conrad
Recently on New Years Eve I went over to Shawnee Peak for a day of skiing with my brother. This is where I learned to ski and grew up coming here every Wednesday after school way back 15-20 years ago. However, this isn't your grandma's ski area anymore.
The line at the two ticket windows were long which was understandable considering the holiday, but also very slow moving. I had plenty of time to read the signs that indicated that my email would be used for marketing purposes, that my picture would be taken every time I boarded the lift, and that I could find the ski area's privacy policy on their website. Not quite able to digest all that, I eventually got to the ticket window. I gave the vouchers and paid the fee for one RFID card (already had one of these). Then came the questions. First name? Conrad. Last name? Okay, I'll give them that no problem, but I hope that's it.
Then came the dreaded question: email. I responded 'no thank you, I don't need to get any emails.' However, she was having none of that and replied that 'she needed the email for the RFID' with a slight tone of annoyance in her voice. As much as I hate giving away my email for frivolous things, there was a long line behind and I was with my brother. I have a separate email I never check that has my name and the word spam in the title so I spelled it out to her. She gave me a funny look, but in the end I got the tickets and we hit the slopes.
Getting to the chairlift, I was still a little surprised to see what did indeed seem to be cameras at each gate! In addition, there was a single camera overhead viewing the entire gate scene. I could be wrong about the cameras being on each gate, but just in case I pulled up the balaclava over my face each time I got on the lift in order to prevent the camera from harvesting my picture every time.
Of course private ski areas have every right to do this, but all these steps seem highly unreasonable to me when all I want is a single ticket and a day of skiing. Thoughts?
NewEnglandSkier13
Weird, especially for Shawnee Peak. I know I wouldn't like that, and it might keep me from returning to Shawnee in the future. They don't even do that at Sunday River.
rickbolger
Shawnee Peak? agree that's weird. Unfortunately I think you're going to see more of this. I skied at Keystone once and the tickets lines were Epic®. Turns out they ask everybody for their home address, email, occupation, mother's maiden name, any dental implants, name of their first pet or some crazy thing. What a nightmare. And they hand out cookies (I'm exaggerating but not about the cookies. Warm cookies served while you wait on the eternal ticket line). Ridiculous. I just want to go skiing
skelley19
I bet Shawnee Peak is using facial recognition software similar to Wachusett. They are doing it to prevent the sharing of season passes or even day passes. For example if a couple with a young child only buys 1 pass so they can take turns watching the child and skiing this software will flag the second person that tries to use it as they do not match the other photos they have. At Wachusett there is a lifty that is looking at a tablet and they get alerted every time there is a mismatch. The software is pretty good as my pants, jacket and head wear change quite a bit depending on the weather but I have never been questioned. However my wife let a friend borrow her pass a few years ago and the lifty asked if she dyed her hair. She said yes and let her go and no questions the rest of the day but we haven't shared passes since then.
I might be in the minority but it seems kind of foolish to me. The pass is already paid for, if a couple is splitting it then they are never using the lifts at the same time. As for season passes, if somebody borrows a pass they are more likely to spend money on food and beverage then if they already shelled out for a day pass. It may also make them more inclined to buy a season pass the following season. That's exactly how it worked for me. I borrowed a season pass 7 years ago and have been a pass holder each of the past 6 years since. If I hadn't borrowed that pass I am not sure I would be a pass holder now. I can also see how a mountain would view sharing a "non-transferable pass" as stealing but in my opinion that might be short sighted.
jaytrem
Sounds like blatant stealing to me, no different than walking into a 7-eleven and grabbing a bag of chips and walking out. I guess opinions vary.
conrad
You are certainly right that the cameras are certainly there to prevent passes and tickets from being transferred, especially considering the ski area's long operating hours. Whether or not facial recognition software is used [edit: at Shawnee Peak] or if it's a person on a computer is another question. You would think that kind of thing would be disclosed in the privacy policy, but maybe not.
I don't have a problem with someone with a tablet checking ID photos of season passholders passing through, but I'm not a fan of these surveillance systems routinely capturing my personal information, image, and theoretically other body type and health data and putting it into a database somewhere. Obviously that's just my perspective though.
skelley19
jaytrem;c-39482 wroteSounds like blatant stealing to me, no different than walking into a 7-eleven and grabbing a bag of chips and walking out. I guess opinions vary.
I view it more as going into 7/11 and buying a bag of chips and sharing it with somebody even though the bag says "non-transferable" instead of buying 2 bags of chips but only eating half of each. Admittedly my argument is more for 2 adults with a small child being forced to buy 2 day passes when only one of them can be used at a time.
The season pass thing is different but in my case if a buddy didn't let me borrow his pass all those years ago my wife I would not have become dedicated pass holders every season since. A better more ethical compromise is for more mountains to offer pass holder perks that include at least one free or steeply discounted ticket to bring a friend.
NELSAP
Back in the day, in the early 1940s at the original Brodie, owner Gregory Makaroff would monitor skiers license plates. There was another ski area next door, Brodie Mountain Sports Center, and skiers would try to ski his trails as they were nearly connecting. If he could identify which car they came from, he would do things like let air out of the tires as "payback". Yikes!
slatham
Data is king. It's a primary driver of Vail expansion and success. Data to better manage the mountain. Data to target market. Data to cross sell other resort offerings. Data to sell (depending on privacy policy). Data=knowledge.
rickbolger
skelley19;c-39485 wrote
I view it more as going into 7/11 and buying a bag of chips and sharing it with somebody even though the bag says "non-transferable" instead of buying 2 bags of chips but only eating half of each. ( etc. etc.) only one of them can be used at a time.
"Only one can be used at a time" seems like a reasonable way to look at it, but doesn't cover all the bases.
The seller is basing the cost that they are willing to sell it for on one person using the ticket, you agreed, and you have a contract.
The potato chip bag does not say "non-transferable" so it is not part of the transaction you made at the cash register and mentioning it in this friendly and interesting debate is merely a straw man.
A more accurate analogy would be the ticket to an all-you-can-eat buffet. The seller is basing the cost on you getting your fill, and the price is per person. The seller would not make that contract if they knew you were going out, transferring your ticket, and sending the missus in to get her fill as well.
If the ski area operator had no choice but to consider that some of the tickets would be used by two people, they would assume longer/more average use, and thus more impact on their infrastructure and more human resources during the average day, and they would set their price accordingly higher.
ME2VTskier
Some mountains, such as Bretton Woods sell a "Family Interchangeable Ticket" for both parents to swap off the babysitting duties. BW's is same price as a normal adult ticket. I'm sure other mountains must sell them as well.
Family Interchangeable Tickets are available at any ticket window, Mom and Dad may purchase two identical alpine lift tickets at the single-ticket price. Only one may be used at any given time. Regular full-day daily ticket pricing applies.
rickbolger
smart marketing move on their part. With Killington charging $125 today for partial terrain, prices are getting steep. I wouldn't be surprised if a resort comes up with a "buddy ticket" deal like that, something to fill the bill along the lines of the potato chips ;)
joshua_segal
rickbolger;c-39494 wrotesmart marketing move on their part. With Killington charging $125 today for partial terrain, prices are getting steep. I wouldn't be surprised if a resort comes up with a "buddy ticket" deal like that, something to fill the bill along the lines of the potato chips ;)
I was at Killington 1/2 and 1/3. While I don't know what they charged, I will say that they had a decent crowd for non-peak weekdays. While they may be only half-open, they still have more open than most ski areas have when they are fully open. They had glades, steeps, bumps, cruisers, beginner terrain, terrain parks. What would you have wanted that they didn't have?
Peter
Name, gender and birthday are commonly collected to help staff at lifts identify theft of services. There is often a bounty paid to employees who catch thieves. Keeping ticket fraud down benefits the skiing public. No different from shrinkage at retailers affecting every customer through higher prices.
joshua_segal
Peter;c-39502 wroteName, gender and birthday are commonly collected to help staff at lifts identify theft of services. There is often a bounty paid to employees who catch thieves. Keeping ticket fraud down benefits the skiing public. No different from shrinkage at retailers affecting every customer through higher prices.
I knew a couple who had a baby. One skied while the other watched the baby. They bought one day ticket. IMO, that's OK - and the ski area benefitted. They would probably not have gone otherwise.
I knew of another group of four (maybe 5). Two people went up to the North Ridge of Killington. They don't check tickets there. After leaving person 1 at the North Ridge, person 2 took person 1's ticket; skied to the base area, gave person 1's ticket to person 3. The process was repeated until all 4 (or 5) were in the glades. Two of them could venture off with the valid tickets. That, IMO, is not OK.
However, at this point in time, the poor shlubs aren't the ones buying over-the-counter tickets and with the industry almost giving away season passes the sub-30-year-old people, I don't think that sneaking on lifts without a ticket is a big issue any more. I keep asking lift attendants how many they have caught. Except for a few who left their season passes at home and had to get a paper replacement ticket from the counter, the answer was none.
bmwskier
Setting aside the personal data collection for a moment--- when a person buys a ticket they are also agreeing that skiing is inherently a dangerous sport, which has many hazards, both man made and natural, and assumes that element of risk. According to Vermont Law, tickets are nontransferable from one person to another. Buying a ticket is essentially entering into a contractual agreement-- the area tries to make the sport as safe as possible and tries to manage that risk while the skier acknowledges the risks and agrees to follow the Skier's Responsibility Code.
In a worst case scenario--- say a person gets hurt on a run and it is clearly the areas fault either due to poor risk management or something else that contributed to the injury. The skier would absolutely have no recourse in that event and would indeed, probably face criminal charges in addition to the injury and it's costs.
rickbolger
joshua_segal;c-39498 wroterickbolger;c-39494 wrotesmart marketing move on their part. With Killington charging $125 today for partial terrain, prices are getting steep. I wouldn't be surprised if a resort comes up with a "buddy ticket" deal like that, something to fill the bill along the lines of the potato chips ;)
I was at Killington 1/2 and 1/3. While I don't know what they charged, I will say that they had a decent crowd for non-peak weekdays. While they may be only half-open, they still have more open than most ski areas have when they are fully open. They had glades, steeps, bumps, cruisers, beginner terrain, terrain parks. What would you have wanted that they didn't have?
A lower priced ticket! :p
marcski
bmwskier;c-39510 wroteSetting aside the personal data collection for a moment--- when a person buys a ticket they are also agreeing that skiing is inherently a dangerous sport, which has many hazards, both man made and natural, and assumes that element of risk. According to Vermont Law, tickets are nontransferable from one person to another. Buying a ticket is essentially entering into a contractual agreement-- the area tries to make the sport as safe as possible and tries to manage that risk while the skier acknowledges the risks and agrees to follow the Skier's Responsibility Code.
In a worst case scenario--- say a person gets hurt on a run and it is clearly the areas fault either due to poor risk management or something else that contributed to the injury. The skier would absolutely have no recourse in that event and would indeed, probably face criminal charges in addition to the injury and it's costs.
I don't believe this to be true or accurate. Injuries can be caused by the active negligence of ski areas, which could very well be actionable in Court.
bmwskier
[/quote]
I don't believe this to be true or accurate. Injuries can be caused by the active negligence of ski areas, which could very well be actionable in Court.
[/quote]
Marcski-- I've been a patroller now for 37 years and done accident investigations, been involved with insurance discussions and law discussions as well with our areas representatives. Yes, anyone theoretically can sue a ski area, however, it really weakens a case when it's provable that the injured client did not purchase the ticket that indicates that they understood the risks inherent to the sport. Vail Resorts is pretty aggressive with pursuing criminal charges against those who use someone else's pass. Any area sued by someone using someone else's pass will no doubt go hammer and tongs after that particular person, no matter what the level of negligence is on the part of the resort.
The law in most every state that has a ski resort is very clear. Passes/tickets are nontransferable between patrons. It's gone back and forth in various cases, swinging in favor of the skier and then the area, and then back again like a pendulum. I'm not sure how sympathetic a judge or jury would be to a plaintiff suing a resort if they were, in fact, in the wrong by using someone else's pass or ticket knowing that it was illegal.
Cannonball
This thread has departed from the OP. The original point was about collection of private information, maybe even to the extreme of facial recognition.
An comment was made that these techniques are used to prevent theft of services. Now the discussion is focused on the ins-and-outs of theft of services.
I think it's worth getting back to original point. Even if 100% of us agree that sharing a ticket is 100% wrong 100% of the time, does that excuse/justify extreme levels of personal data collection? All the same data is being collected on all of us innocent people just to catch those few crooks. Is that ok? Should all of us be monitored all of the time in all aspects of our lives under the justification that it helps catch the few criminals? We certainly let that pass when it comes to safety like TSA. I'm willing to compromise that liberty for the safety. But are we really ok with compromising our personal info just so Vail doesn't lose $180 to someone?
There are plenty of other ways to prevent ticket fraud. The only reason they are resorting to personal data collection is that they created the electronic ticket system in the first place (at our expense). Keeping it physical and simple would be cheaper and easier to control than electronic methods. But they were so hungry for the personal data of thier paying customers, that they now have to exploit that even further in order to identify the non-payers.
