<HTML>Ron, You're spot on here about the disproportionate number of no shows on dea= ler tunings.  And using "free" does indeed devalue the procedure. &nbsp= ; From now on, I'll call them dealer tunings, or warranty tunings. Thanks, Dave S. In a message dated 9/20/04 8:41:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, rnossaman@c= ox.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-= LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>Thanks for the input, > >Dave S. Dave, At the risk of aggravating the situation, I'd like to offer an observati= on. I really - REALLY - dislike the concept and use of the term "free" tunin= g. The implication (because of the word "free"), and resulting practice, is= that since it is "free" there's no penalty for being unavailable at the time of the appointment. The assumption being that the tuner is paid by = the dealer whether he does any work or not (as is apparently the case in the= situation between the customer and their employer), and nobody pays a penalty for a no-show. Far and away, the worst record for folks standing= me up on a scheduled appointment are for dealer tunings. That leaves me in = a position to decide who eats the income loss. By all that's right and proper, it ought to be the twit customer who couldn't be bothered to mee= t their commitment to someone else's time and livelihood, but they don't s= ee it that way because the tuning was "free". The dealer, rightfully, shouldn't be liable for the service call for obvious reasons, nor is he going to be amused if I monetarily penalize the twit customer for wastin= g my means of eating. So I get a choice. I either offend the dealer, offen= d the customer and the dealer, or take my shafting quietly without raising= a disturbance. I'll get the shafting in any case, but I get the luxury of determining what sort of disturbance I'll cause en-route. A dubious bene= fit at best... </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>