 Poster: A snowHead
|
What's the plural of phoenix - phoenixes? phoenices?
The following companies went bust but seem to have started again for the 21/22 season.
VIP ski.
Ski Weekends ( not to be confused with either Ski Weekender or Ski Weekend).
Any others that snowheads may know of? For example, have Ski Amis risen from the ashes yet?
Anyone like to comment on the implications for their customers in the forthcoming season?
These (and various other) companies do not now offer packages with flights, even if their predecessors did. Therefore no ABTA protection.
On a related theme the following companies appear to accept card payments for deposits but insist on direct transfer for the balance. I wonder why?
Family Ski
Stanford ski
Ski Cuisine
YSE ski
Any others SH wish to nominate?
( I note that VIPski are NOT on this second list, a fact which probably gives some comfort to their customers.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
A phoenixed company is one whose owners have proven they are willing to poo-poo on their customers/suppliers once while usually protecting those owners ( who often come up with a load of apologetic BS about their life's work ending knowing full well they'll be back in business without the debt).
I'd say caveat emptor but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@peerless ploughman, both but also interesting
a large group of phoenixes is called an odyssey. a small group of phoenixes is called a venture.
Made me smile when i googled it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@peerless ploughman, I'm not sure VIP is a "phoenix" in the normal use of the description. AFAIK at least their customers were fully reimbursed. And it's not as though anyone missed out on any skiing!
Their bankers, if any, perhaps not, but ... meh. That's their job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
AFAIK the people or person behind the new VIP ski (VIP-chalets) are the same as the old.
I do know that last year, some customers of the old one were expected to claim against their credit card provider.
And that notwithstanding that history, the new VIP ski are both willing and able (allowed by bank/card provider) to take the holiday balance by card and do not insist on balance transfer.
Unlike several ski firms who could take balances by card - they take deposits that way - but not balances. Does anyone know of a respectable reason for this? By which I mean, any reason other than giving more protection to the company ( and less to the customer) in the (anticipated?) event of subsequent dispute.
Wider background: every scammer who rings up old people on their land lines talking about guaranteed investments or safe accounts etc, always wants a direct bank transfer rather than other forms of payment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@peerless ploughman, there is no reasonable reason to ask for bank transfer.
Most PDQs have a settlement of 2 or 3 days so you they can’t really even quote cash flow as an excuse.
They may, of course, be blacklisted from a lot of decent PDQs providers, in which case the provider may only release funds once a certain deposit threshold has been reached. But if that’s the case, it points to them being dodgy anyway.
Avoid avoid avoid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@peerless ploughman, I suspect it comes down to the cost of card transactions. About 35p for a bank transfer 0.5-0.7% for a credit card
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Frosty the Snowman, they should factor that in when setting their prices. I double the consumer would even notice, it’s such a tiny amount
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Timmycb5,
You appear to be knowlegeable about consumer rights and payments.
Please can explain what a "PDQ" is and why they are "dodgy anyway"?
If I pay a deposit by credit card and the balance by bank transfer is my complete payment, deposit plus balance, covered by the credit consumer act or whatever the act is?
Recently I have had to pay the full balance for accommodation booked in hotels/B&Bs for next summer. Are my payments protected if the hotel/B&B goes bust before I stay there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Timmycb5, the timing of funds release is nothing to do with the PDQ (slang for the physical payments terminal, because that was the “brand” name of the original Barclays terminals when they were by far the latest player in the market).
It’s a function of the merchant services agreement with the acquirer (the organisation, usually a bank, that collects the money from the card scheme on behalf of the merchant, in this case a travel company, and in the U.K. holds responsibility for returning those funds if the service isn’t delivered) which is in turn a function of the risk score. It’s entirely possible that acquirers are mandating very long settlement periods given the risks of taking travel payments. They will have lost a lot of money last year when they got hit with all the chargebacks from collapsed travel firms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
What's the plural of phoenix
|
Phoenai?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Richard_Sideways, I enjoyed this from t'internet:
"Alex Watson, taught English to Germans for 4 years
Answered 4 years ago · Author has 1.8K answers and 1.2M answer views
Originally Answered: What's the plural of Phoenix?
The strict plural, from its Greek root, would probably be phoenices, (on the pattern of index > indices, appendix > appendices) but this would be unfamilar to any non-linguist. Better to use the conventional plural form for -x endings, phoenixes.
A similarly strict (and unused) plural is clitorides."
Other sources point out that there was only ever one phoenix at a time, so there is no plural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought it was singular and plural like sheep.
1 phoenix
2 phoenix
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Threads like this always bring out the cunning linguists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@snowdave, yes, you correct that PDQ is slang for the terminal itself, but a lot of people just use it as a reference for the merchant service.
I would argue that if the merchant is imposing a longer settlement (or mandating a balance threshold), it could be a reflection of the business itself. I guess if the travel industry is deemed to be ultra high risk then all merchants could be mandating to, but I don’t think that is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@welshflyer, I’m no expert, but I would guess that only the deposit (which you paid for on your CC) could be “charged back” in the event of the company going belly 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?
|
A neighbor of mine who knows the directors (ex) of VIP Ski, claims that he and his other half still gets free accommodation with them in St Anton And Val D'isere with VIP.
no sympathy for them going under if they are giving away 'freebies' to friends and family at the expense of paying customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Bob, my at a distance understanding was that they closed the company in advance of last season at least partially as there was no clarity on whether the season would actually go ahead, not so much that they went bust because of giving away freebies.
Plus, giving free accommodation to Fs&F if it's sitting empty is hardly a major cost, which may have been the situation and may be invisible to your neighbours. Lots of maybes tho'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
For clarity Ski VIP 1.0 customers did not get funds back from VIP - they were pointed at ABTA who picked up the costs.
Their new incarnation VIP 2.0 is not covered by ABTA or any other bonding schemes (they are not arranging flights, etc) - their advice to our group was to pay by credit card …
Once bitten etc .. no thanks you SKI VIP 2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Phyllis Stein wrote: |
For clarity Ski VIP 1.0 customers did not get funds back from VIP - they were pointed at ABTA who picked up the costs.
Their new incarnation VIP 2.0 is not covered by ABTA or any other bonding schemes (they are not arranging flights, etc) - their advice to our group was to pay by credit card …
Once bitten etc .. no thanks you SKI VIP 2.0 |
Not sure I see the issue - if they are not arranging flights then they wont be ABTA bonded.
And advising people to use a CC seems logical as there is a degree of safety net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alpine Elements seem to be back trading too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@GreenDay, ATOL is the bonding linked to flights I think. A lot of companies who are ABTA bonded do not offer flights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| @peerless ploughman, I suspect it comes down to the cost of card transactions. About 35p for a bank transfer 0.5-0.7% for a credit card |
Absolutely. The % cut the card providers take is small beer on a deposit (and offering card acceptance will promote commitment from the customer). The card cut on a much larger balance payment would dent margin (or force up pricing).
SFAIK offering card for deposit and bank only for the balance means the customer is protected without the business having to suffer the erosion of margin on the whole package price.
In other words that in itself is neither dodgy practice nor indicative of anything sketchy about the business' finances. Not to say the businesses aren't sketchy, they could be, about that I've no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btw Meriski mistakenly omitted from my list of firms insisting on bank transfer for balance payments but not deposits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| GreenDay wrote: |
| Phyllis Stein wrote: |
For clarity Ski VIP 1.0 customers did not get funds back from VIP - they were pointed at ABTA who picked up the costs.
Their new incarnation VIP 2.0 is not covered by ABTA or any other bonding schemes (they are not arranging flights, etc) - their advice to our group was to pay by credit card …
Once bitten etc .. no thanks you SKI VIP 2.0 |
Not sure I see the issue - if they are not arranging flights then they wont be ABTA bonded.
And advising people to use a CC seems logical as there is a degree of safety net. |
We booked with them last season and got our money back through our credit card provider. You only claimed through ATOL if you hadn't paid by credit card.
We've booked again with them for Feb 2022 and paid by credit card. Traveled with them many times and always found them to be an excellent operator.
I find it amazing that people were surprised that holiday providers went bust when they lost a whole season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| @peerless ploughman, I suspect it comes down to the cost of card transactions. About 35p for a bank transfer 0.5-0.7% for a credit card |
Absolutely. The % cut the card providers take is small beer on a deposit (and offering card acceptance will promote commitment from the customer). The card cut on a much larger balance payment would dent margin (or force up pricing).
SFAIK offering card for deposit and bank only for the balance means the customer is protected without the business having to suffer the erosion of margin on the whole package price.
In other words that in itself is neither dodgy practice nor indicative of anything sketchy about the business' finances. Not to say the businesses aren't sketchy, they could be, about that I've no idea. |
Just looked it up and am stunned that that is true. I also now realise that @welshflyer, was snarkily taking the p155.
The credit card company is taking on a massive risk by allowing deposits only to be taken
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Timmycb5,
I wasn't taking the p155 when I asked if my whole payment (deposit & balance) was covered if I have only paid the deposit by credit card!
I am still not sure what the answer is to my question becasue you said it's only my deposit which is recoverable from the credit card company while another SH says the whole payment (deposit & balance) is recoverable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
This Which? article is pretty clear: you only need to have paid a deposit and can claim the whole amount, with a credit card.
Whilst phoenixed businesses are one thing, is it really necessary to conflate these with going concerns that allow deposit by credit card but want the balance by a different method? Seems a bit like tarring them with the same brush, to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| welshflyer wrote: |
@Timmycb5,
I wasn't taking the p155 when I asked if my whole payment (deposit & balance) was covered if I have only paid the deposit by credit card!
I am still not sure what the answer is to my question becasue you said it's only my deposit which is recoverable from the credit card company while another SH says the whole payment (deposit & balance) is recoverable. |
My bad. Apparently you only need to pay part of it (although it has to be £100) to be protected.
No idea how it would work in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Timmycb5,
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
The credit card company is taking on a massive risk by allowing deposits only to be taken |
The risk sits at different places in the value chain, and depends who you mean by “credit card company”.
The card scheme (e.g, MasterCard or visa) isn’t taking any risk.
The acquiring bank is taking chargeback risk only, I.e. it is liable only to refund what has been paid. It’s the acquirer that decides whether or not to take on a merchant.
The issuing bank (I.e. “your” credit card company, that sends you a monthly bill and has its brand on your card) carries the section 75 claim risk, which is the “pay the deposit only, claim the full amount back” legislation. However, the issuer has no control over the quality and risk of merchants that are accepted into the scheme by acquirers. Nor is it allowed to make supernormal profits on high risk transactions.
As a result, chargeback claims are “easy” because your bank isn’t actually funding them, it’s transferring the cost to the place where the risk was, the acquirer. Section 75 claims are hard, because you’re trying to get money directly from your card issuer, hurting it’s own bottom line.
Finally, the charge for using a credit card is NOT just 0.5-0.7%. That’s all that the card issuer can receive as the interchange payment. The acquirer might charge much more than this e.g. online gambling, “digital entertainment”. That’s the acquirer compensating for the risk of chargeback, and the merchant has to absorb that cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@peerless ploughman, YSE are rats
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Please beware when booking with VIP Ski. They tried to charge us an additional 20% upon cancelling which is not in their terms. Eventually relented. Treated us with complete disdain despite being a repeat client. Read the small print on their covid "guarantee". They went into administration last year and have come back leaner and meaner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| FamilyWski wrote: |
| Please beware when booking with VIP Ski. They tried to charge us an additional 20% upon cancelling which is not in their terms. Eventually relented. Treated us with complete disdain despite being a repeat client. Read the small print on their covid "guarantee". They went into administration last year and have come back leaner and meaner. |
It might be worth you confirming the circumstances - i.e. had you only paid a deposit or had you paid the balance? How far in advance was this cancellation? Did you cancel after France stopped travel?
etc
Reason I ask is that - according to their site you get the entire cost back if it is fully paid up and covid related. It must be fully paid 8 weeks before departure.
If, however, you have only paid a deposit then usual cancellation terms apply, which are;
Period Prior to Confirmed Arrival Cancellation Charge
More than 8 weeks Deposit
Within 8 weeks 40%
Within 6 weeks 60%
Within 4 weeks 80%
Within 2 weeks 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ski VIP 2.0 guarantee … I thought that was “pay by credit card” approach
Sharp practice …
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems a common theme here.
From the information provided in this thread:
If a company has the word "Ski" in its name then it's probably dodgy, and should be avoided.
I would recommend in that case that you use companies which have the words like "Boarders" or "Thrashers" ( or do I mean Threshers? ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| vipul wrote: |
| @peerless ploughman, YSE are rats |
Care to elaborate?
Have been with them once (10ths ago mind) and they were fine. Have they gone downhill since?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Specialman, kinda what I was asking about a few posts ago.
I have no issue with people critiquing one company or another, but context is helpful.
I run my own small business and if someone reviewed me on google and said somethign negative I would want to know why in order that I could respond. Not that I would ever get a negative review...................
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
