a way to keep
> it open in some way.

Tell them to check out being an employee owned business! It might
work for them.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 4/28/13 12:29 PM, sms wrote:
>
> The reality is that it's a

> Their locations, at least in my area, are terrible and not even
> independent stores would want to lease them.

How so?

My experience is that only some of them are located at odd locations, but
others are located in perfectly fine locations, including locations that
once had another grocery store.

But they did it over again, they should have been more selective where they
placed their stores.

I think the more successful F&E locations are the ones located in
neighborhoods that have a high concentration of apartments and condos that
occupied by young adults in their twenties and early thirties.


- Peter

[Peter Lawrence]

On 4/28/13 2:21 PM, sf wrote:
>
> As well as stocking products no one wanted to buy and providing no
> customer service what so ever, including at the checkout stand.

Actually one thing I like about F&E is that they stock items that no else
stock, like store-brand almond milk that costs less than national brand
almond milk.

In regards to customer service, the F&E I shop the most often has excellent
customer service, better than most supermarkets that I've shopped at
including Safeway, Lucky and even Piazza's.

And they're extremely prompt when they need to sign something off at the
checkout stand.

The reason why F&E is failing is that didn't realize how many Americans
totally detest self-checkout stands and that Americans failed to realize
that high quality of their own store brands (with is often of better quality
of well know American brands).

But the all self-checkout was their fatal mistake, IMHO.


- Peter

[Ciccio]

On Apr 29, 11:09 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
> But the all self-checkout was their fatal mistake, IMHO.

It sure lost me. A little while back, I posted hereabouts, that I
might give Fresh and Easy another shot. I've passed it, at least, a
dozen times since then. Each time I think about that self-checkout
nonsense, and just keep on going.

There's the old saw..."Nothing is more powerful than an idea when its
time has come." Well, Fresh and Easy is an example there is nothing
more lamer than an idea when its time has not come.

The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.

Ciccio

[James Silverton]

Most of the self check lines at my local groceries are labelled "12
items or less". Given the amount of time it takes to deal with items
without bar codes, I think that is reasonable. I know that if someone in
front of me has a full shopping basket, at least one thing will need the
assistance of store personnel and I try to avoid being in the same line.
Otherwise, I like self check machines.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[sms]

Self-checkout _only_ may be a problem, but self-checkout at other stores
is quite popular, including Safeway, Walmart, Home Depot, Lucky, and
even some Costcos. It's well accepted.

[sf]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:59:28 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

News flash. It's NOT as popular as you think, otherwise there would
be more self-checkout aisles and fewer with real clerks instead of
trouble shooters.... which they wouldn't need if the system worked
better. The only reason people use self-checkout is to avoid the long
lines at the real checkout counters.

[sms]

On 4/30/2013 12:38 PM, sf wrote:

> News flash. It's NOT as popular as you think, otherwise there would
> be more self-checkout aisles and fewer with real clerks instead of
> trouble shooters.... which they wouldn't need if the system worked
> better. The only reason people use self-checkout is to avoid the long
> lines at the real checkout counters.

The Home Depot near me usually has only one or two live checkers in the
main checkout area. There's always one over by lumber, and sometimes
there's a second one somewhere else if the store is busy. There are four
self-checkout registers. It's extremely popular.

There are also live checkers over in the garden center, and the lines
there can be very long.

[evergene]

I have very limited experience with supermarket self-checkout. It does
seem to be one more instance of using a machine transfer to the
customer a task that used to be done by the seller.

I prefer interacting with people to interacting with machines, but
machines (as Henry Ford told Walther Reuther) don't join unions.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/16/robots-buy-cars/

On the other hand, imagine how much fun it would be to hear the
customer in front of you tell the malfunctioning machine that he's
going to shoot it dead!

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <vud0o8lrnmjokf0dv...@4ax.com>,

evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:
>On the other hand, imagine how much fun it would be to hear the
>customer in front of you tell the malfunctioning machine that he's
>going to shoot it dead!

But destroying property is taboo!

[JHATG]

In article
<e1181171-1e03-4328...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.

That's because the self-checkout devices are SO buggy and fail so often,
they're FAR more trouble than they're worth.

[SMS]

On 4/30/2013 2:48 PM, evergene wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2013 10:38 AM, Ciccio wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 11:09 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> But the all self-checkout was their fatal mistake, IMHO.
>>>
>>> It sure lost me. A little while back, I posted hereabouts, that I
>>> might give Fresh and Easy another shot. I've passed it, at least, a
>>> dozen times since then. Each time I think about that self-checkout
>>> nonsense, and just keep on going.
>>>
>>> There's the old saw..."Nothing is more powerful than an idea when its
>>> time has come." Well, Fresh and Easy is an example there is nothing
>>> more lamer than an idea when its time has not come.
>>>
>>> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
>>> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
>>
>> Self-checkout _only_ may be a problem, but self-checkout at other stores
>> is quite popular, including Safeway, Walmart, Home Depot, Lucky, and
>> even some Costcos. It's well accepted.
>
> I have very limited experience with supermarket self-checkout. It does
> seem to be one more instance of using a machine transfer to the
> customer a task that used to be done by the seller.

True. Different stores do it at different levels of competence. Lucky is
terrible. Walmart, Costco and Safeway are okay. I rarely go to Lucky but
I was there a week or so ago and tried the self-checkout. It got upset
about the bag that I brought being in the bagging area so I put the bag
into the shopping cart then put all the items into the bagging area
without a bag so the weight was right. Then one item was not in their
database so the clerk came over and scanned another item that was the
same price (Barilla pasta) but the one not in the database was 12 ounces
not 16 ounces so the register didn't like that.

One thing I've noticed at some of the supermarkets and other stores with
self-checkout is that it's become so popular that often the lines at the
self-checkout are longer than the lines at the checkouts with a real person.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <51805d18$0$52789$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>One thing I've noticed at some of the supermarkets and other stores
>with self-checkout is that it's become so popular that often the
>lines at the self-checkout are longer than the lines at the checkouts
>with a real person.

Wow, that's crazy.

In fairness to Fresh & Easy, whereas I don't like the robotic
checkout stands either on the level of concept or practice, I've
never actually had them misfunction there or fail to find an item.
But since they're a half block away, and have reasonable prices on
cases of beer I find acceptable, that's the most common thing I buy
there, so every single time, someone has to "help" me with that.
It's tiresome.

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.

I'm not sure Americans have even fully accepted self-serve gasoline.
Seems to me, in Europe the gas station will not have a human attendant
at all, whereas in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant,
even if they do very little.

Steve

[spamtrap1888]

On Apr 30, 5:08 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 2:48 PM, evergene wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > sms wrote:
>
> >> On 4/30/2013 10:38 AM, Ciccio wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 11:09 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> But the all self-checkout was their fatal mistake, IMHO.
>
> >>> It sure lost me. A little while back, I posted hereabouts, that I
> >>> might give Fresh and Easy another shot. I've passed it, at least, a
> >>> dozen times since then. Each time I think about that self-checkout
> >>> nonsense, and just keep on going.
>
> >>> There's the old saw..."Nothing is more powerful than an idea when its
> >>> time has come." Well, Fresh and Easy is an example there is nothing
> >>> more lamer than an idea when its time has not come.
>
> >>> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
> >>> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
>
> >> Self-checkout _only_ may be a problem, but self-checkout at other stores
> >> is quite popular, including Safeway, Walmart, Home Depot, Lucky, and
> >> even some Costcos. It's well accepted.
>
> > I have very limited experience with supermarket self-checkout. It does
> > seem to be one more instance of using a machine transfer to the
> > customer a task that used to be done by the seller.
>
> True. Different stores do it at different levels of competence. Lucky is
> terrible. Walmart, Costco and Safeway are okay.

Where is there a Costco with a self checkout?
.

[Ciccio]

On Apr 30, 6:29 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> at all, whereas in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant,
> even if they do very little.
>
> Steve

That's to to sell snacks, etc.

Ciccio

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <771cd3b6-b2fe-46ac...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 6:29�pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant, even if they
>>do very little.

>That's to sell snacks, etc.

Not so that there's someone around to shoot?

[pfraser]

Todd Michel McComb wrote:

> But destroying property is taboo!

You're going to have to answer to the Coca Cola company.

[Ciccio]

On Apr 30, 10:59 am, sms <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Self-checkout _only_ may be a problem, but self-checkout at other stores
> is quite popular, including Safeway, Walmart, Home Depot, Lucky, and
> even some Costcos. It's well accepted.

Yep. They're weaning the consumer from full-serve. Just like the gas
stations did. They went from full-serve to a choice of pumps full-
serve or self-serve. And then to self-serve being cheaper. Then to
where self-serve became pretty much it. Except,of course,in New Jersey
and Oregon.

Ciccio

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <klpst8$jnu$1...@dont-email.me>,

pfraser <pete_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You're going to have to answer to the Coca Cola company.

I'm only renting.

[Tim May]

Self-filling for gas works because it's basically "punch the buttons,
insert the nozzle, pull the trigger, go off and wait, then remove the
nozzle, done."

When I have attempted to enter produce codes at self-checkout lanes, it
has always resulted in screw--ups. Once I just told the helper to "Just
start completely over, as I don't trust anything entered so far."

As I understand things, Fresh and Easy attempted to solve the produce
problem by pre-packaging all produce.

Shudder.


--
Tim May

[Tim May]

I no longer experiment with self-checkout lines. Unless they are giving
me a serious discount, why should I hassle with wrong price codes,
calling a checker over, etc.?

I prefer to stand there with disinterest, saying "I don't know why this
item is not being priced. Not my problem."

If supermarkets want me to check my own junk, they need to fix the
whole system. And if they want me to bag my own stuff, they need to
either to sharply discount prices or get told "I'm not your nigger."


--
Tim May

[Tim May]

Not by me. I'm not their nigger.

--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2013-05-01 00:08:55 +0000, SMS said:
> True. Different stores do it at different levels of competence. Lucky
> is terrible. Walmart, Costco and Safeway are okay. I rarely go to Lucky
> but I was there a week or so ago and tried the self-checkout. It got
> upset about the bag that I brought being in the bagging area so I put
> the bag into the shopping cart then put all the items into the bagging
> area without a bag so the weight was right. Then one item was not in
> their database so the clerk came over and scanned another item that was
> the same price (Barilla pasta) but the one not in the database was 12
> ounces not 16 ounces so the register didn't like that.

This "it got upset" and "didn't like that" is why I stopped using
self-checkout. Not only was it slower (for more than a couple of items,
which is why self-checkout works OK at Home Depot, for small orders,
but not for carts with produce, meats, etc.), but it also produced the
aforementioned "didn't like that" screwups.

After a few such episodes, the next time I got a "didn't like that"
alarm, I just called the manual person (not actually named Manuel) and
said "Just cancel it all out and ring it up your way....I don't have
time to learn which things work which way and which things trigger
alarms."

>
> One thing I've noticed at some of the supermarkets and other stores
> with self-checkout is that it's become so popular that often the lines
> at the self-checkout are longer than the lines at the checkouts with a
> real person.

Indeed, I can almost alway find a lane with a human checker who doesn't
think I'm a nigger for the store.


--
Tim May

[Tim May]

Not if you deny them your essence.


--
Tim May

[sf]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:17:21 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

The Home Depot in Colma has multiple live checker aisles and lines a
mile long at each one, so some people go to self-checkout to avoid the
long lines and they are usually sorry they did it because
self-checkout is such an unmitigated ordeal.

[sf]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:08:55 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> Different stores do it at different levels of competence. Lucky is
> terrible. Walmart, Costco and Safeway are okay

Costco has self checkout? You have to be kidding!

[sf]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:59:50 -0700, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:

> Not by me. I'm not their nigger.

That makes you an old coot.

[sf]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:58:16 -0700, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:

> I no longer experiment with self-checkout lines. Unless they are giving
> me a serious discount, why should I hassle with wrong price codes,
> calling a checker over, etc.?
>
> I prefer to stand there with disinterest, saying "I don't know why this
> item is not being priced. Not my problem."
>
> If supermarkets want me to check my own junk, they need to fix the
> whole system. And if they want me to bag my own stuff, they need to
> either to sharply discount prices or get told "I'm not your nigger."
>

For once, I agree with you... other than your typical red-necked
"nigger" comment.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 4/30/13 11:40 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:08:55 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Different stores do it at different levels of competence. Lucky is
>> terrible. Walmart, Costco and Safeway are okay
>
> Costco has self checkout? You have to be kidding!

The self-checkouts have been a disaster at Costco:

http://storefrontbacktalk.com/securityfraud/costco-self-checkout-trial-loses-60k-at-one-store-in-six-months/

(or http://goo.gl/UJHEX )



- Peter

[SMS]

On 5/1/2013 12:51 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote:

> The self-checkouts have been a disaster at Costco:
>
> http://storefrontbacktalk.com/securityfraud/costco-self-checkout-trial-loses-60k-at-one-store-in-six-months/
>
>
> (or http://goo.gl/UJHEX )

Well at one Costco anyway. I think the biggest mistake they made is the
choice of location to try this at. They should have tried at a store
like Sunnyvale, not one in Idaho, though the place I experienced it, in
Reno, it seemed to be working well.

Throughput is always going to be less with self-checkout because
customers have more difficulty scanning things (especially at Home Depot
where bar codes are often printed on an item without any packaging like
PVC fittings) or on tiny tags (like sprinkler heads). OTOH you don't
have the delay of people paying with a check, and few people use cash in
the self-checkout.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 5/1/13 4:28 AM, SMS wrote:
>
> They should have tried at a store like
> Sunnyvale, not one in Idaho, though the place I experienced it, in Reno, it
> seemed to be working well.

How would you know if the Reno Costco wasn't suffering from the same sort of
inventory shrinkage as the Idaho Costco?


- Peter

[sf]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 08:06:18 -0700, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com>
wrote:

The only thing I care about is that self checkout was a fail, thank
god. There are many ways they could have upgraded the process, but
they didn't... including that joke of an inventory check at the door.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 5/1/13 9:08 AM, sf wrote:
>
> There are many ways they could have upgraded the process, but
> they didn't... including that joke of an inventory check at the door.

That's the one thing I didn't understand about the Idaho Costco that had
such a large problem with inventory shrinkage. The article stated is
because the door checkers didn't notice the items marked voided on the receipt.

But that's completely BS. A Costco door checker solely goes by the "Item
Count" that's clearly listed on the receipt as in "ITEM COUNT = 22".

And the item count includes only non-voided items, so the excuse they gave
in the article is just baloney.


- Peter

[sf]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 09:16:15 -0700, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com>
wrote:

When has anyone ever, really, stopped to count every item when you
have a full cart? They do a visual estimate and wave you on. If you
have fewer than 10-15 items, they'll take the time to count
one-by-one. They consistently spend far longer counting my few items
and making a big show of marking the sales check than they ever do
with full carts.

[Ciccio]

> Self-filling for gas works because it's basically "punch the buttons,
> insert the nozzle, pull the trigger, go off and wait, then remove the
> nozzle, done."

When self-serve gas started coming about, Pong was just becoming a big
deal. So, people past their 40s now, are less likely to embrace self-
checkout screens, etc. But people in their 20s/30s/40s now, were
teethed on computer/video games. So, they're use to the formats at
self-checkout places. Thus, it won't be too long before self-checkout
becomes the norm.

Indeed, they already are well training consumers to bring their own
bags and packing them. Not only that, but they sell the bags to the
consumers and the consumers, of course, pay for the privilege of
advertising the store on the bags...But it's green,cool and
hip...don't you know?

Ciccio

[Al Eisner]

On Wed, 1 May 2013, Steve Pope wrote:

> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
>> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
>
> I'm not sure Americans have even fully accepted self-serve gasoline.

My impression is that it is very close to 100% accepted. Why do you
think otherwise?

> Seems to me, in Europe the gas station will not have a human attendant
> at all, whereas in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant,
> even if they do very little.

In most local places, the attendant doubles as convenience store
clerk and cashier (gas stations do all still accept cash, so far as I
know). It would be really annoying if one couldn't buy oil, ask
someone to replenish towels (for example), or deal with malfunctions.
--

Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA

[Peter Lawrence]

It's probably not very PC, but I wouldn't be surprised if Costco uses some
sort of visual member profiling to determine who's full cart gets carefully
inspected.

And by visual profiling, I don't mean the profiling just how the member
looks or their age or race, but how the member acts, and most importantly,
what type of items are in the cart.

For myself, I usually don't purchase more than 15 items at a time, so it's
usually pretty quick and easy for the door checker to determine how many
items I have.


- Peter

[Steve Pope]

sf <sf.u...@gmail.com> wrote:

[door checkers]

>When has anyone ever, really, stopped to count every item when you
>have a full cart? They do a visual estimate and wave you on. If you
>have fewer than 10-15 items, they'll take the time to count
>one-by-one. They consistently spend far longer counting my few items
>and making a big show of marking the sales check than they ever do
>with full carts.

I have read that the true function of the door checker is to stall
you for long enough that the security cam gets a good recording of you.
(I do not know the veracity of this claim.)

Steve

[Steve Pope]

Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:

>On Wed, 1 May 2013, Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
>>> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
>>
>> I'm not sure Americans have even fully accepted self-serve gasoline.
>
>My impression is that it is very close to 100% accepted. Why do you
>think otherwise?

See below

>> Seems to me, in Europe the gas station will not have a human attendant
>> at all, whereas in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant,
>> even if they do very little.

>In most local places, the attendant doubles as convenience store
>clerk and cashier (gas stations do all still accept cash, so far as I
>know).

Attendent-free gas stations in Europe also accept cash (there are
cash slots, usually at a central kiosk at which you punch in your
pump number).

So, such a system is (in a sense) more completely self-service than a
gas station with a human cashier.

Steve

[Ciccio]

On May 1, 10:50 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> So, such a system is (in a sense) more completely self-service than a
> gas station with a human cashier.

The vast majority of employees at gas stations are not there to
provide consumers with auto services, but to sell food and beverages,
etc. The only gas station I have gone to in recent years that has
employees providing fueling aid are Safeway gas stations. Even there,
employees providing aid at the pumps is very minimal. Bottom
line...whether there are employees at gas stations selling snacks or
not, the auto related services are self-serve (NJ and OR excepted).
There may be rare exceptions, but overall gas stations are SELF-SERVE.
Sorry, I am not buying your corporate line,and most people don't buy
it, that employees are there to "serve" the consumer.

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On May 1, 10:50�am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> So, such a system is (in a sense) more completely self-service than a
>> gas station with a human cashier.

>The vast majority of employees at gas stations are not there to
>provide consumers with auto services, but to sell food and beverages,
>etc. The only gas station I have gone to in recent years that has
>employees providing fueling aid are Safeway gas stations. Even there,
>employees providing aid at the pumps is very minimal. Bottom
>line...whether there are employees at gas stations selling snacks or
>not, the auto related services are self-serve (NJ and OR excepted).

Except for the cashiering aspect of buying gas.

It is my hunch that Americans want a physical human there, in
case of a glitch, so that they can complain.

Steve

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <klrnbb$3qu$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>It is my hunch that Americans want a physical human there, in case
>of a glitch, so that they can complain.

As I suggested, someone they can fantasize about killing.

(It's no good vandalizing the equipment, because that probably
belongs to a rich man. Some low paid worker needs to get abused.)

[Hans Klager]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:50:12 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
<spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
> Attendent-free gas stations in Europe also accept cash (there are
> cash slots, usually at a central kiosk at which you punch in your
> pump number).

There are ARCO stations with these machines.

>
> So, such a system is (in a sense) more completely self-service than a
> gas station with a human cashier.

Plus they work round the clock.


--
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
- George Orwell

[sf]

I would say the public has been forced to accept it or do without a
vehicle. Steve doesn't own one, so how can he say the public
"accepts" it. Did slaves really "accept" slavery? They were forced
to into it the same way we were forced into accepting attendant free
gas stations: we weren't given a choice.

[sf]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio
<franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> > Self-filling for gas works because it's basically "punch the buttons,
> > insert the nozzle, pull the trigger, go off and wait, then remove the
> > nozzle, done."
>
> When self-serve gas started coming about, Pong was just becoming a big
> deal. So, people past their 40s now, are less likely to embrace self-
> checkout screens, etc. But people in their 20s/30s/40s now, were
> teethed on computer/video games. So, they're use to the formats at
> self-checkout places. Thus, it won't be too long before self-checkout
> becomes the norm.

That's total baloney. They've never known anything else - equate
them to the children and grandchildren of first generation slaves.

>
> Indeed, they already are well training consumers to bring their own
> bags and packing them. Not only that, but they sell the bags to the
> consumers and the consumers, of course, pay for the privilege of
> advertising the store on the bags...But it's green,cool and
> hip...don't you know?
>

Actually, I don't mind the bag thing and was doing it a long time ago.
In the beginning, it seemed wasteful to just throw paper bags out with
the trash - then recycling came along and they finally served a
purpose.

[Ciccio]

On May 1, 11:36 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> Ciccio  <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On May 1, 10:50 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> So, such a system is (in a sense) more completely self-service than a
> >> gas station with a human cashier.
> >The vast majority of employees at gas stations are not there to
> >provide consumers with auto services, but to sell food and beverages,
> >etc. The only gas station I have gone to in recent years that has
> >employees providing fueling aid are Safeway gas stations. Even there,
> >employees providing aid at the pumps is very minimal. Bottom
> >line...whether there are employees at gas stations selling snacks or
> >not, the auto related services are self-serve (NJ and OR excepted).
>
> Except for the cashiering aspect of buying gas.

The vast majority of it is plastic at the pumps. Even more stations
have machines that process cash.

> It is my hunch that Americans want a physical human there, in
> case of a glitch, so that they can complain.

I don't think consumers care or even notice, they just pull up and get
the gas. If they want a snack, etc. they may give it some mind. Sure,
if there is a problem they prefer having somebody there to complain
to, instead of just calling, emailing, etc, but unless that happens
they don't care.

Also, in Italy, even though they have the self-serve stations as you
describe, there are quite a few stations that have attendants that
fill gas, etc. Of course,there are no attendants during middays during
"riposo."

Ciccio

[James Silverton]

Like here, I suppose the attended pumps charge more. That's probably the
case in most states except New Jersey where all the pumps are flunky pumps.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 5/1/13 12:54 PM, sf wrote:
>
> I would say the public has been forced to accept it or do without a
> vehicle. Steve doesn't own one, so how can he say the public
> "accepts" it. Did slaves really "accept" slavery? They were forced
> to into it the same way we were forced into accepting attendant free
> gas stations: we weren't given a choice.

Up until the late 1990's, when there were still a number of service stations
that actually provided service (i.e. had auto mechanics on hand doing
repairs), these service stations would still offer full service on the pumps
closest to the service bays.

The problem is that not too many people took advantage of the full service
and chose the self-service pumps instead.



- Peter

[Ciccio]

On May 1, 1:21 pm, James Silverton

> Like here, I suppose the attended pumps charge more. That's probably the
> case in most states except New Jersey where all the pumps are > flunky pumps.

Without going through a foreign exchange gallons/liters calculations
exercise, full serve (servito)is about 2% more than self-serve (fai da
te).

Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fe941ec9-f9ff-4d3c...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

--------

yes. fortunately there was some very helpful local willing to help out this
unfortunate tourist many years ago, during my first experience with an
automated pump during the riposto (they didn't have such pumps here in the
US yet, at least not in my neck of the woods). Grazie!

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <klrv8c$3gu$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>The problem is that not too many people took advantage of the full
>service and chose the self-service pumps instead.

Because full service also became really slow.

It's the same way with forcing people to pay their bills online.
Sure, other options continue to exist, but they're made into too
much of a hassle -- much more of a hassle than they used to be.
Then companies can say, as you just did, that people chose this
other option.

[spamtrap1888]

On May 1, 10:32 am, Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Steve Pope wrote:
> > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
> >> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
>
> > I'm not sure Americans have even fully accepted self-serve gasoline.
>
> My impression is that it is very close to 100% accepted.  Why do you
> think otherwise?
>
> > Seems to me, in Europe the gas station will not have a human attendant
> > at all, whereas in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant,
> > even if they do very little.

Last time I was in Belgium, the attendant pumped the gas, and washed
my windshiled with a little yellow sponge. But I used an unattended
self-serve gas pump in Italy 30 years ago (Good thing, too, because
that day was a general strike.)

> In most local places, the attendant doubles as convenience store
> clerk and cashier (gas stations do all still accept cash, so far as I
> know).  It would be really annoying if one couldn't buy oil, ask
> someone to replenish towels (for example), or deal with malfunctions.

Enough people still drive off with the nozzle in their tank that you
would want an attendant for safety reasons. (Fill glass jugs with gas
-- all sorts of horrors.)

[SMS]

The door checker count is pretty superficial at the Costco's I go to.

[SMS]

I meant it worked well in terms of the customers being able and willing
to use it.

At Fresh and Easy apparently there was _only_ self-checkout.

In any case, the failure of Fresh and Easy was not because of
self-checkout, that was a tiny part of it. Basically the store sucked.
The prices were high, the selection was poor, and many of the locations
were poorly chosen. You need to appeal to a wide variety of shoppers to
have a successful grocery store, you can't make a go of it only catering
to dumb people that don't care about price or selection or quality,
that's too limited of a demographic.

[Ciccio]

On May 1, 4:18 pm, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Enough people still drive off with the nozzle in their tank that you
> would want an attendant for safety reasons. (Fill glass jugs with gas
> -- all sorts of horrors.)

Yep. It such clueless behavior and the resulting hazards, that
proponents of no self-serve gasoline in Oregon and New Jersey, use in
support of their positions.

Ciccio

[Hans Klager]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:37:20 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> In any case, the failure of Fresh and Easy was not because of
> self-checkout, that was a tiny part of it. Basically the store sucked.
> The prices were high, the selection was poor, and many of the locations
> were poorly chosen. You need to appeal to a wide variety of shoppers to
> have a successful grocery store, you can't make a go of it only catering
> to dumb people that don't care about price or selection or quality,
> that's too limited of a demographic.

Sounds like Beverly Hills to me.

[Marcella Peek]

In article
<alpine.LRH.2.00.1...@iris02.slac.stanford.edu>,

Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Steve Pope wrote:
>
> > Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
> >> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
> >
> > I'm not sure Americans have even fully accepted self-serve gasoline.
>
> My impression is that it is very close to 100% accepted. Why do you
> think otherwise?
>

We were just in Oregon and learned that one cannot pump their own gas.
The attendant has to do it. That quite surprised us but apparently it's
a state law. We were told New Jersey is the same - no self service
pumps.

marcella
who has never been inside a Fresh and Easy

[Peter Lawrence]

On 5/1/13 4:37 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 8:06 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote:
>> On 5/1/13 4:28 AM, SMS wrote:
>>>
>>> They should have tried at a store like
>>> Sunnyvale, not one in Idaho, though the place I experienced it, in
>>> Reno, it
>>> seemed to be working well.
>>
>> How would you know if the Reno Costco wasn't suffering from the same
>> sort of inventory shrinkage as the Idaho Costco?
>
> I meant it worked well in terms of the customers being able and willing to
> use it.
>
> At Fresh and Easy apparently there was _only_ self-checkout.
>
> In any case, the failure of Fresh and Easy was not because of self-checkout,
> that was a tiny part of it. Basically the store sucked. The prices were
> high, the selection was poor, and many of the locations were poorly chosen.

Oh please! What you just describe isn't Fresh & Easy.

Their prices aren't high, their selection is actually quite good for such
small stores. (Just ask Todd, he was able to find specialty beers that he
liked at F&E.)

It isn't the best, most fantastic and awesome grocery store in the world,
but it definitely is a convenient place to shop when you need a few things
here and there. It serves a useful purpose.

Other problems it did have besides the self-checkout, were that some of the
produce could have been better and, as you already stated, some locations
have been problematic.


- Peter

[sf]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:37:20 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Self-checkout was just a symptom of their do it my way and like it
attitude.

[sf]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 23:48:22 +0000 (UTC), Hans Klager
<hans....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:37:20 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In any case, the failure of Fresh and Easy was not because of
> > self-checkout, that was a tiny part of it. Basically the store sucked.
> > The prices were high, the selection was poor, and many of the locations
> > were poorly chosen. You need to appeal to a wide variety of shoppers to
> > have a successful grocery store, you can't make a go of it only catering
> > to dumb people that don't care about price or selection or quality,
> > that's too limited of a demographic.
>
> Sounds like Beverly Hills to me.

Not even faintly. Beverly Hills has valet service everywhere you go.

[Al Eisner]

On Wed, 1 May 2013, Steve Pope wrote:

> Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
>>>> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure Americans have even fully accepted self-serve gasoline.
>>
>> My impression is that it is very close to 100% accepted. Why do you
>> think otherwise?
>
> See below

I see nothing below which demonstrates anything other than what I said.
Of course, the "self service" which Americans accept is the self-service
available in the USA, not the self-service available in Italy, which they
have mostly never experienced.

>>> Seems to me, in Europe the gas station will not have a human attendant
>>> at all, whereas in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant,
>>> even if they do very little.
>
>> In most local places, the attendant doubles as convenience store
>> clerk and cashier (gas stations do all still accept cash, so far as I
>> know).
>
> Attendent-free gas stations in Europe also accept cash (there are
> cash slots, usually at a central kiosk at which you punch in your
> pump number).
>
> So, such a system is (in a sense) more completely self-service than a
> gas station with a human cashier.

I take your point about the cash machines, but in most aspects the presence
of an attendant has little to do with the actual "fill tank and pay for
gas" aspects -- see my earlier post (including parts you didn't quote).

[Tim May]

On 2013-05-01 16:16:15 +0000, Peter Lawrence said:

> On 5/1/13 9:08 AM, sf wrote:
>>
>> There are many ways they could have upgraded the process, but
>> they didn't... including that joke of an inventory check at the door.
>
> That's the one thing I didn't understand about the Idaho Costco that
> had such a large problem with inventory shrinkage. The article stated
> is because the door checkers didn't notice the items marked voided on
> the receipt.
>
> But that's completely BS. A Costco door checker solely goes by the
> "Item Count" that's clearly listed on the receipt as in "ITEM COUNT =
> 22".
>
> And the item count includes only non-voided items, so the excuse they
> gave in the article is just baloney.

I don't think the door checkers are _counting_ items (and then
comparing the count to the receipt).

It looks to me like they're basically doing a rough comparison,
especially of expensive items.


--
Tim May

[Peter Lawrence]

Some have counted at loud in the past, so I know counting the amount of
merchandise is one thing they do. They might be checking for other things
too, though.


- Peter

[JHATG]

In article <2013043022595017656-tcmay@attnet>, Tim May <tc...@att.net>
wrote:

> Not by me. I'm not their nigger.

No, but you're a racist asshole. You should be chopped to pieces with a
chain saw, AFTER being skinned alive.

I am not compassionate to assholes like you and Cisco-employed Jeffy.

[Tim May]

On 2013-05-01 17:32:52 +0000, Al Eisner said:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The time may come when Americans will accept self-checkout the way
>>> they accepted self-serve gasoline. But that time sure isn't now.
>>
>> I'm not sure Americans have even fully accepted self-serve gasoline.
>
> My impression is that it is very close to 100% accepted. Why do you
> think otherwise?

I've been driving since 1968 and have never, not even once, had gas
pumped for me.

I surmise that what Steve Pope must mean is that some people wish it
were otherwise. I do too. It would give the layabouts and dirt people
something they could do for $2.25 an hour.

But in our reality, it ain't gonna happen. Which means to mean that
America (and probably the rest of the world) has accepted self-serve
gasoline the same way they accept gravity.

As for self-checkout at supermarkets, I don't use it. I've discussed
the reasons. (Notably, I would rather spend my time as the checker is
checking-out the items double-checking the prices charged, entering my
credit card button stuff, and generally observing. I also buy small
lots of vegetables--baggies of kale, spinach, fruits, whatever, none
with barcodes) and have zero idea of the codes....I'm not going to
weigh them, write down the weight and the code number, etc. This is
part of what checkers are paid to learn to do. And so unless a
self-checkout system offers a massive price cut, I won't use it.)

This is a far cry from what was going on when "gas station attendants"
vanished, at least in my driving experience in several states, long
before when I started to drive. For starters, the gas filling process
was/is a no brainer. Punch a few buttons and go.

In any case, it's essentially universal (in the U.S.....don't know
about the Turd World...perhaps they have laws mandating that some dirts
be hired to pump the gas).

>
>> Seems to me, in Europe the gas station will not have a human attendant
>> at all, whereas in the USA there is (almost) always an attendant,
>> even if they do very little.
>
> In most local places, the attendant doubles as convenience store
> clerk and cashier (gas stations do all still accept cash, so far as I

> know). It would be really annoying if one couldn't buy oil, ask
> someone to replenish towels (for example), or deal with malfunctions.

I find it hard to understand your referring to the clerks inside the
store (usually some kind of office/store is associated with gas
stations) as "attendants."

In the past 45 years of my driving no clerk inside the office has ever
helped me with fueling, or has checked my oil, etc. Perhaps it's
because I haven't asked.

Perhaps if I asked nicely they'd shut down their cash registers, ignore
customers in line, lock up the office so stuff wouldn't be pilfered,
and come out to pump my gas.

Right.


--
Tim May

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 8:30 am, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:

> I've been driving since 1968 and have never, not even once, had gas
> pumped for me.

Where were you living then? In 1968 full-serve was the rule in SF. The
whole bit of washing the windshield (often times the rear window too),
check the oil (often times check the air in the tires too.)

It wasn't too long after that though, that self-serve started really
catching on. That was especially so in the early 70s with the so-
called energy crisis and prices took big hikes.

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:

>Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:

[attendants as gas stations U.S. vs. EU)

>>It is my hunch that Americans want a physical human there, in case
>>of a glitch, so that they can complain.

>As I suggested, someone they can fantasize about killing.

>(It's no good vandalizing the equipment, because that probably
>belongs to a rich man. Some low paid worker needs to get abused.)

I think it's not quite that extreme a mentality. However,
Americans it seems (more than people in general) only feel
comfortable if they have the potential opportunity to
escalate a situation on the spot, should they feel dissatisfied.
So you're on the right track.


Steve

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 11:29 am, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> I think it's not quite that extreme a mentality.  However,
> Americans it seems (more than people in general) only feel
> comfortable if they have the potential opportunity to
> escalate a situation on the spot, should they feel dissatisfied.
> So you're on the right track.

Yep. When I was an undergrad I worked the desks at hotels and motels.
When people called and got answers they didn't like, such as "I'm
sorry we don't have any room available," they would demand to speak to
the manager. At each place, we employees would take turns pretending
to be the manager and placate the assholes.

Ciccio

[sf]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio
<franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On May 5, 8:30 am, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > I've been driving since 1968 and have never, not even once, had gas
> > pumped for me.
>
> Where were you living then? In 1968 full-serve was the rule in SF. The
> whole bit of washing the windshield (often times the rear window too),
> check the oil (often times check the air in the tires too.)
>

Remember when they did all that and checked your lights too?

> It wasn't too long after that though, that self-serve started really
> catching on. That was especially so in the early 70s with the so-
> called energy crisis and prices took big hikes.
>
> Ciccio

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 2:14 pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Remember when they did all that and checked your lights too?

I remember that as well as checking all the fluids and adding the
fluids if they needed it.

When self-serve first really caught on, frequently all those tasks
would be done by women's boyfriends and husbands. Lots of guys would
grab the car used by the wife/GF and fill it up for her. Heh. I still
have that fall on my side of the divided labor. Though most guys I
know don't do such for their wives/SOs/GFs anymore. And, of course,
when we're going somewhere together, I drive. So there are still some
old fashioned gender-based habits I have.

Ciccio

Ciccio

[Steve Pope]

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On May 5, 2:14 pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

>> Remember when they did all that and checked your lights too?

>I remember that as well as checking all the fluids and adding the
>fluids if they needed it.

This is partly because at the time motor vehicles were far
less reliable and it was much more necessary to check their
vital signs.

Steve

[sf]

My husband does that too. Our generation only breaks that habit when
the husband isn't allowed to drive anymore... or as the old saying
goes: his wife wears the pants in that house.

[sf]

That's true, but I still see cars with burned out head or tail lights
and someone doing a visual check as part of gassing up at a full
service station with a garage would be able to fix that problem ASAP.

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 4:03 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> This is partly because at the time motor vehicles were far
> less reliable and it was much more necessary to check their
> vital signs.

Well sure, and to SELL you stuff..."You're about a quart low, should I
put it in for you?" "Oh, you're taillight is out, should I get you
one?" etc.

Though if a place wanted to compete, it had better have been service
oriented. Service with a smile, was the rule, not like today.

Gawd,it's amazing the 'tude people, even in the so-called hospitality
industry, have today. It's like they're doing you a favor.

The last vestige of superb service I got from a gas station was in the
70s during the so-called energy crisis. I had been going to a
particular gas station often for a few years. The guy told me if I
wanted to leave my car and pick it up later, he'd fill it up for me.
That way I wouldn't need to put up with that odd-even bullshit with
lines that were blocks long.

Of course, I went there for several years thereafter until the place
changed hands.

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 4:23 pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:

> My husband does that too.  Our generation only breaks that habit when
> the husband isn't allowed to drive anymore... or as the old saying
> goes: his wife wears the pants in that house.

Well, I'll admit, when I see a woman driving her husband/BF/SO, I jump
to the conclusion that he is drunk or has a suspended license or some
such. Of course, nowadays, it could be unrelated to such...but still.

Ciccio

[(null)]

In article <atido8p405abg3rm2...@4ax.com>,

sf <sf.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 May 2013 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT), Ciccio
><franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Where were you living then? In 1968 full-serve was the rule in SF. The
>> whole bit of washing the windshield (often times the rear window too),
>> check the oil (often times check the air in the tires too.)
>>
>Remember when they did all that and checked your lights too?

Nope, that's before my time. However, I have heard stories of
them cutting the fan belt and/or tossing an Alka-Seltzer in the battery
while you are behind the upturned hood in order to upsell you on services.

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 6:26 pm, d...@sonic.net ((null))

> Nope, that's before my time. However, I have > heard stories of them cutting the fan belt > and/or tossing an Alka-Seltzer in the battery
> while you are behind the upturned hood in order to upsell you on services.

Sure, that happened. But not much more than today, if any more, when
they do oil and lube jobs or mechanical work.

Ciccio

[Tim May]

On 2013-05-05 18:16:12 +0000, Ciccio said:

> On May 5, 8:30�am, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I've been driving since 1968 and have never, not even once, had gas
>> pumped for me.
>
> Where were you living then? In 1968 full-serve was the rule in SF. The
> whole bit of washing the windshield (often times the rear window too),
> check the oil (often times check the air in the tires too.)

In Virginia from that time to 1970. Self-service was the norm. (This
was in Northern Virginia, not some rural part of the state.)

I didn't have a car in college (the old days, before massive student
debt and parents spoiling their college age kids). I resumed driving in
1974 when I started at Intel in Santa Clara. Self-service was, as in
Virginia, the norm.

(And on trips with friends in 1970-74, self-service was the norm.)



--
Tim May

[(null)]

In article <b959484b-84c1-4193...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Not sure how you measure, but I run about 20 tanks of gas for every oil
change so if I understand your math correctly then I am 20 times more
vulnerable to a full-serve gas station scam than I am to an oil change scam.
(I change my own oil, anyway)

[Tim May]

It was pretty common back in the 60s for "filling stations" to
"recommend" oil changes, battery replacements, radiator fluid
supplements, fan belt replacements, new hoses, new oil filters, new air
filters, etc. "Your framastan is looking like it's about to go....we
can have you out of here in 10 minutes."

A lot of little old ladies probably fell for this. A lot of others,
too. Sure beats sending flyers out to 20,000 for every 5 who pick up
the phone and call.


--
Tim May

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 9:17 pm, d...@sonic.net ((null)) wrote:

> Not sure how you measure, but I run about 20 tanks of gas for every oil
> change so if I understand your math correctly then I am 20 times more
> vulnerable to a full-serve gas station scam than I am to an oil change scam.
> (I change my own oil, anyway)

Not if one did business with honest people one knew and frequented
their places. That was very common at the time. Moreover, of those 20
times YOU say I did, I very rarely, if ever, got mechanical services
when getting gas. Nowadays people run a risk of getting scammed when
getting oil and lubes or mechanical work, but they have to pump their
own gas.

Even when I would randomly pick gas stations when traveling back then,
I never had occasion to hire for mechanical work when getting gas.
Like I said, the scams you referred to did happen, but they were
pretty uncommon.

But like you admit, you weren't around at the time.

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

On May 5, 11:20 pm, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
> It was pretty common back in the 60s for "filling stations" to
> "recommend" oil changes, battery replacements, radiator fluid
> supplements, fan belt replacements, new hoses, new oil filters, new air
> filters, etc.

Man, the oil&lube places nowadays, Jiffy Lube, Oil Changers, tire
shops, etc., are just as pushy if not more so.

The bottom line is, people are paying 2x-3x the (inflation adjusted)
price for gas, but people don't get a fraction of the service people
got back then when they bought gas...and that's what we'll be saying
about supermarkets and their items in twenty or so years, if not
sooner.

Ciccio

[Peter Lawrence]

But it was also a lot more common back then that an unscrupulous service
station would try to pull a "fast one" on a female driver versus a male driver.


- Peter

[Ciccio]

That may be. And sure, scams by gas jockeys happened, but they were
infrequent. What was much more frequent were people who brought their
cars to mechanics for routine work and the mechanics running scams on
them.

It was rare to even hear a woman after she went to a full-serve gas
station say something like: "Good thing, I got gas today, the gas
jockey found X problem, but I got it fixed for Y dollars."

Anyhow, it's all moot now, as you get to pay 2x-3x more than the then
(adjusted) dollar amount and you get to pump your own gas and get
virtually no service...talk about getting scammed.

Ciccio

[Hans Klager]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 23:20:07 -0700, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>
> It was pretty common back in the 60s for "filling stations" to
> "recommend" oil changes, battery replacements, radiator fluid
> supplements, fan belt replacements, new hoses, new oil filters, new air
> filters, etc. "Your framastan is looking like it's about to go....we
> can have you out of here in 10 minutes."

The oil change places pull this shit too. Even offering
fuel injection service on cars with carburetters.


--
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
- George Orwell

[sms]

On 5/6/2013 8:34 AM, Hans Klager wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 23:20:07 -0700, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> It was pretty common back in the 60s for "filling stations" to
>> "recommend" oil changes, battery replacements, radiator fluid
>> supplements, fan belt replacements, new hoses, new oil filters, new air
>> filters, etc. "Your framastan is looking like it's about to go....we
>> can have you out of here in 10 minutes."
>
> The oil change places pull this shit too. Even offering
> fuel injection service on cars with carburetters.

Not just oil change places, dealership service departments as well.
Click and Clack used to talk about the "Bilstein R-2000 Wallet Flush
System," see
<http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=20000330&id=lkVRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AwQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6628,4797173>.

[sf]

I haven't, but I guess it could happen anywhere.

[sf]

With oil change places, like Jiffy Lube, they are more likely not to
put in the new gasket or use the wrong screws. We gave up on those
things quickly and just take our car to the dealer, where stuff like
that could happen too... but if they want to ever be given the
opportunity to try to sell us another car, they'd better not pull that
sh*t.

[sf]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 01:24:55 -0700, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com>
wrote:

His point is that more were honest than not and what you guys are
dreaming of probably happened in the South... a place I still wouldn't
want to be stuck in.

[sf]

It wasn't the norm. Gas stations gave you options back then. The
self-serve pump was a couple cents less, so you college boys saved
your pennies to buy beer and drugs. Now all you remember is
self-serve as if it was the only choice. It wasn't.