[unreal6]

> Disney & sky resorts are private and are free to charge who they want how they want.

Many ski areas, while private bushiness often operate on public lands through long-term leases [1]. Some amount of public access (eg free uphill access to the lands) are often requirements as a part of the lease; I don't see why certain business terms shouldn't be able to be regulated in the interest of the general public.

[1] https://www.snow.com/info/colorado-forest-service-informatio...

[resolutebat]

At every ski resort I've been to, you pay for the lift pass granting access to the ski lifts. The only thing stopping you from slogging uphill on foot and skiing down for free is gravity.

[throwawayai2]

This is not the case, many resorts on public lands in the US do not allow uphill travel.

[snakeyjake]

>I don't see why certain business terms shouldn't be able to be regulated in the interest of the general public.

Implying that there is a legitimate public interest in equal-cost access to rides at disneyland does not seem like a defensible position.

That's a bit like saying it is against the interest of the public to charge more prime orchestra seats than second tier balcony seats at the opera.

My position is that if Disney wants to charge ten trillion dollars to skip the line to ride a rollecoaster and one cent for a rollercoaster ride with a 40-year waiting period, that's none of my concern.

[neaden]

The comment you are replying to is about skiing on public land, Disney has nothing to do with it.