 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Ray Zorro, Interesting. So the Les Arcs ski lift operators say that theft is OK then (if you buy in resort) ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
@TheGeneralist, Morally, ski lifts should be charged on usage. The current system discriminates against the weaker/sick skiers who are unable to ski from first lift up to last lift down. And also against those with dependants such as children who also can't ski a full day. It is these people , who are physically not capable of skiing a full day, who effectively subsidise the fit people who are up on the first lift.
|
It costs a lot of money to put a lift in, millions. The infra structure has to be there whether you use it or not. So perhaps your charging system should have a flat rate for just going to the resort and then a marginal rate for every lift you take or every metre of lift you use, with, of course, a differerent rates for the more expensive lifts such as fast chair lifts and a lower rate for drag lifts. You will also have to add a charge for going down the piste as well; paying more for bashed pistes and less for Natur. Afterall why should lift served off piste skiers subsidise those that ski miles down blue pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@eblunt, no, they didn't comment about theft.
They said that lift passes bought from the ticket office are not person specific - and implied that they can therefore be legitimately shared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
| They said that lift passes bought from the ticket office are not person specific - and implied that they can therefore be legitimately shared. |
Not convinced there was complete comprehension of the situation; as you note the sharing point was only implied. Not that I have any axe to grind one way or the other, but I would not yet be happy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| wills_h wrote: |
@Ray Zorro, Bravo!  |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it theft/fraud if the lift operating company don't mind? Or is it mind over matter, they don't mind, so it doesn't matter? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alpinebear wrote: |
As a ski pass is a transport ticket I had a quick look on National Rail terms and conditions.
They state for a 7 day pass-
Tickets are not transferable
5.1.
A Ticket may only be used by the person who bought that Ticket or on
whos behalf that Ticket was bought unless specifically allowed by the
terms and conditions applying to that Ticket. A Ticket may not be
resold to anyone else.
Same regulations |
Exactly, my ten and bit thousand quid rail season ticket only works with my photo card with a matching number on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| CaravanSkier wrote: |
| TheGeneralist wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And I still stand by the opinion that morally I don't regard it as theft/stealing whether it's in the T&C's or not. |
How bizarre. Care to elaborate? |
I`m no lawyer but I struggle to see it as theft? If passes are specific to one person in the tc`s then it could be breach of contract for sure, and possibly fraud but theft? Unless the law in Europe is different to the UK? |
I am also not a lawyer, but in my readings I have concluded this is fraud, not theft, though the line is not black & white. In both cases there is a loss, or intended loss, to the victim.
In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. By using another person’s pass, you are representing yourself to be that person, ie a deliberate deception.
I am gob-smacked by what the quote appears to be saying, viz that person does not have a moral problem with depriving an entity, ie the lift company, of income that is rightly theirs. Strange moral compass and one can only wonder where he draws the line on other issues of honesty/integrity/etc, eg shop-lifting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ulmerhutte, I stayed in Paradiski for a week when the Ag. Rouge cable car wasn't open for the whole week. I've been in ski resorts where about 10% of the lift system is running due to the weather. I had one day when I injured myself and only skied a third of a day. I've never been offered any compensation or received any return on my lift pass. Swings and roundabouts, I'm sure the lift pass can stretch to me and the missus going half and half for one week. The number of people that actually want to share a lift pass is miniscule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @TheGeneralist, Morally, ski lifts should be charged on usage. The current system discriminates against the weaker/sick skiers who are unable to ski from first lift up to last lift down. And also against those with dependants such as children who also can't ski a full day. It is these people , who are physically not capable of skiing a full day, who effectively subsidise the fit people who are up on the first lift. |
Be careful what you wish for... the technology exists to capture run information. You want to bet how the lift company will price each run? Do you think they would be altruistic to low users, or they would set the price point to maximise their revenue, which might mean pricing to drive away low users, ie low value customers.
Actually, a similar scheme used to operate in Australia a life-time ago... you would buy tokens and insert the appropriate token (gold or silver) into the turnstile to the lift. You had to make sure you were not at the far end of the resort and out of tokens, otherwise you were SoL and walking.
I am intrigued by your usage of the word “morally”. Care to explain why it is a moral issue, not a commercial decision?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
@eblunt, no, they didn't comment about theft.
They said that lift passes bought from the ticket office are not person specific - and implied that they can therefore be legitimately shared. |
I was being ironic. I was making the point how amusing it is that a scenario described variously (sometimes in shouty capitals) here as "Theft", "Fraud", "stealing a bottle of wine from supermarket", "breaking the law", has now been shown to be confirmed as perfectly acceptable practice by the lift company themselves.
Oh dear - all this money being "stolen" by people sharing a pass they bought in resort is going to have be paid for by someone ..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Layne wrote: |
| @ulmerhutte, I stayed in Paradiski for a week when the Ag. Rouge cable car wasn't open for the whole week. I've been in ski resorts where about 10% of the lift system is running due to the weather. I had one day when I injured myself and only skied a third of a day. I've never been offered any compensation or received any return on my lift pass. Swings and roundabouts, I'm sure the lift pass can stretch to me and the missus going half and half for one week. The number of people that actually want to share a lift pass is miniscule. |
You seem to be conflating 2 different issues, ie is fraud acceptable where you don’t agree with the T&Cs and are the T&Cs fair. I will leave the first to you to decide, but the second is more interesting.
On one hand, if you don’t like the T&Cs, and think them unfair, you do not need to enter into the contract. Go elsewhere or don’t ski. Alternatively, suppose the lift co was to offer what is effectively insurance against the sort of losses you noted. What do you think would happen to ticket prices? The risk would be priced in...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
| They said that lift passes bought from the ticket office are not person specific - and implied that they can therefore be legitimately shared. |
Not convinced there was complete comprehension of the situation; as you note the sharing point was only implied. Not that I have any axe to grind one way or the other, but I would not yet be happy! |
There was nothing implied about the sharing point :
"Can you please confirm that if I was to buy only one 6 day pass when I arrive in Les Arcs that my wife and I can share it so that one of skis and the other looks after our infant daughter. Thank you."
Was directly stated in the exchange. In reply, she could have pointed out that sharing wasn't allowed, but instead chose to give advice on how to buy an "un-named" pass. That exchange would stand up pretty well in any court IMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@ulmerhutte,
"I am gob-smacked by what the quote appears to be saying, viz that person does not have a moral problem with depriving an entity, ie the lift company, of income that is rightly theirs. Strange moral compass and one can only wonder where he draws the line on other issues of honesty/integrity/etc, eg shop-lifting."
Yes, Emma ( from the lift company ) should be fired immediately for colluding with customers to steal from her company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| eblunt wrote: |
@ulmerhutte,
"I am gob-smacked by what the quote appears to be saying, viz that person does not have a moral problem with depriving an entity, ie the lift company, of income that is rightly theirs. Strange moral compass and one can only wonder where he draws the line on other issues of honesty/integrity/etc, eg shop-lifting."
Yes, Emma ( from the lift company ) should be fired immediately for colluding with customers to steal from her company. |
@eblunt, I sincerely hope you are trolling, rather than being an idiot. Of course Emma should fired, if she has deliberately and knowingly violated company policy, resulting in loss to the company. Your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ulmerhutte wrote: |
| On one hand, if you don’t like the T&Cs, and think them unfair, you do not need to enter into the contract. Go elsewhere or don’t ski. |
Agreed. As indeed I have done in the case of the age cut off for charging children for example.
| ulmerhutte wrote: |
| Alternatively, suppose the lift co was to offer what is effectively insurance against the sort of losses you noted. What do you think would happen to ticket prices? The risk would be priced in... |
They'd go up. Which is why I am not suggesting that is what they should do. I understand it's "priced in" for me already.
It's no big deal, I just think it's pernickety and penny pinching. I doubt there are enough people that won't to do it to really any resorts bottom line (in terms of loss custom) but every bit of good will adds up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
@aroma111, It is possible to ask questions on the Les Arcs site https://www.lesarcs-peiseyvallandry.ski/en/contact - which, out of interest, I just did...
My understanding is therefore that you are allowed to do this but only if you buy it when you arrive and not online.
Transcript below
You :
Can you please confirm that if I was to buy only one 6 day pass when I arrive in Les Arcs that my wife and I can share it so that one of skis and the other looks after our infant daughter. Thank you.
Emma :
Hello, the skipass taken online is named specific but not if you take it at the sale point office
You :
Thank you
Emma :
You're welcome. Have a good day ! |
It's an interesting conversation and suggestive that the waters are still very murky on this one. Why? #1 Well the name doesn't necessarily allow the liftie to know if the right person is using the pass. #2 Whilst your name isn't associated with your pass as discussed before your face is. Or at least your helmet, goggles/sunnies, buff, etc are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I think that some posters are being very British about this, I suspect that those of other national stereotypes would be more willing to play the system, without the need for written reassurances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| ulmerhutte wrote: |
| eblunt wrote: |
@ulmerhutte,
"I am gob-smacked by what the quote appears to be saying, viz that person does not have a moral problem with depriving an entity, ie the lift company, of income that is rightly theirs. Strange moral compass and one can only wonder where he draws the line on other issues of honesty/integrity/etc, eg shop-lifting."
Yes, Emma ( from the lift company ) should be fired immediately for colluding with customers to steal from her company. |
@eblunt, I sincerely hope you are trolling, rather than being an idiot. Of course Emma should fired, if she has deliberately and knowingly violated company policy, resulting in loss to the company. Your point? |
So, purely hypothetically of course, if I have also had confirmation from Les Arcs lifties, that sharing a pass is OK, then this would mean :
1) They aren't going to have many employees left at all very soon. Ulmerhutte HR will need to buy a lot of binbags.
or
2) It is in fact accepted by Les Arcs that sharing a lift pass between 2 people is OK, and you have been posting a whole load of misleading dross, and making totally unfounded accusations about people's honesty.
Not quite sure who would look like the idiot in this case .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have answered my question eblunt...you are both. No point in arguing with the belligerently stupid. Time to block you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you buy a 6 day pass and receive a discount, and the terms and conditions are such that the pass is non-transferable (my understanding is that this is the case in the majority of resorts), then I think it's fairly obvious that you're in the wrong. You should instead buy a single day pass for each of the days that you are skiing (assuming you're skiing every other day).
Based on "Emma's" reply, it appears that in Les Arcs you may be OK but I would still want to check the T&C's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
DavidYacht wrote:
I think that some posters are being very British about this, I suspect that those of other national stereotypes would be more willing to play the system, without the need for written reassurances.
What, you mean there are countries in europe where the rules are likely to be bent or even ignored I wonder where you are thinking of
|
This could be applied at so many levels 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| michaelf wrote: |
| If you buy a 6 day pass and receive a discount, and the terms and conditions are such that the pass is non-transferable (my understanding is that this is the case in the majority of resorts), then I think it's fairly obvious that you're in the wrong. You should instead buy a single day pass for each of the days that you are skiing (assuming you're skiing every other day). |
The OP wants to do half days with his wife... one of them skis morning, the other one afternoons. Whilst that may be technically possible by going to the lift pass every day it's more expensive, a lot of hassle and doesn't hold much flexibility. I am sure should it be available and advertised they would be happy to pay a little extra for a shared pass. It would be easy to do and I doubt it would break the budget of any ski area as only a few punters need/want that option. And I think it would require virtually no work, they could just encode the card as being shared so the lifties know the picture check isn't required. It could be done for passes of up to 8 days to prevent punters sharing across two weeks to get a bit of a discount.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@ulmerhutte, You do make me chuckle. From accusing people of sharing a lift pass as being a dishonest as shoplifters, to expecting anyone working at the Les Arcs lift company who disagrees with you to be sacked, you are a source of great entertainment.
The fact that you can't accept straightforward simple evidence from the lift company themselves that lift pass sharing is accepted in certain circumstances is also quite funny in a head in the sand sort of a way.
The inevitable resorting to personal insults when running out of any coherent arguments is less amusing though , but the toys out of the pram moment with the block threat was reassuringly predictable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since we all seem to have been giving opinions on what we think is (or should be) the case, I looked up the T&Cs for buying Les Arcs / Paradiski passes online. They include the clause: "The Pass is strictly personal and non-transferable, unless the Pass corresponds to the shortest duration on the price chart". Not sure if T&Cs when buying at the lift pass office are different - but if anything the above exchanges suggest they might be more lenient.
Even if the T&Cs are the same, this offers a much cheaper (both legally and morally correct) solution than buying 2 x 6-day passes. The shortest duration for Paradiski passes is 1 day - so just buy 6 x 1-day passes, use one each day, and validly swap it as many times as needed. Admittedly 6 x 1-day passes will cost €360, but that is still a lot cheaper than 2 x 6-day Duo passes at €590. This may even be the solution they will offer in resort.
If the passes are only activated when first put through a turnstile, then possibly all 6 passes can be bought at the same time. (You just need to be careful over discarding the used pass each evening, and not accidentally using two different ones on the same day).
For Les Arcs alone it will only be the 4-hour pass that can be validly transferred, not the 1-day one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| ecureuil wrote: |
| Since we all seem to have been giving opinions on what we think is (or should be) the case, I looked up the T&Cs for buying Les Arcs / Paradiski passes online. They include the clause: "The Pass is strictly personal and non-transferable, unless the Pass corresponds to the shortest duration on the price chart". Not sure if T&Cs when buying at the lift pass office are different - but if anything the above exchanges suggest they might be more lenient. |
That has already been ascertained earlier in the thread.
| ecureuil wrote: |
| The shortest duration for Paradiski passes is 1 day - so just buy 6 x 1-day passes, use one each day, and validly swap it as many times as needed. |
Are you saying one day passes have different T&C's and are transferable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Is it theft/fraud if the lift operating company don't mind? Or is it mind over matter, they don't mind, so it doesn't matter?
|
Or...is it just common sense and morally the right thing for the lift company to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Thank you all for the very interesting and sometimes amusing posts! I have had to take a long hard look at my moral compass and now I am asking myself if I would ‘steal’ and ‘break the law’ for what I thought was a very valid and legitimate reason for sharing a lift pass without being able to find the t&c’s myself (good work ecureuil for actually being helpful and finding this for me).
I am going to sleep on this and see where my morals lye in the morning
On the car tax analogy. What if the lift pass was assumed as the tax disc and the lift the car. The pass enables the skier to use the lift, the tax disc enables the person to drive the car on public roads. Anyone can drive the car so why can’t anyone use the pass?
Great analogy though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
@eblunt, no, they didn't comment about theft.
They said that lift passes bought from the ticket office are not person specific - and implied that they can therefore be legitimately shared. |
To quote the Les Arcs Terms and Conditions for the use of lift passes:
| Quote: |
| Finally, the fraudulent use of a Pass (expired, falsified, counterfeit, nominative Pass used by a third party...) shall result in its immediate withdrawal and, if required, the filing of legal proceedings. |
This clearly states that use of a named pass by another person is considered fraudulent but doesn't suggest this to be the case for the unnamed ones sold at the lift pass office. (However I suspect that adding insurance to the lift pass may result in it becoming a person specific pass.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I do it all the time in the PDS. And I should be shot then as I’m a lawyer
Honestly. Wgas, seriously. You’re paying full bore for a pass at any point in time one person is using it. Honestly, all the frothiness is amusing but I’d do a big French woof shrug and ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@orange, Yes, a seriously WTF thread.
@Ray Zorro, @ecureuil, and @Alastair, very useful information to help the OP , and establish that sharing is permitted, under what conditions, and how to go about it.
Chris, Generalist and Ulmerhutte really need to take a good look at themselves. Foaming at the mouth and dishing out personal abuse, whilst actually offering nothing whatsoever apart from misleading rubbish isn't really much of a contribution. Maybe keep accusations of theft/fraud/shoplifting/stealing to yourselves until you actually have a clue what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @TheGeneralist, Morally, ski lifts should be charged on usage. The current system discriminates against the weaker/sick skiers who are unable to ski from first lift up to last lift down. And also against those with dependants such as children who also can't ski a full day. It is these people , who are physically not capable of skiing a full day, who effectively subsidise the fit people who are up on the first lift. |
This logic is nonsense. The price model is built on an assumption that most passes won't be used 8.30-17.00 constantly every day. The bell to bell skier is the exception not the rule. You get a pass which allows you as an individual access to whatever lifts you want in a fixed time period. Points cards are available in lots of resorts for people who are going to take really few lifts. The masses subsidise the extreme users in lots of things - gym, raquet clubs, car breakdown, insurance etc. You wouldn't catch many if any gyms offerring a shared parent membership. Are you claiming they are all immoral?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, I agree, it wouldn't work in principle. I introduced it as a counter to the daft notion that sharing a lift pass was stealing from the lift company, which has now been debunked. And morally wasn't the right word, logically would have been better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I'm not sure it has been debunked. You might see it as a low grade offence but in their Ts&Cs it is perfectly possible for them to define it as not allowed. And in a civil case for recovery they'd probably be in the right even if it weren't a specific criminal offence - though clearly the better justice would be to refuse the offender uplift when they were at a remote part of the area 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, I disagree.
1) the one day Paradiski pass is specifically excluded from any non-transfer restriction. It's 100% clear in the T&Cs. Any court would laugh that one right out.
2) An un-named pass has been confirmed as shareable by two separate sources from the lift office. Backed up by the careful wording in the T&Cs that only cites a 'nominative' pass as fraudulent if shared. They'd be on very shaky ground there as well IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I wonder where you are thinking of 
