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

[bottlenecker]

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....

[ISeeYouShiverWithAntici]

x post.

seriously? zero hours couple don't get paid while going on holiday so they should be compensated for their lost wages because school fines are paid?

Sorry, that's just too funny. I'm out. I'll leave you to it. I don't think you actually can work out exactly and precisely how it's unfair or unequal, can you? you just feel it because you see someone getting something that someone else isn't and you can't see past that to the fact there is no loss involved to person A if person B is returned to £0 on a fine that person A does not have to pay.

If you're going to start talking like unequal wages should be subsidised then I can't take you seriously.

[bottlenecker]

Because by offering to pay fines for one group of customer it is effectively a discount that another doesn't get even if they are going at the same time.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

Certainly not discrimination because as people have said you get offers for all sorts of groups. Also the company can show that the purpose isn't discrimination, but to increase profits. This is the purpose of a company (they are not there to provide a service unless state owned)

[BoomBoomsCousin]

No you didn't. You metioned increased off peak activity and then falsely said "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." This isn't true. If they increase off peak activity sufficiently no one will be "subsidising" those who take their kids out of school. All costs could go down if off peak use was greater.

[YellowDinosaur]

Here is mountainbase the company in question

Of you actually look at what they are providing you will see that they have a chalet in morzine. Clearly a lot of the costs (staff, heating, insurance etc) will be the same whether there is 1 person in there or 50. Which totally undermines your argument about other people's costs going up to subsidise their offer. If the chalet is full they will make greater profits and no one will have to subsidise anything.

I suggest you do a bit more research before making such an unfounded statement. The ethics are another argument but frankly your financial arguments are horse shit. This took me all of 30 seconds.

[bottlenecker]

Obviously a company has a duty to maximise profits to its' shareholder absolutely.

I understand that. I think its' kind of strange how so many people have been complaining that holiday prices are unfair and a "rip off" for parents because prices are so high during school holidays. However, they cannot see that it might be unfair to offer a form of cash back for certain dates only to those who have taken their kids out of school.

[Taxpanicmum]

Bottleneck ear

Can I ask why this particular offer bothers you so very much?

Genuine question as a number if other posters ( who appear to have a quite a good grasp of how the holiday/ marketing industry works in reality as opposed to theory) have I think quite clearly explained how giving a refund of associated 'costs' ( could be anything not just holiday fine) does not necessarily increase costs for others. That it could quite feasibly lower costs if it means the company fill it's pre purchased 'quota' of flight seats and hotel rooms etc.

Surely we can all appreciate that depending on who we are and what we buy we may or may not benefit from this type of offer. There are so many examples I could write all day.

But why does this particular offer annoy/ concern you so much???

[TamerB]

I can see why they are doing it, Morzine is very much a family resort-they need families.

[YellowDinosaur]

By using your argument you could also say that the current system of inflated prices during holidays lets companies make most of their profit then and can subsidise those who travel off peak.

[bottlenecker]

taxpanicum

Please read my post at 9.46, it is one of the points I made.

[bottlenecker]

Yellowdinosaur

And how much whinging has there been from parents about that? But this is ok?

[bottlenecker]

Tax

As I said in my OP it annoys me because it promotes parents to break the law.

[DeWe]

Well I suspect that the result will end up being that the fines will be raised to unaffordable levels for ski companies and parents that just want to factorise the fine into the cost.

[Taxpanicmum]

Bottlenecker, I have read this post, but my point is the 'equation' is no wher near as simple as this. It may be easy to think in these terms but the reality is, if only 50% of places on a particular holiday are likely to be filled! the price will increase for those who book. If the holiday company can fill 100% of the places! then the profit they need to make on each booking decreases! but over they still make more profit. Hence to be competitive and maximise bookings they can offer discount across the board to lure people in, does this make sense?

[curiousgeorgie]

I love this, very clever!

If I didn't loathe skiing I would book with them

wonders if I can find a Florida holiday with the same deal!

[bottlenecker]

Taxpanicmum
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.

I do understand your point I wrote the same thing in bold above (probably not clear enough). You are talking about £'s versus percentage.
10% of a million is better than 50% of a thousand.

[YellowDinosaur]

Bottlenecker you are right that there has been whingeing about that. Only really though since Gove brought in this spectacularly ridiculous law against taking children out of school in term time. I actually can't find it in myself to be angry at the companies for being out for what they can get. They are running a business not a charity and they wouldn't be able to charge the prices they do if people weren't prepared to pay it. For example Center Parcs charges almost triple during school holidays but they are always full. It's supply and demand.

What I like about this company is their big 'fuck you' to this fucking ridiculous policy. And it will definitely make me specifically look them out next year. Good pr I reckon.

[bottlenecker]

Yellowdinosaur

I found your post 10.10 really offensive.

[missymarmite]

I don't agree with taking kids out of school for a holiday, and this is blatantly encouraging parents to break the law.

However, I don't see how it is discriminating against those without young children. Those without children don't have to pay the fines in the first place. You might as well say the fines are discriminating parents as they are subsidising the public sector, which everyone uses!

[LtEveDallas]

Oh. You know what. Maybe the marketing genius that come up with this in the first place is the OP?

Because bringing this to our attention has given the company far more attention than an advert behind the Times paywall.

More genius

[YellowDinosaur]

Bottlenecker I'm sorry you are offended since that was not my intention. However, if you are offended by something as minor as me suggesting you might want to get your facts straight before posting may I respectfully request you might be better off not posting in aibu. Since this is tame by comparison to many posts on here

[bottlenecker]

Yellowdinosaur
"However, if you are offended by something as minor as me suggesting you might want to get your facts straight"

You actually called my argument horse shit

Having been a frequent name changer and poster on AIBU for around 6 years I know very well how it can get but thank you for your apology and suggestion I no longer post here.

[Jux]

Bottlenecker, I don't understand your argument either. Can you give me an illustration of how it works using numbers? Say, the usual cost of a holiday is 10 quid, which goes up to 15 quid out of term time, and the fine is a fiver? Can you put the numbers down showing me how the non-parents' holiday is subsudising the parents' + kids' holiday?