Originally Posted By DlandDug The problem is the notion that DIsney tickets sell days, and that these can be used as a commodity. A Disneyland ticket is a service to an individual, whether it is one day, several days, or a whole year. And that individual can determine how much, or how little, of that ticket to use. The buffet analogy is a pretty simple version of this. You are not paying for unlimited food; you are paying for individual access to a meal. Whether you eat a big meal, a small meal, or next to nothing at all, the price is the same, because it is based on the individual, not the amount of food that is consumed.
Originally Posted By doombuggy RE #37 Good way to look at it but if it clearly states non transferable, not for resale doesn't that make it scalping? I don't know the laws of CA but I'm guessing if this guy is doing it and never been shut down it must be allowed? LOL #38
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Good way to look at it but if it clearly states non transferable, not for resale doesn't that make it scalping?" That's pretty much what it is.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>People who buy a 6-day pass with the intent of using it for 3 days and then selling it so that they can essentially get in for cheaper are creating their own discount that Disney didn't offer.<< I agree that's dishonest. It's also an odd obsession with saving money I'll never understand. I don't even bother with coupons, so I'm not trying to argue that fleecing the system is a swell idea. I would say, however, that an enforcement of the policy is probably short-sighted on Disney's part. It could alienate those with more legitimate reasons to resell or gift the tickets (a family emergency). It also ignores the value of having more guests in the park. Sure, some obnoxious person (the same person who holds me up at the grocery store to use 40 coupons) buys a five-day park hopper with the intention of only using it three days. Weak. But they're still in the parks. Even someone that cheap is probably still buying food, snacks, and merchandise. Is the hassle (and presumably cost) of shutting that down worth it? I'd say no, but perhaps Disney's carefully evaluated and determined it is.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt My guess is that it may be an industry wide problem and it isn't just Disney that's fighting it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < It could alienate those with more legitimate reasons to resell or gift the tickets (a family emergency).> I'm sympathetic to that; but PrincesesJenn's post shows that as long as you go about it the proper way, Disney WILL grant exceptions. <I'd say no, but perhaps Disney's carefully evaluated and determined it is.> I agree. My guess is that if it were ONLY people giving an unused day here or there to friends, they wouldn't bother. But the brokers are costing them money for reasons that aren't at all like the legitimate scenarios.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But they're still in the parks. Even someone that cheap is probably still buying food, snacks, and merchandise. Is the hassle (and presumably cost) of shutting that down worth it? I'd say no, but perhaps Disney's carefully evaluated and determined it is.>> They are not necessarily cheap... maybe just broke. And broke people don't spend in the parks. My first trip to WDW was done on very little money. I was sent on a business trip to Florida and decided to take my family with me and stop at WDW before driving to the conference in Naples. I had no time to save for the trip and we had no prior savings. We stayed off-site, ate breakfast at McDonalds, had the least expensive lunch we could find in the MK (soup), and then had a late dinner back at the hotel with delivered pizza. We bought no souvenirs in the parks... just cheap T-shirts from a place on Hwy 192. So the theory that once people are in the parks they will spend plenty of money doesn't always hold true... especially for the people most likely to look for cheap tickets.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan We went to Sweet Tomatoes this past weekend for lunch. There was a family of 5 in front of us and the amount of food they piled on was unbelievable. I wish I'd taken photos, it was truly astonishing to behold. The mom built a mountain of iceberg lettuce on one plate, to which the boy added another several piles. They also had discount coupons, so the five of them ultimately paid only $5 more than my wife and I. Once seated, the mom ran about fetching bowls of soup, more fruit and veggies from the salad bar, desserts, etc. It really was a sight. (And I am certain they could have only eaten 1/3 of all they'd piled on at best, so a tremendous waste as well). Anyway, I figure that my wife and I (and the next 10 - 20 normal customers) subsidized this family's feast. I am sure they looked at themselves as frugal, smart shoppers. I looked at them as greedy pigs. And I also thought, what a miserable thing to teach your children -- to gorge yourself because you can, to scam the system, on a discount coupon no less. They weren't doing anything illegal, of course, but they were being completely unethical and selfish. I don't know why some people work so hard to bend the damn rules of things. I guess I'm just too lazy to do it. I'd rather not go if that's what it takes. It's like sneaking into another movie after seeing the one you paid for -- stealing. And selling the "unused" tickets is stealing. I am sure a court would agree, as it is printed right on the pass itself.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl I'm reminded of a sign the local all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet has on their steam- and chill-tables, to the general effect that patrons should eat all they take, and keep their kids under control. That family of 5 in Sweet Tomatoes (never heard of the place) might not have had a decent meal in days, and might not know where there next meal would be coming from. So long as they actually ATE what they took, I wouldn't begrudge them the huge portions. So far as I'm aware, annual passes are generally sold on the assumption that the average purchaser would use it enough to reach a break-even point, but wouldn't use it every day. Likewise, length-of-stay theme park tickets at WDW were undoubtedly sold on the assumption that guests wouldn't be spending every waking hour in a theme park, even if management wasn't exactly thrilled at the prospect of guests going off-property to Universal or Sea World (my off-property excursions from WDW were to KSC, and to a small Episcopal church in Winter Park, which undoubtedly caused them somewhat less consternation). But multi-day theme park tickets, so far as I know, are always priced and sold on the assumption that they'd be used in toto. But since the all-you-can-eat restaurant analogy was brought up, I can't even imagine an all-you-can-eat restaurant tolerating guests stuffing doggie-bags. It's all-you-can-eat, not all-you-can-stash. If you want a take-out order, they might have a policy about that. (The aformentioned Chinese buffet, China Olive, on Bristol, near the south edge of Santa Ana, even has signs giving their take-out prices.)
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl Oh, and as to "sneaking into another movie," well, that depends. Certainly, sneaking into a different hall from the one on your ticket would be. But if they're showing a good, old-fashioned, double-feature, the assumption is that if you buy the ticket, you're entitled to both pictures, regardless of when you came in. And even if it's not a double feature, the natural assumption is that, with continuous showings, you're entitled, if you came in late, to at least see what you missed of the next showing, but wouldn't want to sit through the entire film again (hence the old cliche, "I think this is where we came in"). And under the pre-Katrina policy at Preservation Hall, once you were in the door, you could stick around for as many sets as you cared to sit through (and typically, you'd be standing in the dark for one set, you'd get to either sit down or see the musicians for the second, and you'd be able to sit at their feet for the third). Now, they clear the room between sets, and charge 3 times as much, but you have a fighting chance of getting both a seat and an unobstructed view right away.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That family of 5 in Sweet Tomatoes (never heard of the place) might not have had a decent meal in days<< I doubt that was the car where for a number of reasons. But yes, if they ate it all, that's one thing. But when we left there was still a ton of food on their plates and the whole family looked like they were slowing down. I hadn't even thought about them taking it home, perhaps they brought a bunch of zip locks with them. Regardless, the basic idea here is that no business can sustain that level of consumption at discount prices. Either most customers have to be reasonable or the business will have to raise the prices accordingly. Disney is no different in this, and if people are getting in for free (which they are as far as Disney is concerned when someone is buying a portion of someone else's ticket), one way or another, Disney will have to get those costs and profits covered, and that means charging everyone more.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I doubt that was the car where for a number of reasons.<< Whoops. Take 2: I doubt this was the case for a number of reasons.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Sweet Tomatoes is a regional name for Souplantation. And I love China Olive. Haven't been there in a while, though.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I might just throw in here that not a single person was talking about AP's, not even the guy that sells them at discount. Also $300.00+ dollars for a three day park entry as compared to an $11.00 ticket is, well, not comparing anything. I also never said that I didn't understand why Disney does this. I am merely expressing my thoughts that it really isn't ethical even if it is legal. That happens a lot with laws these days. And that led to the thought that this guy is ready to challenge it in court, because you know it's going there. And why, I think he has a chance to win it and force Disney to change its "contract".
Originally Posted By berol It sounds like Disney reimburses for the unused portion, so I don't know what an ethical problem could be.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The only way this goes to court is if Dsney sues the broker, not the other way around, because the broker doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Originally Posted By AGKoolAid Like others have said, purchasing the ticket is actually you entering into a contract with Disney & you agree with their terms. Don't agree with them, don't go. It's the same as purchasing a ticket to any other entertainment option. You can't buy a ticket to a multi-band concert, stay for the first act, then give the ticket to a fan who wants to see the other act. You can't buy a movie ticket, go watch the trailers, then give it to someone else who wants to see the movie. You can't buy a ticket to a baseball game, watch 4 innings, then give it to someone else so they can watch the remaining 5. You can't buy a plane ticket, go on the first leg of the trip, then let someone else continue on to the final destination. (I'd actually love to see someone try to fight the TSA on that one). Quite simply....don't over-buy. If you know you're not going to use that extra day or two...don't pay for that big of a ticket! (Yes, I do realize that "stuff happens" that you can't plan for. I'm not arguing that. That's completely at the discretion of Disney, & Disney alone, as to whether they are due any refunds.)
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I am merely expressing my thoughts that it really isn't ethical even if it is legal." There's nothing unethical about it.
