Cut Tickets--ethics - Page 9

I'm glad you feel the need to scathe here, but I'm afraid your situation ethics is nonsense. Hypocrisy is thine, not mine. So sorry.

1) lift tix aren't based on hourly ratings.

2) I dare you mightily to prove my hypocrisy here.

you're off your rocker here.

my position has to do with fairness to all, not "white guy" ANYthing.

please explain your flawed view of my perspective, I want to hear more. I love how you know my thoughts better than I and want to hear you tell me more about myself.

so cool!

such a scofflaw!

pathetic, really. but that's par for the Dawg course.

which proves what?

the snow's still there too, long after the day's lifts shut down. so are the runs. so are the buildings. so are the grooming machines. so are EVERY FIXTURE.

you apparently misunderstand the role of FIXTURES in a business.

another pathetic rationalization for "sticking it to the man," which is in effect sticking it to everyone who skis at lift-served hills.

but go ahead, screw up MY skiing indirectly, I sure do appreciate it! :

if you think it comes down to the "legality" of it, you're as off your rocker as Bonni and Garrett. and XDog.

all of you who are so sure you're getting screwed by your local hill and are therefore driven to screw back,

why don't you explain how it is you DESERVE to screw the hill?

mudfoot tried pretty well and failed. can anyone do better?

ditto.

Gonzo, if a daily lift ticket is not based on hours, then why have a 4 hour, all day, or night pass? Why not just one pass? Because it IS sold by the hourly chunk.

You're saying it's based on an individual person? Maybe a golf membership at a country club, or a gym membership could be sold that way. Season pass, too.

Here's a nice story about the people who run some ski places (I won't even call it a resort).

Iowa in February, Fun Valley Ski Dive. Looking at their website, snow was good, all lifts open, whee. I've never been, it's a 2 hour drive, let's go check it out.

Get there, take a look, it's early.........they're not open yet (first tracks, eh?). Buy tickets for $20 each (WOW, CHEAP), get geared up, lifts start running.......one lift. Serving flat beginner slope. Snow isn't good for the rest to open, says they. Take two runs, push myself down the steep parts with poles to get speed. NO FUN.

It takes 10 minutes to go up a 100 yard 'slope'. I could have walked up faster. Within half an hour I'm at the ticket window asking if they do refunds, partial refunds, comp pass for another day. They say, "Hey. There are people out there having fun. It's your choice NOT to have fun. We don't do refunds." I ask politely and get a snide remark thrown in my face.

Nice attitude, huh? They set the model, and I have to be BETTER than that?? Yet, you guys think it's unethical for ME to sell that for $10 to some kid spending his allowance to "GO SKI"?

Sure.

What 'numbers' are misrepresented by my ticket sold here? Is an extra person skiing? Will that kid spend more money on food now that he's saved $10? I suppose you'd rather have me take it up the a$$ like that instead. What would you think of that kind of experience?

How is that a dodge? Skiingman doesn't know me personally, and I'll assume he doesn't know a majority of the Barking Bears. I'm not Al Capone, Heidi Fleisch, or the ficitional Tony Montana. My name and face have never been in the newspaper for cheating on my taxes. Therefore, Skiingman simply cannot know whether or not I've ever cheated on my taxes. Furthermore, he can only form a rough idea of my socio-economic status by way of my profile on Epicski. So even the insinuation that I (or anyone else here for that matter) has cheated on my taxes is utterly baseless.

The statement was, IMHO, intended to anger and insult; although my initial reaction was the same as everyone else's -- I ignored it entirely. After further goading, I replied in the same manner as the initial statement.

As far as I know, no, I haven't. I just missed the Napster craze, by the time I first downloaded an .mp3 online it wasn't even an .mp3 file, it was an AAC file from the iTunes store. As for the motion picture industry, I'd have to say no as well. As tech-savvy as I consider myself, to this day I can't program a VCR, let alone figure out how to copy from one tape to another...

Gonzostrike:

Regardless of my feeling of getting historically screwed by the area as a possible psychological justification for ticket clipping, I still think that if I have paid for something I own it, even if it is a temporary license to use the area for a day. It is hard to think of any other situation where you pay for a ticket but do not control it.

This is not like a concert where I can leave with people's tickets and come back in with more people. We are talking about paying for the right for one person to ski for a day, and never having more than one person at a time ever using that ticket. The skiers get what they paid for, a total of one day of skiing. The ski area gets what was paid for, one person on the area for a day, but you are saying it somehow violates "fairness to all."

It may not be technically legal, but it is hard to make the jump to screwing the area and "sticking it to everyone who skis lift-served hills" because the ski area does not get to make more profit from the 2nd ticket buyer. I guess if I ski all day on my ticket I am screwing everyone because they were counting on me to leave early.

Yeah, mudfoot, the NERVE of you! Skiing ALL DAY on your ticket and screwing the resort out of..........what........think of something......how dare you, anyway!:

LOL...Skierj, you are sorely mistaken if you think I believe moral and legal are one and the same. I sincerely hope this doesn't serve to hijack this thread, but ABORTION is an excellent example of my thinking when it comes to legality vs. morality. I believe abortion is immoral, not on religious grounds but rather b/c I don't think it's right for a potential human to suffer the consequences of an irresponsible parent. Personal responsibility, baby! OTOH, I also believe abortion is 100% LEGAL in the U.S. and should stay that way, god willing. :

My insistence on the transfer of non-transferable tickets being wrong is based upon the belief, as someone wrote earlier, that SAM makes various decisions throughout the course of the year based upon estimated skier days. A skier day is one ticket sold, whether that ticket is used for a full 8 hour day or 1 hour. If it's used for 1 hour and the skier (call him X) leaves, the assumption is that the guy pulling into the parking lot as X is leaving will be purchasing his OWN ticket, therefore bumping the total # of tickets sold that day to TWO.

Before I really start to take heat for coming across as a self-righteous prick, I should admit that (as is common in my world) whenever I'm debating something as intangible as questions of morality and ethics often are, I tend to use the "logical extreme" as the basis upon which I form my argument. So even though one, two, or even 100 clipped/transferred tickets won't put Killington out of business, the practice HAS THE POTENTIAL to significantly affect the area's bottom line. Due to this, it must be wrong, unethical, etc.

the 4-hour is based on a 4-hour chunk. not divisible by hour. if it were divisible by hour the tickets would be sold by the hour.

when you go to the grocers and you see milk sold by the 1/2 gal and 1 gal and you need 3/4 gal, do you make your own 3/4 gal volume out of the existing containers and volumes, and demand that they price it accordingly?

No. YOU ARE SAYING that.

what I've been saying is quite clear, but many of you choose to argue with a strawman of my position. fine with me, it only embarrasses you lot, and only shows your own silliness.

But Mudfoot, when you purchased that ticket you were well aware of what you were buying: a ticket that allows YOU to ski at that area for a given period of time (be it 4 hrs, 8 hrs, etc.). You wouldn't go to McDonalds and bitch about being forced to buy an entire hamburger even though you only wanted half of it, would you? Why should a lift ticket be any different? It's not SAM's fault that you didn't want to ski all day...they were honest and up-front concerning their obligations to you once that ticket was purchased. I don't see why you shouldn't be expected to be honest and up-front with them as to your intended use of that ticket. Don't like the McDonalds example? How about a concert: I rarely bother to go into a venue for the opening act...should I demand a 20% refund on my ticket b/c I only saw the main act?

you're not using your imagination to its best advantage.

a lift ticket's sales office will have some sign or pamphlet that states the duration of period for which the lift ticket is valid. as most have noted, these are typically full day or half day. when you buy one or the other, you are buying the ability to use the ticket for that period of time, and if you wish to use it for less, or are required by circumstance to use it for less, then that is NOT the fault of the ski area.

or do you have some evidence that shows it somehow IS the area's fault?

don't guess at my position. you want to know what is "fair to all"? it's doing what all are required to do, by the area's operational parameters. which include the lift ticket pricing arrangement.

go read my milk question to Bonni and see if you still think you know my position.

the "legality" of it is not the issue. no law that is amoral has any persuasive force.

I've yet to hear anyone call into question the morality of the pricing structure. some have tried, vainly, to imply that if a poor person believes he/she cannot afford it, then he/she deserves to steal the services.

I wonder if your rationale has more persuasive power than that sorry angle.

the pricing structure undoubtedly assumes that some people, and perhaps MOST people, do not use the full block of time that their lift ticket represents. a ski area manager would be idiotic to not face reality when pricing lift tickets. are you saying they're all idiots? are you saying they intentionally overcharge to gouge out of your wallet your hard-inherited or hard-received dollars?

maybe this represents the extent to which most of y'all are dissatisfied with your local ski area. if that's the case, I fell sorry for all of you.

I wouldn't consider stealing services from my two favorite local ski hills. I am thankful that they are open and providing lift service and pre-cut runs for me to enjoy. I don't assume that running the area is a free adventure for them. I don't assume they're pricing lift tickets so that they can buy their children expensive throwaway toys and ridiculously overpriced everything. I don't assume they're raping me economically.

but apparently some of y'all do. maybe you should change your ski area.

So.. it's not sold by TIME, even though 4 hours, 8 hours, etc. is time. It's not by the person........the only other way it could be sold. What does that leave?

Well, it's not clear to me, I don't think I'm silly, and I won't BOHICA when this kind of resort wants to stick me with a lousy product touted to be in prime condition.

oh god. being intentionally obtuse is neither funny nor creative.

and twisting what I said to get your own sick jollies is shameful.

pretty sad, Mrs B. pretty sad.

[quote=iskitoofast4u]But Mudfoot, when you purchased that ticket you were well aware of what you were buying: a ticket that allows YOU to ski at that area for a given period of time (be it 4 hrs, 8 hrs, etc.). You wouldn't go to McDonalds and bitch about being forced to buy an entire hamburger even though you only wanted half of it, would you? Why should a lift ticket be any different? It's not SAM's fault that you didn't want to ski all day...they were honest and up-front concerning their obligations to you once that ticket was purchased.QUOTE]

That is true, but they have a monopoly on local skiing so I have no choice as to the terms on which they offer tickets. They were honest and up front about the fact that I can take the one option they offer for day skiing or walk. Even if they lured me there with a bogus ski report. The reason skiing has become such an elitest and expensive sport is because most of us don't have a choice but to take whatever they offer on whatever terms they offer. You apparently feel that corporations, even when using public land, can make whatever rules they want. The quote of yours below makes it obvious that your capitalism is showing. Anything that harms their bottom line must be wrong and unethical! I cannot even respond to that.

"So even though one, two, or even 100 clipped/transferred tickets won't put Killington out of business, the practice HAS THE POTENTIAL to significantly affect the area's bottom line. Due to this, it must be wrong, unethical, etc."

I am sad, aren't I? heh heh

Phhhhht.

Tell me, oh Great and Powerful Gonz..........what would YOU do at 'Fun Valley'? I suppose you would say, "Yes, Yes, I'm not using my poles to have fun, my fault, jolly good, I'll just slink away now, take my money, haha, I'll consider this a lesson"?

Not everyone lives in Nirvana, Grand Poohbah.

Bonni, stop bringing external inapplicable stuff into the discussion. I moved here so that I would be able to ski at places that aren't designed merely for real estate sales. So that I would avoid obnoxious, self-centered city folks. So that I could ski and hike and MTB and fish in places where the crowds ARE NOT.

I gave up a monstrous salary and a strong, stable, growing career to do so.

therefore I don't care one whit for you whiners who are too terrified to walk what you talk, and instead feel hamstrung and constrained to STEAL FROM your local ski hill.

pathetic.

and it has nothing to do with being almighty or omniscient. what I have done in my life is within everyone's reach. notice Mark & Lisa. notice Kiersten.

quit blaming externals for internal difficulty.

oh my, mudfoot. this is beginning to sound paranoid.

I don't suppose your local lift-served ski hill has the power to deny you your own backcountry ski options, does it?

have you thought of opening your own ski area? or perhaps getting your local skiers together for the same purpose? it is possible you know. check out Turner MT and Bridger Bowl in Montana.

your imagination needs to be engaged better here.

Without going back several pages on a reconnaissance mission, I presumed he had asked you that question directly. If that was you response to it, it sounded like a dodge.

Obviously it wasn't. Thanks for the clarification. No accusations intended on my part, just going along for the wild ride on this unpredictable crazy train to nowhere.

I don't think it's External or inapplicable. It's ONE REASON you might want to sell your ticket or give it away.

You never answered the question. Or can't you?

They have a "monopoly on local skiing" only b/c you haven't attempted to open a different resort next door, across the street, etc. Geography, rather than greed, has led to their so-called monopoly. Corporations, even when using public land, cannot make whatever rules they want. They can, however, make rules to protect their investmentas long as they conform to current law.

As far as my "capitalism" (you mean capitalist beliefs)...that's garbage. We live in a capitalist society, so of course a ski area (a business, remember) will operate on capitalist fundamentals. As evil as many people here claim SAM to be, let's not forget the countless discounts, freebies, etc. that are issued on a daily basis: Group rates, skier appreciation days, local citizen appreciation days, buy 5 days get the 6th free, etc. If socialistic ski areas were in such great demand the MRG's would outnumber the K-Marts 10 to 1 today. They don't though, do they?

As an aside, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which entity was able to respond more effectively: The Federal Gov't (in a socialist manner, if you will) or corporate America?

First let me say that taking the emotional charge out of debate and allowing for reasoned argument is a welcome relief.

In response I would point out that if you know what the law is regarding transferring a lift ticket and by purchasing it, enter into a contract with the provider...knowing that you will break that contractual agreement as it suits you, *that* is the moral issue. The moral issue isn't about sharing lift tickets, it's about failing to vote with your wallet when you disagree with the policy and instead, fraudulently entering into a contractual agreement.

I presume the price of a season pass is, in part, informed by the average use of a season pass based on past experience...ie: how much service the resort can plan to provide for the revenue realized. Sure, some passes get used every day and some seldom...there is an average an the calculation matters to the economics.

If season pass sharing were to be allowed, season passes would become much more expensive because the average days of use per pass would rise.

Jstraw,

You just summed up, in less than 200 words, everything I've been saying for the past 2 or 3 days. Thank you...unfortunately, brevity (on paper and oral) has never been my strong suit!

ZIIIIIIIIPP ...that's the sound of my flame retardant suit's zipper.

SAM discusses ticket stock options in many veins every season. One of those veins addresses curtailing fraud.

If SAM wanted to control lift access to the point of zero tolerence for fraud, they could.

Just buy your ticket and keep your personal Jimminy Cricket on your shoulder and we'll all be fine.

You are wrong. The ski area makes no secret of the terms of sale. You have the choice to buy or not buy what they are selling. You aren't buying something other than what they are selling simply because you would prefer to be. If you don't like their product, do not buy it.

Oh, and as for the second point...flown commercial lately? Buy a ticket from Chicago to San Francisco by way of Denver. Sell the Denver to SFO portion to some kid in the parking lot and watch him try and get through security.

How many of you would buy 18 holes of golf and be HAPPY if 7 holes were under water, and no one told you?

I used to think I was a fair person till I was villified on this website full of pious, holier-than-thou skiers stuffed with OUTSTANDING MORAL CHARACTER.......hell, they're more righteous than the Pope, Mother Teresa, and Ghandi combined.:

And don't play that tune about 'situational ethics' Gonz. You better than anyone should know how to work that one. It's what lawyers DO. I'm glad you got out if you really think that passing off a ticket with time on it is such an offense to the hill.

This horse is dead.