momplaygroup

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.

janisj

momplaygroup: could not disagree more. The tickets are non transferable.

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

ethically challenged IMO . . . . .

momplaygroup

If the tickets say on them "nontransferable" 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.

dmlove

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 "nontransferable", 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.

highflyer

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.

dmlove

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 "contract terms".

gyppielou

thievery by any other name is still thievery

dmlove

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

toedtoes

Dmlove - it WAS restricted to the original purchaser. That's what the "non-transferable" 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.

dmlove

it WAS restricted to the original purchaser

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).

gyppielou

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.

toedtoes

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

dmlove

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

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

gyppielou

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

walkinaround

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?

1JAR

ttt

bugswife1

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.

TMWeddle

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.

nohomers

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.

walkinaround

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 £100 is not worth £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.