 Poster: A snowHead
|
RattytheSnowRat, I apologise.
I'm not quite sure why I was being bolshie. I don't think I'm usually like that.
Anyway, actually, no I don't have any prior of that nature, although I have spent a night in the cells in Morzine, for an entirely different and extremely honourable reason. Which is far too long, boring and long ago to be related here. I would note that the only red faces the next day were on the Gendarmes, who were Not Popular. I would also note that no matter how vindicated I was thereafter, it is not an experience I would care to repeat.
It appeared to me that the 3Vs were not too fussed about it (I would, myself make the non-transferable bit a little more obvious on the immediately obvious Ts & Cs, just sayin) but if they are, well, there you go. Agin' the rules, so be prepared for the consequences if you so act and get caught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
under a new name, (could tell you had 'previous', just saying.)
tbh, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I think that sharing ski passes is one of those issues that the locals will always get away with but that they (as the ski company reps) come down on if detected for tourists in order to 'set an example' and because they have legitimate business concerns. That being so, I'm conflicted on the morality issue. If the locals were not pulling a fast one I'd be dead against the practice but as they are ignoring the prohibition and their m8's are tacitly acknowledging (and probably having actively participated in the practice in their youth themselves) that they can do it ........ well, bit of an ethical quandary. The added twist is that the ski company themselves are unlikely to be local and are prob. just as much against the locals gaming the system as the visitors are (c.f. that little tiff between the management and the workers going on in the US and reported here recently).
| Quote: |
for an entirely different and extremely honourable reason.
|
you are Sydney Carton and I claim my EUR5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
... and:
under a new name, I can see your confusion with the 3V lift pass - very tricksy and actually borrows a dodge from British Rail - the T&C's are posted at the physical lift pass point of sale so you have to stand shivering and read them all if you want to know what you are actually agreeing to. Also means they can change them without notice and it would be hard to prove what terms applied at the time of purchase if you wanted to argue the point. By purchasing the pass you are doing so under the sinlge term that you know and agree all the posted terms.
"There's only one rule in this prison - obey all the rules without question, OK? {wisper} Oh yes - and no writing on the walls."
I'd read them if I were you, gawd knows what you have commited to! Is indentured service still viable in the Savoie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
RattytheSnowRat, "Sydney Carton" my word, well read this afternoon. And it's not even Xmas.
It's a little sneaky of them I feel, especially if they aren't even going to reward you with your very own mini-portrait on souvenir lift pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, I'm impressed. Just googled him and may now have to go and read ATOTC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
So if two people stand at the Kasse and hand over half the cash each to the girl selling the pass towards a 6 day ski pass and use it 3 days each alternate days, are they breaking the Ts & Cs. They only say they cant be swapped, whereas in effect they both bought the pass.
Or it could be argued neither bought the full pass only half
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| volklwaffen, m8 - you are getting it the wrong way round. For both insurance and the pass the onus is on YOU to prove your entitlement, not on 'them' to prove you don't have the right. Everything you suggest would make it more difficult to prove that, if push came to shove. The less proof you have, the less either the ski patrol or the insurance company need to take any notice of what you claim. |
I appreciate that. However how would you like to prove your entitlement if you have indeed swapped/passed on liftpasses ? The payement would then be under somebody's else bank card (nominative) and the ski pass states "not transferable". You are thus in the difficult position to explain that X bought the pass and Y ski-ed with it from the very beiginning of the day and from even right before the purchase this pass was intended to be for your exclusive use (i. e : X intended to "offer" you the pass).
If it is paid cash, there are no traces about who bought it and you can easily claim it is you who purchased it, therefore avoiding this difficult position of justifying the original intent.
Obviously this is taking in account that the swappers benefit from the same ski-pass fare (i. e adult/adult, under 16's/under 16's...).
Finally, as you mentioned : the less proof you have, the less either the ski patrol or the insurance company need to take any notice of what you claim.... which should give you some leeway to explain yourself in a court where you are presumed innocent, or so I'd like to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| volklwaffen wrote: |
| Quote: |
| volklwaffen, m8 - you are getting it the wrong way round. For both insurance and the pass the onus is on YOU to prove your entitlement, not on 'them' to prove you don't have the right. Everything you suggest would make it more difficult to prove that, if push came to shove. The less proof you have, the less either the ski patrol or the insurance company need to take any notice of what you claim. |
I appreciate that. However how would you like to prove your entitlement if you have indeed swapped/passed on liftpasses ? The payement would then be under somebody's else bank card (nominative) and the ski pass states "not transferable". You are thus in the difficult position to explain that X bought the pass and Y ski-ed with it from the very beiginning of the day and from even right before the purchase this pass was intended to be for your exclusive use (i. e : X intended to "offer" you the pass).
If it is paid cash, there are no traces about who bought it and you can easily claim it is you who purchased it, therefore avoiding this difficult position of justifying the original intent.
Obviously this is taking in account that the swappers benefit from the same ski-pass fare (i. e adult/adult, under 16's/under 16's...).
Finally, as you mentioned : the less proof you have, the less either the ski patrol or the insurance company need to take any notice of what you claim.... which should give you some leeway to explain yourself in a court where you are presumed innocent, or so I'd like to believe. |
There is no "innocent" or "guilty" in a civil court, which is where this would be.
And having a valid ski pass or not is not going to affect your insurance unless you are claiming for the loss or theft of said pass, or for compensation of unused days after injury. That is the only circumstance under which your insurance company would have any interest in what pass you had (if any).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so now we have worked out what is legal, moral, almost legal and what you would and wouldn't get caught with....
does anyone know what will happen to the violator?
Lift pass voided and no refund, obviously, but anything more serious? Locked up? Taken to court for deception?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Just about to get a train from London to the west. Anybody got a FGW season ticket I could use - will give you 25% of the cost I would have normally paid . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foxtrotzulu, wrong forum . . . .http://www.train-spotters.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
foxtrotzulu, not that I do it, but I imagine handing over a sizeable percentage of your taxed income to an organisation that treats you worse than cattle - when they bother to show up at all - to travel 30 miles return a day would gall me slightly. If they then proceeded to increase the cost of the ritual humiliation well over the rate of inflation in the midst of a recession whilst other unavoidable costs are rising, well ...... shotguns, anyone?
you say....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| anarski wrote: |
so now we have worked out what is legal, moral, almost legal and what you would and wouldn't get caught with....
does anyone know what will happen to the violator?
Lift pass voided and no refund, obviously, but anything more serious? Locked up? Taken to court for deception? |
They may try to fine you, but I'm not sure whether they can.
If it was "just" you using the pass one day and then your wife the second day, it would certainly be no more than confiscation of pass.
If you were caught trying to use it twice together (e.g. by getting on a chairlift then throwing the pass down to your partner), that might lead to more serious consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Two people using the same pass at the same time (throwing it off the chair etc.) is impractical due to the time-delay built into the turnstile program, which disables the pass until the punter has had time to complete the loop. The only pass which can be passed back and used again immediately is the points card.
Two parents sharing one day pass though - no objection to that. "Sanctimonious" summed up some of the reaction. And insurance invalid without a pass, purlease! A few scaremongers on here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
And insurance invalid without a pass, purlease!
|
I think the point there was that the insurance you purchase with the pass is nominative and linked to that pass. Therefore only covers the named user and not the second skier.
Though thyere's always the option of proper travel insurance, obviously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
| ...tbh, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I think that sharing ski passes is one of those issues that the locals will always get away with but that they (as the ski company reps) come down on if detected for tourists in order to 'set an example' and because they have legitimate business concerns. That being so, I'm conflicted on the morality issue. If the locals were not pulling a fast one I'd be dead against the practice but as they are ignoring the prohibition and their m8's are tacitly acknowledging (and probably having actively participated in the practice in their youth themselves) that they can do it ........ well, bit of an ethical quandary. ..... |
Or to put it another way, there was no problem with MPs expense claims because they were just doing what the others did, so it was fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
