Wow, bs83's Question really hit a nerve! I disagree with those who think that it was unethical for him to use the tickets. His cousin's family PURCHASED the tickets for 2 days but only ended up using them for 1 day. So, who is going to use that second day? Bs83 and his family. Why is that unethical? Is it more ethical to just let Sea world keep the extra $ for that second day? I think not.

Glad to hear that it mostly worked out for you Bs83.

momplaygroup: could not disagree more. The tickets are <u>non transferable</u>.

I find it really sad that bs83 thinks it is fine to post to brag they &quot;got over&quot; and only had to pay for one ticket. What sort of lesson was that for the kids? &quot;<i>It is OK not to pay if we can get away w/ it. We will only buy tix if we get caught</i>&quot;

ethically challenged IMO . . . . .

If the tickets say on them &quot;nontransferable&quot; then ok you'd be violating their terms. But if they didn't say that, then why not? It's not like Sea World is going to refund them them any money for the second day? Also, on EBAY, you can find lots and lots of people trying to sell their theme park tickets. I think it is a rip off for these parks to forbid people to transfer their tickets to others.

I agree that it's a ripoff -- two days of tickets should be for two days of use, regardless of who uses them. But I guess that isn't the point if they're &quot;nontransferable&quot;, because that isn't the Seller's policy, as long as it was clear when purchased. You could argue that they KNOW a certain number of purchasers of 2-day passes won't use the second day, and they price them accordingly.

These tickets are actually ONE day tickets which are valid for a return visit within one week in Florida and within the same year it appears in California.
No one paid for 2 days; the second entry is free to the purchasers and Sea World makes some extra money on concessions if they return.

Well, they make the same extra money on concessions whether the original group returns or someone else uses the passes, so to me, it still depends on the original &quot;contract terms&quot;.

thievery by any other name is still thievery

That's my point, it's not theft if the &quot;second use&quot; wasn't restricted to the original purchaser. If they were, that's different.

Dmlove - it WAS restricted to the original purchaser. That's what the &quot;non-transferable&quot; means. The fact that the OP was able to use them is besides the point - the tickets were only authorized to be used on the second day by the same persons who used them on the first day.

<i>it WAS restricted to the original purchaser</i>

toedtoes, are you assuming that, or did the OP say that somewhere (if they did, I couldn't find it...I found lots of posts where other people made that assumption).

good grief - even the bs83 admitted that they were restricted and they had to pay for one of the tickets because the name was printed on the ticket.

dmlove, really? are you ok? cuz you're talking crazy talk, and I mean that in the nicest of ways.

It was quoted from SeaWorld's website several times over the course of this post.

<i>dmlove, really? are you ok? cuz you're talking crazy talk, and I mean that in the nicest of ways.</i>

Nope, I'm a lawyer - I just can't &quot;take&quot; imprecise words LOL!!

pppheww! that's a true relief! gladyou are doin alright and simply caught up in precision!

i wouldn't try to tell people what is ethical or not. i wouldn't chastise someone who does try to use a ticket like this. however, i am puzzled by those who don't seem to understand that one person for two day's admission is different from two different people for two days. these deals are priced according to the terms of the deal.

if i only stay in a museum for 2 hours, why can't i or someone else return on 3 other days for 2 hours each. i could have stayed at the museum for a full 8 hours that it was open during the day that i paid for? what difference does it make if someone else uses the time that i could have stayed in the museum anyway?

why can't 10+ people share one gym membership as long as they don't need to all be in the gym at the same time? after all, one person could use the gym every hour of every day that it is open under their membership so what difference does it make if this time is spread across 10 or more people?

why can't 3 people share an all you can eat meal deal? one person could make 3 trips to the buffet what difference is it if 3 people make one trip each?

ttt

Okay, so tell me if I am doing something wrong too, because I never looked at it this way:

I go to the theater and get called away for some reason (has happened several times) and have to leave at intermission. I find 2 people on the street that are just wandering and offer them my tickets so they can go in and see the 2nd act of the show and enjoy. I am looking at it as not wasting tickets, giving someone who had nothing to do the opportunity to have some fun, and maybe turning someone on to the theater who has never been and wasn't sure they would like it. Am I wrong to do this? If the fodorites say so, I will cease and desist immediately.

I see nothing wrong here. The ticket is for a whole show - you only saw half, the other folks will only see half; one-half plus one-half = one whole. As you said, the theatre may benefit as someone might just get hooked on coming.

When I visited Disney World 20 years ago we bought passes from a guy in the parking lot who was selling 5 day passes that still had a couple of days left on them. Presumably the Disney people have curtailed this practice in the past 2 decades.

bugs...i'm not looking at this as a moral/ethical issue but an economic one.

2 people seeing a half a film each has a lower total value for most customers than 1 person seeing the whole film. therefore, cinemas really have no big incentive to take measures to stop what you describe. like 2 halves of a pair of trousers has a lower value than the whole. and a single shoe from a pair that costs &pound;100 is not worth &pound;50.

2 people visiting a 'destination' type theme park separately has a higher total value than one person visiting for two days within a few months. the demand for repeat visits within a few months to these types of parks is lower than for the initial visit...otherwise the park would not give them away. if demand is lower, value is lower...if you live in a capitalist society.

this is all basic demand management. the 'two days is two days' view is naive...the world does not work this way.

walkinaround, I totally agree with you, but many here never seem to understand the economic issue. Some seem to think the more you can &quot;steal&quot; from a big corporation, the better as they are &quot;making enough already&quot; or &quot;ripping anyone off anyway&quot;.

And the idea that someone may just get hooked on coming so the business profits is hysterically absurd. Obviously the people going to all the trouble of trying to use these &quot;illegal&quot; tickets are already &quot;hooked on going&quot; or they wouldn't be doing that. Next someone will be suggesting that shoplifting in stores should be encouraged because it's a good way for people to become familiar with a product and hooked on buying it. Give me a break -- these justifications are so bad.

While I completely agree that this is an economic/pricing issue (and that the cost of the tickets is based on someone's projections regarding attendance), I do think it's very different from stealing a tangible item. The only actual loss to the seller in the case of someone using the second day free that didn't belong to them is 1) if they would have come anyway and paid for it; and 2) if there are limited numbers of spots available, so some other paying customer was turned away. When you steal a tangible item, it is costing the seller at a minimum the cost to manufacture, market, ship and sell the item.

soooooo

having given you the benefit of the doubt, you choose to reveal your true colors.

you're one of those snarky kinds of lawyers that puts a spin on breaking the law.

Seaworld has made specific rules and yet you still want to spin it that to ignore those rules isn't really wrong, but knocking down a toddler and stealing their cotton candy is?????

Jeez, gyppielou, I didn't say that at all. And I am not only as far from a snarky lawyer as you can get, I pride myself on my ethical conduct, so please get off your high horse. I was just disagreeing with NeoPatrick's last analogy, not condoning anyone's behavior. I've said all along that a contract is a contract - if the original ticket said it was non-transferable, then there's your answer.

OK, very funny. Friends?

So am i Tonto or are you Tonto???


I Wanna be Tonto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGjxi...eature=related

The main reason for fingerprinting is not really the 2 day pass, but the season pass. But it does work for the 2 day pass as well.

Companies come up with all kinds of ways to price their products (per visit, per person per visit, by subscription, by unit of use, whatever), based on (1) how convenient it is for them to collect income by that method, and (2) whether they think the public will buy more product if it is priced that way.

The question is, does one person using a two-day ticket use up less ``resources'' than two people using two one-day tickets? Possibly Seaworld thinks so, because the priced it that way. Or maybe they found out that people with unsettled plans tend to buy the two-day passes, but end up not using one day. Free money, if they decide to make them non-transferrable: they can sell tickets to more people than the park can hold.

They have a right to do what they want. But as a consumer, I have a right to protest what I think is a bad policy (especially the part about fingerprinting and ID-checking), when I can't see any good reason for it except trying to gouge the customer.

Should my protest turn to action? (Assuming hypothetically that I had such a ticket in hand.)

I may decide to try and use the two-day pass as a matter of consumer disobedience (like civil disobedience but less noble) or because I am a cheapskate. Either way, refusing to complying with the implied contract LESSER SIN than stealing a tangible resource.

I have only deprived the company of the profits that their marketing staff IMAGINED might have been available otherwise. Suppose once they catch me trying to use the ticket, they decide to charge me double for a one-day ticket because marketing says it is a good idea to deter others. Would it be stealing if I walked away and got a friend to buy my ticket?

I can't believe that people still try to use that &quot;it doesn't cost the place any more&quot;.

I guess you also go a movie, pay for one, then spend the day going to the other movies playing within the same cineplex? Obviously that's a perfect comparison, since it isn't costing the theatre any more for you to be there.

Well, actually, the correct analogy is I pay for two movie tickets, couldn't use the second one, and gave it to someone else. Does it cost the theater more if my brother goes instead of my sister?

Nobody in the Seaworld scenario is trying to use the ticket for more days than specified, or to sneak in extra people that aren't paid for. The question is whether a different person can use the ticket than the person who bought it.

The theater has every right to decide to sell tickets on a per seat per movie basis, rather than on a per customer basis. So does Seaworld.

But if the theater institutes a policy that movie tickets are non-transferrable, I would let management know that I thought that that was an unreasonable policy. One reason for my objection is, I don't think it costs them any extra if a different person shows up. Another part is, if they resort to fingerprinting and photographing just to enforce their policy, the resulting invasion of my privacy is deplorable.

I suspect Sea World knows that a certain number of people use the tickets in this manner, and may not mind that much, but obviously need to have a control on it(i.e. since they state it's non-transferable they can refuse you admission if they wish). The people at the gate must have known what bs83 and family were up to. Why weren't they called on it?
Answer, the staff is probably not supposed to challenge guests on this unless they are doing something really egregious (or, I suspect, on days when the park is expected to be at capacity). Many theme parks have policies that are very selectively enforced. And in most parks those &quot;scanners&quot; are for show. I think Disney is the only one where they actually work, and DH had to insert his pinky, as his index was too large for it to recoginise it as a finger.
You can argue whether this kind of use is ethical or not, but it is likely that Sea World will wink at a certain amount of it.

They don't offer this deal any more.

<i>They don't offer this deal any more.</i>

They probably read this thread LOL!

Gosh, you mean my boycott worked?

Deal is still available in Florida.

Buy a ONE day ticket and return within 7 days to be admitted free (this is not mentioned until you click on ONE day tix )

I have a similar yet different problem. I bought my boyfriend a one day ticket to Sea World for his birthday and found out later that day they aren't going. Sea Worlds voice mail says they aren't taking calls and email will respond in 7-10 days. I don't want to lose my money and we live in another state so unlikely to go anytime soon again. I have a friend who is going and would love her to be able to use it but it has his name on it. I paid full price for the ticket so I don't understand why they wouldn't refund or atleast let someone else use it rather than me lose my money and I can't even get in touch with them to find out my options.

<<and I can't even get in touch with them to find out my options.>>

Have you tried their contact info page. A few options to contact them:
http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld...rom=Footer_Nav