Attitash - Peaks Customer Service

[cdskier]

the reasonable interpretation is that 'or' implies the customer's choice.

I completely agree with you. If I go to a restaurant and it says on the menu that an entree comes with potato or rice, most people would expect that they get to pick which one, not that the restaurant decides for you (unless it specifically said "Chef's choice").

And in the customer service area, if something is/was vague, the decision should be in the customer's favor.

 

[Los]

I completely agree with you. If I go to a restaurant and it says on the menu that an entree comes with potato or rice, most people would expect that they get to pick which one, not that the restaurant decides for you (unless it specifically said "Chef's choice").

And in the customer service area, if something is/was vague, the decision should be in the customer's favor.

The language seems clear enough: it's not up to the customer to pick and choose. Rather, it identifies different options that PEAK may offer.

But regardless, given the wonderful news of your pregnancy. this seems like a weird thing to get hung up on.... no offense...


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[Los]

The language seems clear enough: it's not up to the customer to pick and choose. Rather, it identifies different options that PEAK may offer.

But regardless, given the wonderful news of your pregnancy, this seems like a weird thing to get hung up on.... no offense...



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[VTKilarney]

the reasonable interpretation is that 'or' implies the customer's choice.

I disagree. Here is what the statement says: "We would offer a full refund or other options..."

The "we" is Peaks. It's their offer and therefore their call.

 

[Savemeasammy]

I'm not sure that being pregnant is a reasonable interpretation of the term "medical condition". Sure, there may be complications with the pregnancy (my wife and I can relate to this), but getting pregnant is a choice. I think it is fair to assume that the spirit of the term "medical condition" would be something unexpected and unwanted. (Perhaps an additional medical condition arose as the result of the pregnancy, and if so, the pregnancy did come first).

I think skifan raises a valid point by pointing out that you also bought this pass in the spring in order to benefit from a very generous price point. I think it's fair to say that you should assume some risk in doing so. If getting pregnant was an aspiration for your family, then perhaps the correct decision should have been to wait until the fall when your situation had more clarity.

The other issue is that by purchasing your pass in the spring, you had ample opportunity to extract some value from your pass already. Is it fair that peaks should refund money to you even though you may have already benefitted from your low-cost pass?

I think peaks is making a reasonable offer.

Congrats on the pregnancy. I hope that all goes well for your family.



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[KevinF]

the reasonable interpretation is that 'or' implies the customer's choice.

Before I reached this post, I honestly couldn't figure out what this thread was about.

My interpretation of the original statement is probably biased somewhat from my profession as a software developer. In that realm, the word "or" has a very specific meaning. "result = A or B" means that your result is satisfactory based on either of those conditions being true.

i.e., we promise you a refund or a credit. They gave you a credit; at that point, they fulfilled their obligations. "Or" does not imply anything about who gets to make the choice.

Based on the responses on this thread, I think it's safe to offer a few conclusions:
1) Don't stake financial decisions on your interpretation of an FAQ. FAQ's, to me -- and I'm not a lawyer -- are not legally binding documents. Somewhere there must be the fine print disclosing the terms of the pass. FAQ's are written by marketing people; the fine print is written by lawyers.

2) I think the original wording as quoted by in the OP is, at best, ambiguous. Again see point#1. Lawyers (and engineers :grin do not deal with ambiguous statements.

 

[snoseek]

So do you guys think its fair for them to transfer this pass? To me it makes good business sense.

Edit-im biased

 

[Smellytele]

So do you guys think its fair for them to transfer this pass? To me it makes good business sense.

Edit-im biased

Doesn't matter what we think

 

[dlague]

So do you guys think its fair for them to transfer this pass? To me it makes good business sense.

Edit-im biased

Makes good sense to me!

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

So do you guys think its fair for them to transfer this pass? To me it makes good business sense.

Edit-im biased

Absolutely. It gives them potential ancillary revenue this year from someone being on the mountain using the pass and drinking at the bar. It also keeps the OP happy with him getting his money back (from you instead of Peaks...but irrelevant to him in the grand scheme of things). It was also listed as one of the potential "or" conditions...

 

[Edd]

A number of responses in the thread refer to the "fairness" of the outcome. Sure, fair enough, they gave themselves breathing room to not give a refund. I think the larger question is: Does it make good business sense? The answer may be no.

 

[cdskier]

A number of responses in the thread refer to the "fairness" of the outcome. Sure, fair enough, they gave themselves breathing room to not give a refund. I think the larger question is: Does it make good business sense? The answer may be no.

I'm struggling to understand what the resorts gain by being "difficult" on this topic. I fully understand the general concept of passes being non-refundable to avoid people purchasing an early pass and changing their mind. But for a legitimate, valid, documented reason that someone can't ski, I see no value in the resort not giving the customer whatever makes them happy. You make the customer happy and they are much more likely to come back in the future once they can ski again vs if you piss them off they may never come back and either not ski or take their business elsewhere. Not giving refunds for this type of issue seems very short-sighted to me and isn't looking at the bigger picture.

 

[dlague]

Out of curiosity, was the pass purchased in the spring and able to be used for spring skiing last season. If so, that might explain why they are doing a credit.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[thetrailboss]

In the case of a couple having a child, it seems reasonable to get a refund, as opposed to a credit. The goodwill it could create is worth the risk of losing the $, IMO. Regardless if it's typical or not.

Yeah, while the wording gives them the option to determine what to do (and is kind of vague), it would be best practice to just say "good luck", refund the money for the Mrs., and move on. Sorry about this. It sucks.

 

[Savemeasammy]

Yeah, while the wording gives them the option to determine what to do (and is kind of vague), it would be best practice to just say "good luck", refund the money for the Mrs., and move on. Sorry about this. It sucks.

Do you think a pregnancy is a reasonable interpretation of a medical condition?


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Smellytele]

Do you think a pregnancy is a reasonable interpretation of a medical condition?


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

Well with the complications and her doctor telling not to have too much physical activity - yes. My wife skied until she was 5 months pregnant for our first and to about 6 months for our other 2 but she had no complications.

 

[dlague]

Well with the complications and her doctor telling not to have too much physical activity - yes. My wife skied until she was 5 months pregnant for our first and to about 6 months for our other 2 but she had no complications.

Same here my wife was skiing while pregnant but she was also skiing easier trails. She also did not get pregnant until September. Likewise, she was ot facing the same complications. I definitely think pregnancy is a medical condition even more so in the OP'S case.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Edd]

Do you think a pregnancy is a reasonable interpretation of a medical condition?


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

I think so.

 

[thetrailboss]

Do you think a pregnancy is a reasonable interpretation of a medical condition?


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

Yep

 

[Savemeasammy]

A pregnancy is something that is usually planned. A "medical condition" isn't. IMO, of course...

Either way, peaks is offering her a concession (a pass for next season), so I I believe they are being fair and reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone