Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think a ski company offering to pay any fines imposed by schools is wrong

159 replies

bottlenecker · 14/03/2014 08:21

The times today have an article about a "A ski company is encouraging parents to take their children on holiday during term time by offering to pay any fines imposed by schools or local councils."

AIBU to think this is wrong on every level? It promotes parents to break the law. It discriminates against those without children having to pay a higher price than those with children for the same dates. I could go on....

OP posts:
BackOnlyBriefly · 14/03/2014 09:45

Ah I get it now. I still think you are talking like there are are unrelated groups, people with jobs and people with children, but you mean the costs of this offer are recovered by charging everyone more.

In fact the company can't simply add it onto the prices because they have to compete with other companies. They are planning to make so much out of this that they can recover it from the increased profits because more customers will be using them.

Original poster
bottlenecker · 14/03/2014 09:46

Backonlybriefly

Let me explain. The fine is paid for by the profits from the holiday company. The holiday company will have to make that money from somewhere. The holiday company will not be reducing their profits to pay these fines.

They will likely fund the fine payments by increasing peak season prices further or slightly increasing off peak season holiday prices for those without children. or lastly by increasing off peak activity though the deal.

Which ever way you look at it those who stick to the law or are child free subsidise those who take their kids out of school.

It is wrong.

OP posts:
wanderings · 14/03/2014 09:48

Let's have a cheeky reminder to Gove et al:

Tony Blair (who said "we're all middle-class") used to take his family on regular holidays to the Seychelles, when his children should have been at school!

TarkaTheOtter · 14/03/2014 09:48

They will probably add it to the price of children's tickets.

They won't add it to the adults tickets because that would leave them uncompetitive for those without children who will just go with someone cheaper.

But cross subsidisation doesn't work like that anyway in this industry. The economics of holidays are quite complicated as marginal costs are not constant. Holiday companies have to pay for flights/hotels even if they are not full. It's why last minute cheap deals exist. The companies have lower costs and can charge lower prices if their demand is constant across the season. So this deal might actually lower prices on average.

fluffyraggies · 14/03/2014 09:48

Suppose i fly to a resort and there is a big sign up when i get there saying ''we are trying to attract more locals, so all visitors arriving by coach will be given £50 towards their fare''.

I'm not going to say ''fuck me i wish we'd got off the plane earlier and came part way by coach. we could have got 50 quid off the fare. AND some of the money i paid for my holiday is going towards those bastard coach travelers'' .... am i? Confused

ISeeYouShiverWithAntici · 14/03/2014 09:49

oh, you would have paid £1000, but we now give people who have children £120 so your holiday is now going to cost £1120. Their holiday is going to cost £1000 and also we are going to repay the fine they have to pay with the extra £120 we are taking off you.

you think that is how it will work?

If you are talking prices then yes, maybe prices will go up, by about a tenner, across the board, so they maintain their profits. That's normally how it works (you only get free cheese in a mousetrap!). But the family going on holiday will also pay that increase. It's not like they will remain at the lower figure AND get the payment of the fine, wiping out the extra they paid to the LA, while the couple without kids pay the higher price.

Where is the loss specific to those who don't have children? Where is the discount (as opposed to the 'making whole') of the people with children? You clearly feel there is one, and you feel it strongly - it would be so easy for you to explain, with illustrative figures, how that is worked out.

I am very happy to say ok now I understand what you mean, fair enough, I apologise, I'm with you - if I can understand the maths you are using here.

kim147 · 14/03/2014 09:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BackOnlyBriefly · 14/03/2014 09:51

As for the morality of paying the fine for parents that is wrong in principle, but since I think the point of the fine was to provide a soundbyte "We are committed to improving education blah blah vote for us" and is bad law I find it hard to mind.

I think there have been other cases of fines being paid on behalf of employees or party members. Don't know if that rings any bells for anyone.

BoomBoomsCousin · 14/03/2014 09:51

It's discrimination in the sense they are targetting a particular group (people with school age children) and offering them a deal (however small) that those without school age children will not be able to take advantage. But that isn't illegal discrimination. It's the sort of discrimination that happens all the time in marketing - e.g. family rail cards or specials for senior citizens. Companies also frequently run campaigns that offer things only those over 18 can apply for, and they frequently say people who work for certain companies or industries are not eligible. Also companies are more and more only making offerings to people who meet particular demographic or shopping history criteria - those vouchers you get at the supermarket when you've bought something are soemtimes targetted at individuals. You may not get an offer on domestos bleach if you already buy it for instance.

Also parents are as curtailed in their choice of holiday times by their employment as anyone else. The school fines is an additional constraint on parents. It doesn't remove their employment constraints.

I don't agree with companies offering to pay criminal fines, but I'm less concerned about civil ones. I'm not sure which category school fines fall into.

Original poster
bottlenecker · 14/03/2014 09:51

And to clarify my point obviously there are not 2 separate groups workers and parents.

My example was to show that it seems ridiculous that there COULD be a child free couple on zero hours thus incurring a cost (no wages) whilst they are on holiday with no subsidy from the holiday company going on the same holiday, sat next to a well off family who are earning 50K plus who receive their school fine paid as a cash back deal.

I agree there are other examples but as this one encourages children to be taken out of school it seems totally wrong.

OP posts:
OpalQuartz · 14/03/2014 09:52

They will likely fund the fine payments by increasing peak season prices further Well then you can vote with your feet and go with a company who haven't increased peak season prices to fund fines.

kim147 · 14/03/2014 09:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ISeeYouShiverWithAntici · 14/03/2014 09:53

or yes, they may bank on more people using them because of this so that although their profit per qualifying family is slightly lower, their overall profit is higher because at the end of the day it is a numbers game.

and yes, good point, Back - if they put up their prices out of season - they make themselves uncompetitive and people will go elsewhere.

Original poster
bottlenecker · 14/03/2014 09:54

I see you shiver
*"oh, you would have paid £1000, but we now give people who have children £120 so your holiday is now going to cost £1120. Their holiday is going to cost £1000 and also we are going to repay the fine they have to pay with the extra £120 we are taking off you.

you think that is how it will work?"*

No I don't at all. I have tried to explain. Sorry you don't understand.

OP posts:
ISeeYouShiverWithAntici · 14/03/2014 09:56

but the zero hours couple didn't have a fine to pay! So they weren't out that money in the first place.

rich family paid LA £120, get £120 from the holiday company - outlay £0

zero hours couple paid LA £0, got £0 from the holiday company - outlay £0

where is the subsidy?

YellowDinosaur · 14/03/2014 09:56

I'm with iseeyoushiver. Your maths doesn't work.

Plus, the couple without children will look at the price for the holiday with this company and for other similar holidays with other companies and choose the one that gives them the best deal won't they? As does everyone. No one is standing there forcing them to hand over extra cash to subsidise families with children!

Yes, this deal might mean that the company plus the costs up. But not as an extra supplement after you have decided to have the holiday.

Original poster
bottlenecker · 14/03/2014 09:59

"but the zero hours couple didn't have a fine to pay! So they weren't out that money in the first place."

But they lost all their pay going on holiday, that is a cost

OP posts:
BoomBoomsCousin · 14/03/2014 09:59

On the subsidy front - providing they've done their sums right and the fines aren't too great, by filling up their accomodation out of peak times the company will be lowering the overall costs to all holiday makers. Those parnts taking their children out of school will in fact be helping subsidize all the other holidayers.

MistyB · 14/03/2014 09:59

This marketing policy is designed to increase their business above the base level, attracting customers who would not otherwise come in low season which by definition is likely to be under utiliser therefore the company gets more money and more profit, no other consumer group is affected. They are filling beds that would otherwise be empty and using this incentive to entice new customers.

(The morality of enticing people to break the law is another question but I did want to challenge the assumption that other customers suffer due to this.)

ISeeYouShiverWithAntici · 14/03/2014 09:59

Me too. I am baffled.

I have tried and tried and tried to understand how it works out that one group paying something that another group doesn't have to pay, and getting that back, thus returning them to the £0 that the other group were at all along means anything other than both are returned to £0.

I just can't figure it out.

And I do budgets and crap all the live long day. Cashflow forecasts, the lot. I am not inexperienced at working money out. I still can't get it.

LtEveDallas · 14/03/2014 10:00

See I think that is a bit of marketing GENIUS. Whoever came up with that one deserves a raise! I don't take DD out of school for holidays (at least I haven't had to), but you know what, that makes me want to use that company, even though I wouldn't benefit from what they are offering.

Genius, seriously.

Original poster
bottlenecker · 14/03/2014 10:01

Boomboom

I did make that point 09.46

OP posts:
drivenfromdistraction · 14/03/2014 10:01

I don't think it's discrimination.

I do think it's wrong for companies to offer to pay fines. Just as if a restaurant offered to pay parking fines for customers who wanted to illegally park outside.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Government find a way of closing this down tbh.

YellowDinosaur · 14/03/2014 10:01

Am I the only one who wants to know which company this is as it might mean we can actually afford to go skiing for the first time in 10 years...

LtEveDallas · 14/03/2014 10:03

Nope yellow, me too Smile

Swipe left for the next trending thread