# MAX vs MCP?



## abc (May 10, 2017)

Random musing, since I haven't seen any discussion on which one suits who best. 

Both passes are "multi-resort" passes. But that's about the only thing they have in common:

Cost:

--- MAX is quite a bit more expensive than MCP as a stand alone.

-- MAX is also available as an "add-on" to regular season passes. Except the add-on price is up there with the standalone price of MCP. 

   [EDIT] I forgot one significant feature of MCP: 
-- Kid's pass for $1.

What you get:

-- MCP offers 2 days free in each mountain, PLUS 50% off unlimited days.
   MAX offers 5 days. Too bad you want to ski one more, full price

-- MCP only has 1 northeast mountain, but that mountain is one of the best
    MAX has MANY in the northeast, though a few of those I wouldn't ski even if you pay me to

-- MCP only has half as many mountains as MAX. But each one of the MCP resorts are really "top tier" mountains, while the 44 on MAX are a grab bag of mole hills many would just drive right by without stopping.


Though in reality, no one will be skiing ALL of the MCP mountains, never all of MAX. So it probably boils down to the exact mountain combo that suits one's skiing pattern. 

So, those of you who already purchase one or the other, what was the overwriting consideration you went one over the other? 

And those who're still contemplating, what're the main factors under consideration?


----------



## bdfreetuna (May 10, 2017)

Stupid marketing campaign. Maybe some people are into secret societies and Aleister Crowley, I'm not. Not attractive at all for east coast skiers.

Not even a contest with MAX Pass.


----------



## Duncanator24 (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> Though in reality, no one will be skiing ALL of the MCP mountains, never all of MAX. So it probably boils down to the exact mountain combo that suits one's skiing pattern.


Is that a challenge?? I bought a Mountain Collective Pass and I plan on hitting all of the mountains other than the ones outside US/Canada. Just not really in the cards to make a trip to NZ/Australia nor the "partner resorts" elsewhere. Although the idea of going to Chamonix is very tempting...

It certainly is doable too. My plan is to make a bunch of flights to Salt Lake. I can pretty easily drive from there to Alta, Snowbird, Snowbasin, Jackson Hole, Sun Valley, Aspen, and Telluride. That only leaves me with the three Canadian mountains to hit from Calgary, the California two, and Taos in NM. I might skip Taos but I have heard its a hidden gem worth checking out if I can fit it in. Most of my trips will just be 2 days of skiing anyways due to work so its perfect. I can add on travel days and not have to take much vacation time. I can make a few of them into like 4-5 day trips too so I can be flexible. 

My decision was super easy just because of the mountains. The only competitor I really considered was the Epic pass and that is a very different level of financial commitment. Jackson Hole, Alta/Snowbird, and Mammoth/Squaw are enough to make this 100% worth it.

If I wanted to ski the East, I would rather just pick one mountain and stick with it. Its far cheaper that way. Sugarbush pass cant be beat really.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

Duncanator24 said:


> Is that a challenge??


Wasn't construed as such. But feel free to take the challenge. As one who "almost" hit all of the mountains in MCP last year, I can tell you from personal experience it's exhausting (as well as exhilarating) 

"My decision was super easy just because of the mountains"

Got it!


----------



## 4aprice (May 10, 2017)

I guess it depends upon the individuals position in life.  My kids are grown with one of them going to school and living in Colorado.  Family has a place in Cottonwood Heights Utah and we have a gathering every spring there.  Meanwhile, as much as we enjoy western skiing, we still have obligations (and jobs) with relatives back here in NJ making us weekend warriors back here in the east. 

We had great weekends at Okemo, Stratton, Killington (2) and (I'll get killed on this) Loon (1.5) which we want to hit 2 weekends next year cause, *we like it.*  We also keep a pass at a local area here for holidays (I refuse to go up north to wait in big lift lines when I can do it 45 min from home) and weekends we don't go away

That's where Max is more attractive to us.  We knew we were going to be skiing in Colo/Utah and VT/NH back here in the east.  Another plus for us is that it lines up nicely with the Rocky Mountain Super Pass and that's what our son bought and we took advantage of and will do so next year too.

So in a way we are more or less tied to the Denver and Salt Lake metros at the present time as opposed to just winging it.  If I weren't then MC would be much more on the radar.  They have Aspen which is still my favorite resort in the world plus Alta/Snowbird for the Utah gathering and Telluride, Sun Valley, Taos and J Hole all on the get to list.    

All that said I'm going to be waiting to see what Aspen breaks out next spring.  Winter Park and Copper where plenty of entertainment when in Denver this past season and we really enjoyed Steamboat.  Aspen's going to have to get more then WP to compete with Epic on the local Denver market so maybe they keep Copper in the fold somehow (Abay is not owed by Vail). 

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Jully (May 10, 2017)

Definitely a discussion I look forward to following. I went with Max this year, but look at it like this:

The MCP resorts are the resorts that I would really love to ski, even the top tier Max mountains are not in the same caliber as MCP IMO (JH, Alta/Bird, Telluride, etc). However, you run out of trips you can do cost-effectively with the MCP too quickly for the amount I want to use the MCP/Max type pass for. The best trips with MCP, IMO are the 4 days at Alta/Bird combined and 4 days in Banff at Sunshine and LL. I'd take those over Max week long vacations, but those are the only two areas that have more than 2 available days on the pass IIRC. Beyond that and 2-3 day trips to Sugarbush as an easterner, about 12 days or so, doing anything else is going to be pretty darn expensive. Buying 50% off tickets isn't a terribly effective use of the pass, IMO, just because the lift ticket prices are so darn expensive. You go from $399 to the $629 of Max real fast when buying $50 or $60 tickets.

With the Max Pass I'm looking at 20+ days rather easily due to the 5 day limit at a bunch of areas. 

I think it really comes down to how you plan to use it. I want to use a multi mountain pass like the MCP or Max for a lot of days both east and west, really as a stand alone pass. If MCP had a larger eastern presence with 4-5 mountains here, I'd be all over it. Additionally, if I had another mega multi area pass, then the MCP is essentially an awesome add on (Imagine ASC All East + MCP or even Epic + MPC if you're in CO).


----------



## wa-loaf (May 10, 2017)

I got the MCP (with the $1 add on for my son), We'll use the three free days at Sugarbush and that will pay for the pass right there. Trip to Utah at some point and I'm skiing free out there.


----------



## Smellytele (May 10, 2017)

MCP doesn't want you to actually use it - they just want you to buy it. All kidding aside to them it is about travel and hopefully you staying at the places you are skiing.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

Jully said:


> However, you run out of trips you can do cost-effectively with the MCP too quickly for the amount I want to use the MCP/Max type pass for. The best trips with MCP, IMO are the 4 days at Alta/Bird combined and 4 days in Banff at Sunshine and LL.


You forgot next year they added Snowbasin. So there're actually 6 days out of SLC base camp. 

Personally, I found the Squaw + Mammoth combo quite easy to do. Though that might be due to my familiarity with the Sierra that others don't feel the same. 



> The MCP resorts are the resorts that I would really love to ski, even the top tier Max mountains are not in the same caliber as MCP IMO (JH, Alta/Bird, Telluride, etc).


Everyone has their own preference. I think Big Sky can hold up well in that light. 

(I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I had MCP for 2 years. I love the mountains on MCP)


----------



## Duncanator24 (May 10, 2017)

While on the topic of MCP, does anyone know of a good resource to learning about all of the different mountains on the pass? Perhaps another forum that is not NE focused or a blog of some sort from people who have done it? I just really want to get a feel for what sort of trails are available at each mountain and really moreso, relatively easily accessible back country.


----------



## Jully (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> You forgot next year they added Snowbasin. So there're actually 6 days out of SLC base camp.
> 
> Personally, I found the Squaw + Mammoth combo quite easy to do. Though that might be due to my familiarity with the Sierra that others don't feel the same.
> 
> ...



I did forget Snowbasin! There's something about just staying on or near a single mountain and skiing it for a full week that I enjoy more than the idea of skiing a huge area for 2 days and moving on too.

I personally would feel nervous combining Mammoth and Squaw, but I have zero familiarity with that area. Adds an interesting twist though!

As for Big Sky, that is a very good point. I was mostly comparing mountain region to mountain region. Big Sky is definitely on my radar for next year though.


----------



## dlague (May 10, 2017)

If I were to choose between the two Max would be the way to go.  It is currently $250 dollars more.  4 days any any of the MC mountains @ 50% off can go over the $250 difference easy.  Plus you get 5 days versus 2.  There are some decent clusters with the Max Pass one being in Colorado (25 total days), another in Alberta (20 total days), another in Washington (10 days plus another 5 in Oregon), another in Utah (10 Days), a 5 day trip to Big Sky.  Obviously the average joe will not take all of those trips, but if based out of New England, there are a boat load of days there too.


----------



## dlague (May 10, 2017)

However, if you are considering those two then the Epic Pass needs to be considered.  It now has Stowe with unlimited skiing, and the trips also include unlimited skiing to Summit County CO, or Whistler/Blackcomb, or Tahoe, or Park City and opportunities to ski in Europe as well.

Yes it is about 400 more than MC Pass and 200 more than MAX but there are no limits.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

dlague said:


> However, if you are considering those two then the Epic Pass needs to be considered.  It now has Stowe with unlimited skiing, and the trips also include unlimited skiing to Summit County CO, or Whistler/Blackcomb, or Tahoe, or Park City and opportunities to ski in Europe as well.
> 
> Yes it is about 400 more than MC Pass and 200 more than MAX but there are no limits.


Epic is different. It's a true season pass. Unlimited days. Much more upfront cost.


----------



## Duncanator24 (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> Epic is different. It's a true season pass. Unlimited days. Much more upfront cost.



$200 more is only like a 3-4 (if not less) days of skiing at most mountains so its certainly not a crazy difference. It puts it in the same league, especially for what you get. I know I would pick Epic over Max, just because of the mountain choices.


----------



## 4aprice (May 10, 2017)

Duncanator24 said:


> $200 more is only like a 3-4 (if not less) days of skiing at most mountains so its certainly not a crazy difference. It puts it in the same league, especially for what you get. I know *I would pick Epic over Max, just because of the mountain choices.*



I don't know, I would take Winter Park (Jane)/Copper over Keystone/Break.  RMSP would be my choice.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Jully (May 10, 2017)

I know I'd never consider Epic unless they got an east coast mountain within 2.5 hours of me. Stowe is still too far. I'm not paying $859 for skiing out west and a few long weekends at Stowe. It's tempting, but I think MCP and Max are both better options as they stand right now.

Could all change in a year.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

Duncanator24 said:


> $200 more is only like a 3-4 (if not less) days of skiing at most mountains so its certainly not a crazy difference. It puts it in the same league, especially for what you get. *I know I would pick Epic over Max, just because of the mountain choices*.





4aprice said:


> I don't know, *I would take Winter Park (Jane)/Copper over Keystone/Break. RMSP would be my choice*.


Both are valid choices. Each suits one individual.

I would have picked RMSP + MAX for my 'bumming season if I started out afresh. But... I had already purchased MCP under a different assumption. 

Personally, I prefer the RSMP mountains over the Epic offering in Summit county. However, I've had RSMP for 2 years prior to that. So going Epic would be a more interesting combo, complete change of scenery from prior years.


----------



## Duncanator24 (May 10, 2017)

$639 for Epic Local Pass. That is probably a better comparison in price/offerings. 
http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/passes/epic-local-pass.aspx

I don't quite understand what "10 days combined" means for the restricted mountains. Meaning you can use the 10 days as you please at any of those, outside of the holidays?


----------



## 4aprice (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> Both are valid choices. Each suits one individual.
> 
> I would have picked RMSP + MAX for my 'bumming season if I started out afresh. But... I had already purchased MCP under a different assumption.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the RSMP mountains over the Epic offering in Summit county. However, I've had RSMP for 2 years prior to that. So going Epic would be a more interesting combo, complete change of scenery from prior years.



It all depends upon where you want to ski.  If I have my heart set on going to Aspen one year I would get their product, if I want to get to Vail I'll go Epic.  Its not for everybody but you kind of have to pick your path before the season starts.  I think the days of hitting each and every area each season are pretty much gone especially out west.  You basically buy the pass then plan the trips.  I spent more time looking for airfares then worrying about where I was going skiing.  I got 14 days at 5 different resorts in the Rockies this past winter, that alone was worth the price I payed for Max.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Jully (May 10, 2017)

Duncanator24 said:


> $639 for Epic Local Pass. That is probably a better comparison in price/offerings.
> http://www.snow.com/epic-pass/passes/epic-local-pass.aspx
> 
> I don't quite understand what "10 days combined" means for the restricted mountains. Meaning you can use the 10 days as you please at any of those, outside of the holidays?



That is my understanding of the 10 combined days. 

The way I see it, my skiing life consists of 4 different ski day 'types.' 1) Night skiing; 2) half day trips on weekend days when I have other things going on; 3) long weekends; 4) Multiday vacations. All passes in this thread are discussing options 3 and 4 for me. 

At $639 for the Epic local, if you plan to use those 10 days at Stowe back east (assuming you can) that fulfills option 3 and then A-Basin, Breck, and the Tahoe areas compete with the Max and MCP destination offerings too

If Stowe doesn't turn out to be a crowded mess over the next few years, I'll have to really look into this option in the next few years. Couple $639 with a cheap night skiing pass nearby... then you're talking.


----------



## Teleskier (May 10, 2017)

*Lived the Mountain Collective dream until the Gedankenexperiment*

I have not owned a ski pass since the former excellent $350 ASC passes to seven local mountains. The incredible diversity and value of the ASC pass ruined me, were forever afterward spending $2,000 on a pass to a single mountain seemed absurd by comparison. I was better off on other non-pass programs combined with advanced purchase day tickets.

Given all the recent changes this fall, I spent a lot of time evaluating ski passes again for the first time in decades.

The Mountain Collective immediately attracted me right away – Sugarbush, Aspen, Telluride, Banff, Chamonix and Japan. All my favorites and some exotics. Woohoo!

But then when I did the comparison of  “Yeah – but how I would I actually ski on it” question for each of the available passes – the shine started coming off for MC. 

Would I really pay for that long boring flight all the way to Japan for just a 2-day stay? Or likewise fly to France or Banff of Telluride for just 2 days of skiing?

Let’s say I’d go light and probably only ski 11 days at my local mountain Sugarbush all season. I’d pick my bonus 3rd day for there. So I’d have to buy 8 extra days at 50% off the WALK UP window price for $400. 

Going light, I would probably put together just one trip for a week of skiing at Aspen on this pass. I’d get 2 days free but then have to buy another 5 days at 50% off full-inflated walk-up $164/day price for $400.

So $400 + $400 + $400 = $1200 for $110/ski-day. It was the most expensive pass for the least days of skiing, so it immediately dropped to the end of my list. One mountain plus one trip represented frugal skiing on an expensive pass, where ideally I'd want lots of skiing on a cheap pass.

Now if I owned a private jet and the company paid for the aviation fuel, or if I had beaucoup expiring air miles that I had to suddenly use for frivolous “Let’s all go to Japan for this weekend, and then let’s all go to Chamonix on next weekend” trips, this might be THE pass for me. Or Donald Trump. The dream was crushed. ☺

I can’t afford his aviation gas.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

You've got expensive taste. 



Teleskier said:


> Sugarbush, Aspen, Telluride, Banff, Chamonix and Japan. All my favorites and some exotics. Woohoo!


So it's beneath you to bother with Alta, Snowbird, Snowbasin, which only requires ONE boring SHORT flight?



> Would I really pay for that long boring flight all the way to Japan for just a 2-day stay? Or likewise fly to France or Banff or Telluride for just 2 days of skiing?


4 days in Banff.


----------



## Teleskier (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> So it's beneath you to bother with Alta, Snowbird, Snowbasin, which only requires ONE boring SHORT flight!



Never been to Utah so it simply wasn't on my radar as a first-thought travel destination.

I believe I did take a quick look at the time and saw Alta was a 2-hour drive from Snowbasin, so it'd be a rental car drive between and just two nights in two different hotels to ski each place, which again seemed like more overhead and less skiing. I had listed Snowbird as WY - a typo in my "where are these places?" list. (None of the pass websites make it easy to see in what state all these new-names-to-me places exist, which place is Wisconsin vs Wyoming vs Idaho vs Michigan vs ???, where it took a while to fill out my own list for what states are on what pass). 



abc said:


> 4 days in Banff.



The MC website still says "2 days at Banff Sunshine" - what am I missing?

Japan and France are two days only - no 50% off option for them, forgot to also mention that in my last post.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

Teleskier said:


> The MC website still says "2 days at Banff Sunshine" - what am I missing?


You're missing the 2 days at Lake Louise.

(but if you want to nitpick, Lake Louise is another 20 minutes from Sunshine, by bus)



> Never been to Utah so it simply wasn't on my radar as a first-thought travel destination.


I don't want to be harsh. But it's really hard not to in this case. Because your complain were base largely out of ignorance. And a rather glaring ignorance to say the least. 

MCP isn't about exotics. All of its mountains (in North America at least) are well known (to the well-traveled skiers), top tier mountains on just about every avid skier's bucket list. 

You don't have to like lobster. But to say they cost far too much for being just big shrimps, is entirely off the mark.

(I'm quite shocked that you being teleskier know nothing about Alta. It's MRG on steroid! Something like 5 times the size, 10 times the snow, not a single snowboarder!)


----------



## Jully (May 10, 2017)

Teleskier said:


> I have not owned a ski pass since the former excellent $350 ASC passes to seven local mountains. The incredible diversity and value of the ASC pass ruined me, were forever afterward spending $2,000 on a pass to a single mountain seemed absurd by comparison. I was better off on other non-pass programs combined with advanced purchase day tickets.
> 
> Given all the recent changes this fall, I spent a lot of time evaluating ski passes again for the first time in decades.
> 
> ...



While I agree with the general sentiment of your complaint, ABC is right in her critique. There are a few linked areas:
- Salt Lake City (3 areas within a 90 minute drive of the city). Flights are cheap via Delta or Jet Blue.
- Banff (2 areas within 30 minutes of one another and Revelstoke possible if you get a rental car and drive).
- Mammoth/Squaw (ABC turned me onto this earlier in the the thread.

My main issue is that those are it for > 2 day 'destinations' on the MCP. Additionally, I prefer parking myself at one resort for a week. I'd rather not have to deal with a rental car too. That being said my preferences are certainly not for everyone. I want to get 20+ days out of a pass which is easier to do with Max.

MCP has some incredible mountains though. Every year I look at it with wanderlust. Max is just a better deal for ME right now. MCP is getting a little better every year though and has always been a great deal IMO.


----------



## Teleskier (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> I don't want to be harsh.



Clearly I bruised your feelings about Utah, which from your tone and comments about Utah not being good enough is some sort of apparent inferiority complex you’ve felt before me but for some reason are mapping onto me.

FWIW, I wouldn’t jump down someone’s throat because they didn’t know how far Klein Innsbruck was from Blue Hill or confuse Sugarbush for Maine and Sugarloaf for Vermont (happens all the time) if it is not their home area like it is mine. Educate. Be a guide, not a jerk.

I also don’t want to turn this into a pissing match of who is the more travelled skier. I probably ski in different circles than you where most of my areas have largely been in Europe, and yours sound like they are probably States based. American Exceptionalism much? I could get all pissy about you not knowing one classic Austrian mountain from another, but we’re different.

If you didn’t have to look up where places like Wilmot or Buck Hill or Thredbo ski areas on the long list of portfolio of places on each pass, then very good for you. 

Your take on MC is different from mine. 

For you it’s ... “It has Utah – for two short days each at three places - I’m all set”. 

Fine. 

My take (like many others if you read external reviews) is that this IS a pass of exotics (and, apparently, separately, according to you, Utah) where you have ONE east coast area for 2-days, one place in Japan for 2-days, one place in France for 2-days, one place in New Zealand for 2-days, one place in Australia for 2-days, one place in Wyoming for 2-days, one place in California for 2-days, one place in Idaho for 2-days. Etc.  

Sorry if this sounds like someone wanting to give social media bragging rights to their friends for how they: “Buffy and I flew into Telluride for the weekend.” And then we flew to Japan for the weekend. Then France for the weekend. “Yes – I’ve been to ‘all’ the ski places”. And really explored them fully in your two short days, I'm sure. 

"If it's Tuesday, it must be skiing in Japan"

Have fun at your two days at all these places, and your six days driving around Utah for 2-days each. 

You clearly travel differently from me. Your mileage will literally vary.

And lucky you – there’s a MC pass just for you. Enjoy It.


----------



## cdskier (May 10, 2017)

To me MAX and MCP are two quite different passes. MCP isn't ideal for someone that wants to ski primarily the east with only a trip or two out west. The allure of MCP though is the resorts themselves. They are all very appealing and desirable resorts. For someone that wants to go to those resorts, I think it can certainly be worth it. Even if there's a particular resort you want to ski at for more than 2 days, with the 50% off it still is a decent deal as long as you don't make a habit of spending too many extra days at each resort. Would I personally buy this pass? No, but mainly because I don't want to have to commit to definitely making trips out west. The thing I do like though is that as a Sugarbush passholder, for no additional pass cost I get the 50% off benefit at other MCP resorts. So if I do decide to take a trip, I'm at least getting discount tickets with no additional early up front non-refundable charges or commitments.

MAX on the other hand has a pretty good mix of resorts for an eastern skier. Out west it certainly has several appealing resorts as well, and since you get 5 days at each resort, you don't need to be concerned with the fact that very few of the western resorts on the pass are close to each other. You can just pick one resort and spend a week or long weekend there. It is more money than MCP, but you get a lot more free days as well included. I said it at some point on this forum before, but with the addition of the NY resorts, this pass would have been ideal for me years ago before I made Sugarbush my home mountain. It has many of the eastern resorts that I typically either did day trips (Belleayre) or long weekend trips to (Gore, WF, K, Pico).

Either way, I think it is great that people have options and can pick what fits their own personal needs the best.


----------



## Teleskier (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> But each one of the MCP resorts are really "top tier" mountains, while the 44 on MAX are a grab bag of mole hills many would just drive right by without stopping.



Going back to your original post, you ask for people's opinions, but then jump down their throats when they offer them to you.

I will also point out that your judgmental rant about other "drive by" mountains that you feel are lesser is pretty off-putting.

And if you think this short list of primarily North American MCP-only mountains is really the whole list of "top-tier" mountains in the world, I think it is you who have some world traveling to do. The world is bigger than the counties in Utah.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 10, 2017)

The primary difference I see between the two is that for someone from the Northeast the Max is a great option as a primary pass. The MC is more a supplemental pass to provide some affordable skiing out west and adding Sugarbush.

There are some Northeastern skiers who might find the MC a more attractive option of the two.  I'm specifically thinking of folks who are rooted at Jay who want to take a western vacation.  For a Jay passholder, they spend $400 on a MC pass and get cheap skiing on a six day Utah trip plus 3 days at Sugarbush within a reasonable drive. None of the eastern mountains on Max would make sense to them. 

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

Teleskier said:


> And* if you think this short list of primarily North American MCP-only mountains is really the whole list of "top-tier" mountains in the world*, I think it is you who have some world traveling to do. The world is bigger than the counties in Utah.


I'd like to point out you're on a North American ski & snowboard forum. Its name "Northeast" refers to the northeast of what? Of the US! Not the northeast of Europe or Japan! 

So yes, that short list IS the top tier mountains of *North America*. Is that beneath you that we focus on mountains of this continent instead of the whole world?



> Going back to your original post, you ask for people's opinions, but then jump down their throats when they offer them to you.


You expressed your "opinion" in a rather condescending tone in your first post. I gave you the benefit of doubt that it was in jest. So I responded with the same. But it seems you couldn't quite take it nearly as well as you give.  



Teleskier said:


> Clearly I bruised your feelings about Utah, which from your tone and comments about Utah not being good enough is some sort of apparent inferiority complex you’ve felt before me but for some reason are mapping onto me.


Since you're brave enough to venture into groundless speculation of other people's "feeling", I'll follow through. 

I see you put your home as Boston, and you have very low post count. So I would venture to guess you came recently over from Europe? If so, that would explain your lack of familiarity of north American mountains. It may even excuse your equally condescending tone in dropping some European mountain names. 

But suppose this is indeed a world ski & snowboard forum, here's what you said "Never been to Zermatt (or Dolomite/Saint Anton/LaGrave/Trois Valley) so it simply wasn't on my radar as a first-thought travel destination."

Sorry, what you actually said was: "Never been to *Utah *so it simply wasn't on my radar as a first-thought travel destination."

You see, as resident of another gateway city, I do KNOW about many top tier European mountains by name, if not actually skied all of them, yet.


----------



## bdfreetuna (May 10, 2017)

Teleskier said:


> American Exceptionalism much?



This is a Northeast USA skiing forum. Also USA has the best skiing in the world if you could only pick 1 country. Also USA is the best country on the planet.

Just 3 facts that occurred to me.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

Jully said:


> MCP has some incredible mountains though. Every year I look at it with wanderlust. Max is just a better deal for ME right now. MCP is getting a little better every year though and has always been a great deal IMO.


Having had MCP for 2 years, I'm now paying the MAX list a bit more attention. If I were to do another road trip, it maybe on the MAX pass, to sample all the mountains I've never been to. 

But with the Intrawest purchase, both pass would have some significant changes coming. So I'm going to just wait and see.


----------



## Jully (May 10, 2017)

abc said:


> Having had MCP for 2 years, I'm now paying the MAX list a bit more attention. If I were to do another road trip, it maybe on the MAX pass, to sample all the mountains I've never been to.
> 
> But with the Intrawest purchase, both pass would have some significant changes coming. So I'm going to just wait and see.



Exactly my thinking. If things weren't changing I'd see myself trying out the MCP in the next few years. Hopefully the upcoming pass changes will make things even better! We'll have to see.


----------



## bdfreetuna (May 10, 2017)

Regional variety passes are the wave of the future.


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> Regional variety passes are the wave of the future.


Says whom?


----------



## abc (May 10, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> The primary difference I see between the two is that for someone from the Northeast the Max is a great option as a primary pass. The MC is more a supplemental pass to provide some affordable skiing out west and adding Sugarbush.
> 
> There are some Northeastern skiers who might find the MC a more attractive option of the two.  I'm specifically thinking of folks who are rooted at Jay who want to take a western vacation.  For a Jay passholder, they spend $400 on a MC pass and get cheap skiing on a six day Utah trip plus 3 days at Sugarbush within a reasonable drive. None of the eastern mountains on Max would make sense to them.


Looking at the mountain list, MCP is more western focus while MAX is more eastern focus. That much is pretty clear. 

But there're enough differences beyond just the mountain list to muddy-up the water... 

With the addition of the Catskill mountains, MAX is very attractive to me. There're like 15 days within day trip distance of my home base! Of the western choices, Big SKy would be my first choice (though a PITA to get to). Brighton & Solitude are just as nice. And if I have extra time, I'd try Mt Bacholar. With its long season, I can combine it with other activities on the coast.

There's only one problem... I never ski that many days in the east. So the higher upfront cost may not be justified.


----------



## jimk (May 11, 2017)

Sounds like Max pass will explode after next year.  If you are ever going to try it, now may be the time.


----------



## elks (May 11, 2017)

I'm surprised the Peaks Pass hasn't been mentioned, which I see as a much more direct competitor to the Max Pass than the MCP. For under $500 per person for 7 mountains (granted only 4 in New England), it's a steal. For us it makes more sense than MCP because we have kids that still do seasonal ski programs (13 week program at Crotched). Max pass doesn't work for that reason.


----------



## Edd (May 11, 2017)

kelly001 said:


> I'm surprised the Peaks Pass hasn't been mentioned, which I see as a much more direct competitor to the Max Pass than the MCP. For under $500 per person for 7 mountains (granted only 4 in New England), it's a steal. For us it makes more sense than MCP because we have kids that still do seasonal ski programs (13 week program at Crotched). Max pass doesn't work for that reason.



As much as I like Wildcat, comparing the terrain options between the passes, Max blows Peaks out of the water with the northeast areas alone. That said, I bought both of these passes for next winter.


----------



## Smellytele (May 11, 2017)

Jully said:


> While I agree with the general sentiment of your complaint, ABC is right in her critique. There are a few linked areas:
> - Salt Lake City (3 areas within a 90 minute drive of the city). Flights are cheap via Delta or Jet Blue.
> - Banff (2 areas within 30 minutes of one another and Revelstoke possible if you get a rental car and drive).
> - Mammoth/Squaw (ABC turned me onto this earlier in the the thread.



People always say to me flights to SLC are cheap from Boston. over 400 to me is not cheap. I have always been able to find cheaper flights to Denver. Also looked at Jet Blue and all their flights out arrive late in the evening (after 930) and all return flights seem to be red eyes. Not my idea of fun. Delta does have better options.


----------



## Smellytele (May 11, 2017)

kelly001 said:


> I'm surprised the Peaks Pass hasn't been mentioned, which I see as a much more direct competitor to the Max Pass than the MCP. For under $500 per person for 7 mountains (granted only 4 in New England), it's a steal. For us it makes more sense than MCP because we have kids that still do seasonal ski programs (13 week program at Crotched). Max pass doesn't work for that reason.


Over 500 now. All passes went up 200 except the college age pass.


----------



## Jully (May 11, 2017)

Smellytele said:


> People always say to me flights to SLC are cheap from Boston. over 400 to me is not cheap. I have always been able to find cheaper flights to Denver. Also looked at Jet Blue and all their flights out arrive late in the evening (after 930) and all return flights seem to be red eyes. Not my idea of fun. Delta does have better options.



I flew for $212 round trip in early March booking in February. I refuse to book a ticket to a major airport for over $400 haha.


----------



## Edd (May 11, 2017)

Cheap flights to Denver is how CO gets you. Lodging, skiing, rental cars are all more expensive than UT.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2017)

Edd said:


> Cheap flights to Denver is how CO gets you. Lodging, *skiing*, rental cars are all more expensive than UT.


I disagree on UT having cheap skiing part. With Epic and RSMP passes, CO has cheaper skiing. And the more days one skis, the cheaper it works out

The rest I quite agree


----------



## dlague (May 11, 2017)

Edd said:


> Cheap flights to Denver is how CO gets you. Lodging, skiing, rental cars are all more expensive than UT.



I think it depends on which rental company you use.  We used a company called Trifty and we rented a mid-sized 4WD SUV (Nissan Rogue) for a week for $360 Friday to Friday which I thought was resonable.  I went through Expedia.


----------



## dlague (May 11, 2017)

abc said:


> I disagree on UT having cheap skiing part. With Epic and RSMP passes, CO has cheaper skiing. And the more days one skis, the cheaper it works out
> 
> The rest I quite agree



True since there are more resorts and unlimited skiing.  With he Max Pass you can get in 25 days (probably several trips) with out additional lift ticket cost in Colorado and still have the 35-40 days back east, if you can get in that many days in.

MC in Colorado kind of sucks since Aspen and Telluride are so far apart and so far from Denver.  MC is best used in Utah IMO due to the 2 day limit before spending extra $'s.


----------



## Edd (May 11, 2017)

I was referring to general lift ticket prices that Joe Skier and the family would pay. Memory tells me that UT < CO in that regard. Not the ski nut with an Epic or Max clipped to his/her hip.


----------



## Jcb890 (May 11, 2017)

abc said:


> Looking at the mountain list, MCP is more western focus while MAX is more eastern focus. That much is pretty clear.
> 
> But there're enough differences beyond just the mountain list to muddy-up the water...
> 
> ...


We loved our trip to Big Sky.  We'll probably go again next season.  Honestly, it really wasn't that much of a PITA to get to.  Bozeman to Big Sky is about an hour and it seems like less traffic and less annoying than the I-70 trip from Denver to Summit County.

I also definitely want to get to Mt. Bachelor next season and was bummed we didn't this season.  Brighton/Solitude are in the mix as well as possibly Steamboat for going back to Colorado.



Edd said:


> As much as I like Wildcat, comparing the terrain options between the passes, Max blows Peaks out of the water with the northeast areas alone. That said, I bought both of these passes for next winter.


We've got both passes this coming season also - MAX and Peak Pass with plans to make Mt. Snow our go-to "home" mountain, but we'll hopefully use ~15 MAX Pass tickets in the East alone.  Then, combined with 2-3 trips out West, the pass is just awesome.



Edd said:


> I was referring to general lift ticket prices that Joe Skier and the family would pay. Memory tells me that UT < CO in that regard. Not the ski nut with an Epic or Max clipped to his/her hip.


I think this is true also.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2017)

Edd said:


> I was referring to general lift ticket prices that Joe Skier and the family would pay. Memory tells me that UT < CO in that regard. Not the ski nut with an Epic or Max clipped to his/her hip.


Even without season pass, one can still get a 4-pack from Loveland or some other deals for Copper or A-basin for quite reasonable cost. The expensive skiing is really only limited to window price of the Vail owned mountains. 

Now that Vail owns Park City & Canyons, the only reasonably priced skiing in SLC are on the Cottonwoods. It's no less expensive than the non-Vail mountain in CO


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2017)

Edd said:


> As much as I like Wildcat, comparing the terrain options between the passes, Max blows Peaks out of the water with the northeast areas alone. That said, I bought both of these passes for next winter.



This is very true.  My only complaint about the Max pass is that the two options in New Hampshire on the pass, Loon and Sunapee, are the two mountains I have absolutely no interest in dealing with on the weekends.  Those also happen to be the only two mountains on the pass within reasonable day trip range for me.

Generally speaking, the New England offerings on the Max kind of suck for a weekend skier if you have a low tolerance for crowds.  The lone exception would be Pico, but that's a bit too far of a day trip destination that I'd want to do often.  I've become so spoiled by Wildcat that I have little desire to frequently ski busy resorts.  I'll make an exception a few times a season for some Northern VT favorites and Sugarloaf, but I don't have a desire to deal with those crowds on a regular basis. 

If I were planning a trip out west, I might consider the Max, but probably would go with Mountain Collective.  I'm generally quite happy skiing Wildcat most of the time.  So, $400 for six days worth of tickets in Utah plus 3 Sugarbush days would probably be a better value for me than paying $650 for the Max where I'd likely not use it a lot in the East.  Plus, I like Sugarbush better than any of the mountains on the Max. Sugarloaf I like nearly as much, but the Bush usually has better conditions, weather and you can hang at Mount Ellen to avoid crowds.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2017)

> we'll hopefully use ~15 MAX Pass tickets in the East alone. Then, combined with 2-3 trips out West, the pass is just awesome.


Yes, as it stands for 17/18 season. I'm kind of worried it'll disappear next year with the Aspen purchase.


----------



## Teleskier (May 11, 2017)

ABC - The only one I see being condenscending here is you. From your first post about "top tier vs drive by" mountains and onward.

It's clear that you make a lot of (wrong) assumptions and mapping onto other people, and that you feel your internal world view is the one and only "correct" one.

Why did you even bother asking for opinions if your mind was already clearly set toward the one pass that let's you say "going to Utah!"



abc said:


> I'd like to point out you're on a North American ski & snowboard forum. Its name "Northeast" refers to the northeast of what? Of the US! Not the northeast of Europe or Japan!



And yet here YOU are talking about *Utah *.

Violated your very own judgmental rule right there, didn't you? 

If I would be as condescending as you, I might say as abc... "Hurrah, don't you even know that Utah is not in the Northeast, sheesh, why I'm gonna just assume you must be from Antartica"

To me, we are discussing what pass plans work for people and why. Passes that - gasp! - might, and do, include some non-US locations. Protect your delicate ears - someone may mention one of those pass destinations. Heavens forbid. Why are they doing that...




abc said:


> It may even excuse your equally condescending tone in dropping some European mountain names.



.. it must be because they intend to say that perhaps some place other than Utah (your "top tier") might be OK or even - gasp- desirable to visit too.

Your quote above says everything I need to know about you right there. You map your world view onto other people. 

If someone mentions XYZ mountain and it's in Utah, that's OK, but if it said mountain lives in another part of the world you personally don't approve of, then you're gonna assume it's condescending because it's not your own mountain. Very nice.

It could simply be their hometown mountain, could be where they grew up, etc. But no matter to you - a mere mention of a 'foreign' (to you) mountain and you go off your jingoistic rocker. 



abc said:


> Sorry, what you actually said was: "Never been to Utah so it simply wasn't on my radar as a first-thought travel destination."



And being new to this FORUM - not COUNTRY as per your jingoistic and wrong (surprise) Trump-like assumption - I was being more polite than direct. 

But why be 'overly' polite to someone who isn't. 

There was only one of the passes I investigated that contained Utah locations. 

Furthermore, I had collected a list of the almost 80 destinations that the passes I was investigating went to. And ranked them all. Based on my - yes my - desirability factor for where I'd want to spend my time and money.

And the fact of the matter is that - for me - all the three UT entries were at the very bottom of that ranked destination list (for me). 

If you want to call me out - in fact I'm calling myself out - it is that in order to give you the 'out' that I wasn't excluding Utah on purpose, I 'excused' my 'oversight' of Utah on a 'typo'. It wasn't. I was being overly polite (cultural difference from you I'm sure).

The fact of the matter is that - for me - Utah would be at the very bottom of MY travel list and thus ski list - being the very last of all the other great North American ski destinations that I would personally visit. 

This would be for a host of personal and ethical reasons (that would be its own 'impolite' albeit political  thread) for where I personally would want to spend and "reward to" my travel dollars, and to a lesser degree, to where I also think would be the most fun and more closely match what I happen to like in any given ski culture. 

Note that these are values that work for and apply TO ME only. Other people have different goals and reasons for where they travel. I am not mapping what places work for me onto what places and values happen to work for them.

From your attitudes you expressed here, you probably fit right in to Utah (whereas many of my diverse friends would not), so I can see why Utah is a personal favorite for you. To each their own. 

We all get to travel where we want. We all get to purchase the type of pass that works for us personally. 

Glad you found a jingoistic 'home' there.

It is a free country.

I said my piece. I shared my view of how the two passes you asked about work for me (since you had asked). I'm probably done with this thread, feels like there is nothing more productive to be shared or gained here.

Signed a life-long (native) New Englander. So put that in your "freak out at European names" jingoistic pipe and smoke it.


----------



## dlague (May 11, 2017)

OK!  Moving on!  If I were planning on multiple trips out west and wanted a home base back east - Epic Pass would be my friend!


----------



## Jully (May 11, 2017)

dlague said:


> OK!  Moving on!  If I were planning on multiple trips out west and wanted a home base back east - Epic Pass would be my friend!



With just Stowe back east? I still think Max is superior as it stands now.


----------



## dlague (May 11, 2017)

Jully said:


> With just Stowe back east? I still think Max is superior as it stands now.



I do agree - was trying to get conversation back on track.


----------



## cdskier (May 11, 2017)

Jully said:


> With just Stowe back east? I still think Max is superior as it stands now.





dlague said:


> I do agree - was trying to get conversation back on track.



I think it depends on the exact scenario. For someone in Burlington for example, Epic/Stowe could easily be the better fit. For someone from Boston, MAX could be better as long as you're ok with 5 days per resort (or you could always buy a pass to a place like Pico and do the MAX add-on).


----------



## Jully (May 11, 2017)

dlague said:


> I do agree - was trying to get conversation back on track.



Hahaha. I appreciate that as well.



cdskier said:


> I think it depends on the exact scenario. For someone in Burlington for example, Epic/Stowe could easily be the better fit. For someone from Boston, MAX could be better as long as you're ok with 5 days per resort (or you could always buy a pass to a place like Pico and do the MAX add-on).


Very true. Was not thinking of the person in Burlington. For the majority of NE skiers though.


----------



## dlague (May 11, 2017)

cdskier said:


> I think it depends on the exact scenario. For someone in Burlington for example, Epic/Stowe could easily be the better fit. For someone from Boston, MAX could be better as long as you're ok with 5 days per resort (or you could always buy a pass to a place like Pico and do the MAX add-on).



Good point!  Obviously, the Stowe regulars that used to pay the crazy season pass prices will be happy about the lower pass price but will be upset since it opens the doors to others who will find that affordable.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2017)

dlague said:


> Good point!  Obviously, the Stowe regulars that used to pay the crazy season pass prices will be happy about the lower pass price *but will be upset since it opens the doors to others who will find that affordable*.


I don't see the logic why anyone will be upset just because others could afford it? 

Isn't that the point? Lower price == more people can afford it. How many "Stowe regulars" prefers higher pass price just so others can't afford it?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2017)

abc said:


> I don't see the logic why anyone will be upset just because others could afford it?
> 
> Isn't that the point? Lower price == more people can afford it. How many "Stowe regulars" prefers higher pass price just so others can't afford it?


Most of my old friends in Stowe (I lived there for several years) all commented how incredibly crowded the mountain was this winter.  They don't want to see even more people there even if they save money.  

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Teleskier (May 11, 2017)

cdskier said:


> For someone from Boston, MAX could be better



Anecdotal, but everyone in Boston who either media shared or discussed passes with me - to a person all bought MAX. Seems to be universal agreement with you.


----------



## abc (May 11, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Most of my old friends in Stowe (I lived there for several years) all commented how incredibly crowded the mountain was this winter.  They don't want to see even more people there even if they save money.


My buddy at Park City moaned about the same thing on post-Vail year 1. But now she sung the praises of the lower cost pass, crowd by damned!


----------



## cdskier (May 11, 2017)

abc said:


> I don't see the logic why anyone will be upset just because others could afford it?
> 
> Isn't that the point? Lower price == more people can afford it. How many "Stowe regulars" prefers higher pass price just so others can't afford it?





deadheadskier said:


> Most of my old friends in Stowe (I lived there for several years) all commented how incredibly crowded the mountain was this winter.  They don't want to see even more people there even if they save money.



Personally I would have never paid Stowe's old pass prices, but I do understand the feeling using my home mountain as a corollary. Sugarbush dropped their pass price this coming season due to the Epic pricing. I know Sugarbush said they were "limiting" the number of passes sold at the lower prices, but if next season is more crowded, then I'll be one of those people that would be OK seeing SB raise their prices up to decrease crowds.

What is interesting to me is how much season pass prices fluctuate quite a bit from year to year due to competition and new multi-pass offerings...yet walk up window ticket prices seem to have only gone up. Seriously, has anyone ever lowered walk-up rates recently? Those high prices worry me more than season pass prices because I'm concerned they scare away new people from potentially being introduced to the sport. Lower season pass prices will help keep people from leaving the sport...but they are not too relevant to helping grow the sport with new people (I'm not referring to kids here obviously that are introduced to skiing at a young age by their parents)


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2017)

abc said:


> My buddy at Park City moaned about the same thing on post-Vail year 1. But now she sung the praises of the lower cost pass, crowd by damned!


Some of these friends I'm talking about get a deal through employers anyway.  

I'll also add that some of these folks work in Real Estate and have clients listing their second homes with intentions of moving down to the MRV area as the community and skiing is more like what Stowe used to be 15-20 years ago.

The general consensus is the mountain is becoming intolerable crowded on weekends. They long for the days when you could roll up on a Saturday at 9 and not have to wait 15-20 minutes just to park the car.  The benefits of all the shiny new stuff is mostly lost on the skiing purists who were initially attracted by the terrain above all else.  Stowe gets 250-300" of natural snow a year and is generally pretty cold.  Its always been just about the best place to ski  in the east for those reasons combined with their terrain. These folks don't dislike all the new snowmaking and fancy Spruce lodge, but they miss the way it once was.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dlague (May 11, 2017)

abc said:


> I don't see the logic why anyone will be upset just because others could afford it?
> 
> Isn't that the point? Lower price == more people can afford it. How many "Stowe regulars" prefers higher pass price just so others can't afford it?


Well more people may now be skiing Stowe than before for starters.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (May 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> These folks don't dislike all the new snowmaking and fancy Spruce lodge, but they miss the way it once was.


But all of that happened pre-Vail purchase. 

Stowe chosen the path of "development" quite many years ago. Real estate development that is. "the way it once was" had stopped being so before the Vail purchase, or the associated lowering of the season pass cost.


----------



## JimG. (May 12, 2017)

abc said:


> I don't see the logic why anyone will be upset just because others could afford it?
> 
> How many "Stowe regulars" prefers higher pass price just so others can't afford it?



I think many more than you imagine.

You know, there are quite a few people who put the cost of doing something way down on their list of priorities. I always look at value, not cost.

I don't care much about crowds and find ways to avoid them, but to many skiers avoiding crowds is a great reason to increase acceptable cost.


----------



## Jcb890 (May 12, 2017)

Teleskier said:


> Anecdotal, but everyone in Boston who either media shared or discussed passes with me - to a person all bought MAX. Seems to be universal agreement with you.


We're in Central, MA as opposed to Boston, but same idea.

Even if you don't travel at all, you can easily hit "value" with the pass.  I'll be happy to do Killington, Loon, Sunday River and hopefully Sugarloaf.  Many of the Boston crowd will happily use their 5 at Stratton, Okemo, Sunapee, Loon, etc.

Even if you just use it 15 times in New England, you're at $41.93 per day ($629/15) which is good value by itself for the price of lift tickets at the mountains on there.  Then, there's great long weekend or week-long options on the East Coast also like Canada, NY, ME and if you travel out West you're really getting a good value out of it.

Using this year's $629 price for a full MAX, if I use the same 18 MAX tickets I did this past season that puts me at $34.94/day.  Not bad considering those mountains were Killington, Loon, Stratton, Sunday River, Copper and Big Sky.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2017)

abc said:


> But all of that happened pre-Vail purchase.
> 
> Stowe chosen the path of "development" quite many years ago. Real estate development that is. "the way it once was" had stopped being so before the Vail purchase, or the associated lowering of the season pass cost.


Absolutely and the results of that development are not universally appreciated with the main complaint being increased crowds.  Cutting the pass price in half is only going to magnify that problem. 

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dlague (May 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> These folks don't dislike all the new snowmaking and fancy Spruce lodge, but they miss the way it once was.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



Jay Peak is another example.  Some miss the old way is was.  Others miss that but like the new shiney stuff yet still complain.  Others this Jays new model is great.  Can't please everyone I guess.  As things change so do the visitors - there is a new dynamic at Jay and there has been at Stowe but it is about to change again.



Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Teleskier (May 12, 2017)

It's getting harder and harder to ski a classic New England ski mountain. 

For me it started when they began fretting about all the classic New England trees in the middle of trails, what would the insurance company say, remove them all so it's all western-style wide open.

Then places like Stratton went from cherishing their original Austrian-cut trails to bringing in wide-swath-cutting bulldozers to flatten and homogenize trails to go full-bore Mountain Dew snowboarder then progressing to full-on New York/New Jersey real estate crowd versus skiing, and then jacking up the day ticket prices to unjustifiable-for-their-now-boring-terrain levels to keep all the locals and day tripper riff raff out.  Now forever ruined - they can now keep it.

One by one these classic New England vibe places fell for 'development' and 'improvement'.

Some classic places with a true New England feel still exist, but are getting more and more rare, where on bad days I feel their days are also numbered - unless the people who cherish them band together to protect them like MRG did and does.

Then on really bad days - when I feel something as being the (unfortunately continual) "last  straw" that the natural inherent qualities about yet another mountain I liked have been slowly 'developed' away - I console myself by reminding myself that the backcountry still exists, they have not ruined that yet, and to get back to my non-lift-service "skiing uphill is still skiing" XC and telemark roots to restore one's sanity and connection to nature by "natural" skiing a natural hill in natural snow in natural New England...


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2017)

That's the one thing I love most about Wildcat.  It is likely to stay just the way it is for the most part.  

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (May 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> That's the one thing I love most about Wildcat.  It is likely to stay just the way it is for the most part.



I don't see current ownership at Sugarbush making any major changes either outside of lift replacements as needed or perhaps some more phases of their slopeside condos (which are not exactly selling too quickly with how pricey they are). There's likely to be minimal changes to terrain or the way the mountain skis for quite some time from what it seems. At one point they talked about a mid-mountain lodge at the top of Gate House, but that talk seems to have taken a back seat at least for now.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2017)

Well, in the context of Stowe, the only real changes to the skiing in 25 years has been the widening of Hayride for racing (late 90s) and then the widening of Main Street  as a new race venue and realignment of the big Spruce lift ten years ago.  The big changes have all been in real estate development which has brought in larger crowds.  Hopefully the real estate development at Sugarbush doesn't have a similar effect.

Wildcat well never see real estate development of any kind and it's unlikely the forest service allows any changes or expansion to terrain other than a bit more lower mountain glading.  It and MRG will probably be the two major ski areas in New England that remain stuck in time basically forever.  Maybe add Cannon to that list too outside of the redevelopment of Mittersill. 

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (May 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> The big changes have all been in real estate development which has brought in larger crowds.  Hopefully the real estate development at Sugarbush doesn't have a similar effect.



I don't think it will. There simply isn't a big demand for what they are trying to build. There were only 16 units in the last complex they built which was completed over a year ago and it still hasn't sold out.


----------



## abc (May 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> The big changes have all been in real estate development which has brought in larger crowds.


Isn't that a conundrum every ski mountain faces?  

For skiers, the fewer people on the mountain, the better the experience. But for the owner/operator of the mountain, paying customers are the reason they exist. 

The whole northern VT region had seen steady increase of skier visits because of the warming of the climates. Stowe certainly capitalized on that increase the most. But that very "success" is not welcomed by those who had in the past enjoyed the much quieter mountains. 

I don't know if there's a solution that would please all.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2017)

It definitely​ is a conundrum for a lot of areas.  I wouldn't say climate (yet) has to do with Stowes increased traffic. The southern VT areas are as busy as ever. Stowe just added a ton of slopeside lodging.  That's been the difference. More beds.

So places that don't have beds are at a disadvantage towards experiencing similar increases in business.  



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## 4aprice (May 12, 2017)

I really don't miss the old days that much at all.  The seasons are longer now (better snowmaking) the lifts are better and faster, the grooming better.  Wide trails?  there are more woods cleared out now then ever before and more acres to ski.  

Crowds at Max Pass areas?  Thinking back over the season we hit one day at Stratton that was very busy, One line at Steamboat and one at Winter Park in February that seemed long, but they were the exceptions not the rule.  I admit that with grown children we skip the 3 major skiing holidays and stay local so they are not a factor to us. 

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2017)

I like the snowmaking and fast lifts too. IMO Wildcat has one of the two best HSQs in New England, the other being the Forerunner at Stowe. They also have pretty decent snowmaking. They aren't Sunday River, but for the most part it's pretty good. 

I disagree on season length unless you are talking about a time before I started skiing (1983).   The length of the season for most major eastern areas has been the same since back then; roughly Thanksgiving until the middle of April. Maybe it's different down in the Poconos.

Everyone has a different tolerance for crowds, but the difference between places like Cannon, Burke, Wildcat, Pico etc are night and day compared to the more "resorty" type places. From parking to lift lines to trail crowding to trails not getting skied off in three hours​ to getting a seat at the bar the experience is WAY different.  Except for a handful of Saturdays a season, weekends at Wildcat ski like a midweek day at a place like Stratton. 

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## snoseek (May 12, 2017)

Wildcat has the exact criteria I'm looking for in a classic New England ski hill. Fast lift, decent snowmaking, long season, almost zero crowds and those sweet, long top to bottom trails. That's not mentioning the fun stuff.


----------



## dlague (May 13, 2017)

Teleskier said:


> It's getting harder and harder to ski a classic New England ski mountain.
> 
> For me it started when they began fretting about all the classic New England trees in the middle of trails, what would the insurance company say, remove them all so it's all western-style wide open.
> 
> ...


Wow you are way over thinking this stuff!  Don't get me wrong I was bothered by the changes Jay Peak made but it is what it is.  I personally like skiing most anywhere and wide runs, narrow runs and anything in between are not something that bother me.  I would rather see a resort change than go out of business or flounder.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Duncanator24 (May 13, 2017)

Teleskier is not wrong though, it's definitely a rare thing to find "classic new England skiing". Grooming, snowmaking, and real estate development definitely have a hand in that. But thats where the money is so it only makes sense. You still have places like Mad River Glen and many other small mountains to get that fix though. The improvements of faster lifts are nice but I agree that everything else is just bloat and excess to the hobby. But the majority wants all that crap so that's just how it is.


----------



## abc (May 13, 2017)

I just can't get too worked up about the changes to the mountain though. 

For all the resort skiers, it's all a matter of degrees. Lift, grooming, thinning of the glades, snowmaking, all are altered state of the mountains. Where does one stop? 

Even "classic New England trail" had been cut, and may even be groomed. Just different width and layout. 

Real purists would probably stick to the back country, after all.


----------

