Cut Tickets--ethics - Page 11

Why not make it something with a higher value.

Milk I would not argue over, nor would I spend any significant time deciding. In the case you presented, I'd just take the gallon. Except for expiration date---I don't need to worry much about when I consume it.

If, for instance, it were a very expensive liquor and the packaging was significantly different, for example a nip for 2 bucks and a gallon for $75 and thats all they had? I'd buy beer.

and here you see why many take up backcountry skiing as a "cheaper alternative" to lift-served skiing.

sometimes this "cheaper" quality is illusory. have you priced the AT gear lately? and then there's that nuisance of having to drive to more interesting snowfields, which likely costs more than the drive to Fun Valley Resort World.

The point is that a non-transferrable lift pass is not a product that allows lift use for 8 hours. It is a product that allows ONE PERSON access to the slopes for the time period specified. The pricing and rules of the product are not driven by cost. They are driven by the expectation of profit (i.e. revenue - cost). The cost of one additional person skiing for a few hours is close to zero. Simply put, the practice of cut tickets is stealing revenue from the resort that the resort reacts to by raising their prices. One way of looking at this is that when you reuse cut tickets, you are making everyone else at the resort pay a little bit more for their lift pass.

If resorts chose to offer a transferable pass product, they would need to raise prices to achieve the same level of profit. This is not unprecedented. Check out the "gold pass" program which is a transferrable season pass good at multiple resorts. The cost, $2,750, speaks for itself.

It is possible "to unilaterally adjust the economic balance of power" without violating the law. However, there is no need for adjustment. Every one of us consumers has the ultimate power in the relationship because we are not forced to buy lift tickets. We choose to buy them. For those of us who can not afford to ski as often as we would like to at the rates that are being offered, there are usually legal means to ski for less. When a resort is truly unfair in it's practices (e.g. not refunding when the lifts all shut down), we have a court system to remedy the problem.

Once you've succumbed to the justification for cut tickets, you've lost your right to complain about politicians stealing elections, people speeding through your neighborhood, people cutting in front of you in line, people cheating on their taxes, getting mugged, etc. etc. These are all examples of unilateral adjustments to the balance of power. It's a slippery slope. A DOWNHILL slope, with an unhappy ending.

Of course, most people who cut tickets (including buyers and sellers) think of it as a minor transgression on the same level as speeding. Most resorts agree, as evidenced by the time and effort they spend to combat this practice. No matter what the severity is, there is no question about either the ethics or the legality of this practice. You can believe that what you are doing is fair, but you're only fooling yourself. You can believe that what you are doing will cause a resort to change it's prices or rules, but then do not believe that it is "no big deal" and don't fool yourself into believing that resorts will lower prices in response to your actions. You can believe that it is no big deal and that there are no problems with minor breaches in ethics. That's your choice. Most of us choose to believe that life is better when drawing the ethical line a little differently.

But I'm not going to fool myself into believing that I know the "right" place to draw the ethical line or that I stay on the "right" side of the line all the time. I've been known to exceed the speed limit. I've been known to accept the wrong amount of change from a cashier. I cut in line occasionally. My justification is that I do make an effort to try to balance these things. I hope that enough people do this that the result in the larger scheme of things works out to be that where one sits on any one issue like this has no significant detriment to society. We may not live in a perfect world, but it does work pretty good.

this discussion is entertaining. thanks to all.

i had a business ethics professor say once that ethics can be assumed in a particular society; that being, what does the most good for the greatest number. ethics are implied, there is no real black and white. every one of us has a different upbringing, probably in different towns and under different circumstances. i doubt as skiers we're a society, and if we are, then i'm a snowboarder.

i've "clipped" tickets numerous times. in fact, as a former employee of a resort and friend to many employees, i can say this: At the non-executive level, They don't care! the lifties, counter people, and lower level security guys get paid exactly the bare minimum...and a pass to perform a task that allows them to ski or board. it's exactly too much work to speak up.

so, while you're speeding down the road to the mountain listening to your downloaded mp3's, smoking that joint; make sure you've got your nailclippers, because i may be the one that offers up the freebie.

Wow, what a bunch of do-gooders.

This place is getting weirder all the time.

xdog1, you have said it. big ups to thee my man!

it's as if they were struck with the baby disease and telling on thee were the only cure[i].

Nah! It is just "end of the summer" stuff that happens every year.

the critical phrase there is

"as if"

thanks for being openminded and not imagining you know what lurks in another's mind.

some things simply do not change and do not get weirder "all the time."

i heard this really funny Molson commercial the other day and couldn't get it out of my head...there you are.

i swear some of these posts are from my mother. mom, if you're reading this, i want a pair of Oakley M Frame's for Christmas. Iridium lenses too, don't let dad be a cheapskate again! and some socks and underwear.

Yeah, I'm going to have to again disagree with "lift prices are based on economics" theory. Lift prices are set by people with degrees in marketing. They are set in order to provide a disincentive to purchasing lift tickets.

The high price has very little to do with the expectation of profit from the ticket sale, and very much to do with the expectation that people will decide to stay at the resort, buy skis at the resort, take a lesson at the resort, or any number of other things the marketing people give reduced price tickets for.

I'll again point out that this is utterly obvious if you compare the price of the three day ski and stay to the one day ticket. They don't want people buying one day tickets.
Nope. There is absolutely no proof you can provide to this effect. The fact that resorts (as is universally agreed) do very little to combat the practice suggests your statement is wrong. The modern resort makes lots of money from warm bodies, regardless of the ticket sale.

When someone reuses a cut ticket, they are providing the resort with countless additional opportunities for revenue that wouldn't exist if the ticket-cutter went elsewhere. Since its known and agreed that the incremental cost of additional skiers on the infrastructure is near zero, the resorts don't complain too loudly.
The Gold Pass is good for 32 resorts. My last single resort unlimited non-transferrable pass was 1,450. The Gold Pass, unlike your claim, is 2,150 early purchase. What are you talking about?
Wow, this reads like some alarmist prolefeed website I see occasionally. Reminds me of the local income-tax evasion rag. You know, paying your income taxes is just what you are talking about...
:

Allowing the sale of non-transferrable tickets in the first place is a unilateral transfer of power out of the consumer's hands. I've never seen tickets advertised as "contract allowing one person access to the mountain for x hours" because that wouldn't sell well. "This ticket is good for 8 hours" is the marketing claim.

To say that, then provide a service completely different, is an unfair abuse of the consumer.
According to you. What gives you the right to make that claim?
Ahh, more condescension. Great.
You aren't right all the time, but you damn well know I'm wrong.

More white wealthy guy bullshit.

I don't know about Gonzo, but after talking to everyone available in management and getting turned down for any kind of a refund, I would probably be pissed enough to sit near the ticket office and tell my story to everyone who was headed there. I also would inform management that I intended to pass their policy decision on to everyone I could, and make it known nationally, naming names and all. This seems entirely just given the situation you described.

Saying that you don't give a damn is quite a lot more honest than saying you have a RIGHT to give your pass to someone else. The two aren't the same.

Garrett doesn't understand the concept of "fungible or not?"

quick story:
fell and injured my knee on the second run of the day. laying on the hill, was passed by two ski school classes, one on top and one on bottom of my; no more than thirty feet away in either direction. i made attempts to get the instructors attention, no affect. after a while a guy and his son stopped and helped me to the bottom. i got a lift to ski patrol where i was asked to give an account of what happened and read a release statement, which "made me aware" of their no fault rule, then signed it. a half hour later, a patroller came in and filled a baggie with snow and helped me to my car. i asked for a refund for my ticket and definately got one three months later. right before the resort closed for the season.

I understand the concept. I don't agree that ski tickets shouldn't be, or that anyone has the right to make them non-transferrable while still selling them as "eight hour tickets".

Funny how my comments are not on the REVIEW list......only the good comments are listed. Hats off to Earl Ball for making it stick. I did put down my story...... FLAWED!

http://www.goski.com/resorts/rusaia/fun.htm

I'll agree with you, VA, that I DON'T have the right to give my pass to someone else. The resort says it's a crime against them, and they can arrest and prosecute. It's right on the back of most all tickets. I still don't give a shit when it's someone as UNETHICAL as that place.:

Gonzo, thanks. You said you wouldn't go there, but if this was your first time? I think Volant Addict's response is more realistic. It would make anyone mad. I guess you'd just bend over peacefully. It doesn't sound like you, but ok. I accept that.

Horsie dead for me.

Reading and considering all the above posts, I can't get away from this: Bottom line, it is theft. The person who asks for the ticket doesn't want to pay for what he/she is getting. The person giving up the ticket is an enabler.

Enabling hmm.

[quote=mike_m]Reading and considering all the above posts, I can't get away from this: Bottom line, it is theft. The person who asks for the ticket doesn't want to pay for what he/she is getting. The person giving up the ticket is an enabler.[/QUOTE

drugdealers, drinking buddies and abusive spouses are enablers. giving your pass away is your choice, if you don't want to ski or snowboard, give it to someone who does. god forbid they save the $60 or $75 a bloody lift ticket costs.

ya never know who may be the one that stops to help you out on the hill the next time you decide to think you're too cool?

Excellent point, jstraw...I thought about pointing that out pages and pages ago, but figured it to be a known variable in this little ethical problem of ours...nonetheless, the discussion is better off with it having been said.

I prefer to think of SAM as an archbishop...the liftie is my priest, b/c it's s/he who enables me to worship at the altar w/out taking the time and effort to find the altar on my own! (that may not make much sense to you guys...but I get it )

On the CD burning issue, it's theft if you burn a CD from the library, just as it's theft if you download a song from a P2P service. OTOH, it's not theft if you burn a backup copy of a CD you already own...the issue gets muddy when you think of this: What if I buy the new Rolling Stones CD, then at some point down the road I lose it? Is it ok to borrow a copy from the library & burn it? Not trying to hijack or prolong this thread, but it's an interesting thought...

Mmmm...that looks like Kool-Aid! I'm sure that must be the last glass around here.

Good thing I don't drink (it).

The RIAA disagrees.

Many new CDs come with forms of "digital copy protection", and even making a copy of that for "fair use" puts you in violation of the DMCA.

In fact, the RIAA doesn't want you to have "fair use" of the material anyway. Nor does the MPAA. Thus the pressure to roll out the replacement DVD standard without any customer demands of such.

You'd be more correct to say its not wrong to burn a backup of a CD you own.

This implies those participating in the underground railroad were acting recklessly and without ethics...because they didn't make an effort to have their contrarian actions known.

Generalizing all "right" disobedience as being public in nature is utterly wrong. I would think thats more than a wee bit obvious. I won't bore you with more examples, but I can think of a few nice ones from WWII.

I have probably crossed line at time by buying someone's extra day from a 3 of 4 day package, or getting a deal on a complementary pass. As we go onto page 12 of this thread, I wonder how common pass cutting is? I generally ski with season passes, and try to have vouchers and discounts in advance of going other places. I have never been asked for my ticket, and never offered it.

I was relieved to notice that in a recent thread, the nearly unanimous disapproval of reselling intellectual property such as Peter Keelty's ski reviews. Yet lift tickets are obviously more controversial.

Good thread to enjoy a beer by

to all my utopian brothers and sisters

for all of you that disagree that clipping is socially acceptable, let me ask you a question:

Would you stop and/or turn in a clipper?

No......would you??
You should post this as a poll.

I guess you are doing the hourly rate math work with Bonni, then.

But it's still confusing to me.

I just don't look at it that way because -- to me -- such a perspective presupposes the ski area is OUT TO GET YOU, which isn't my experience at any ski area that I frequent.

You might be shocked to hear that as recently as about 25 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for law firms to have monthly invoices to clients that merely stated the matter and the monthly fee. no breakdown by week, day, hour or minute. just a block bill.

at the time it was one of the final earmarks of a true profession: the service was what you paid for, not tasks or thought components or routine. the professional service.

but then suspicion, "economics" and the go-getter cost-reducer attitude of the post-Vietnam ex-hippie grabbers (hey now Bill Gates, hey now!) all distilled into a more accountant-friendly time block orientation specified by task and routine event, something that the untrusting client could see and quarrel over.

you guys seem untrusting.

and I'm saying I don't have reason to have lost my trust in ski areas, or if I have, I just don't go there any more.

what a pathetically loaded and disingenuous line of "reasoning".

you have confused moral choice with being a thought policeman.

i wouldn't stop them, i'm one.
my pathetic reasoning is mind your own business.
finally, i will, thanks.