# Epic Pass just got more Epic



## gmcunni (Jan 29, 2018)

Perhaps in response to the new Ikon Pass...



> Telluride is joining the Epic Pass!
> 
> Beginning in the 2018/19 winter season, the Epic Pass, Epic 7-Day and Epic 4-Day will have direct-to-lift access to Telluride Ski Resort.


----------



## mbedle (Jan 29, 2018)

Just saw that and yes, let the battle begin...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2018)

mbedle said:


> Just saw that and yes, *let the battle begin*...



Count me out.   

I am not a fan of these "pass battles" as I think they're bad for the skiing public in general, most of who do not have (or wish to have) a season pass.  

The net effect of these pass alliances doing battle is an increase in single day ticket rates, the rates for which many people pay.  Making skiing more expensive (to the point they seek to "force" you to choose a pass option), for most people, and certainly for the casual masses, is not a good thing IMO.  My 2¢..


----------



## ss20 (Jan 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Count me out.
> 
> I am not a fan of these "pass battles" as I think they're bad for the skiing public in general, most of who do not have (or wish to have) a season pass.
> 
> The net effect of these pass alliances doing battle is an increase in single day ticket rates, the rates for which many people pay.  Making skiing more expensive (to the point they seek to "force" you to choose a pass option), for most people, and certainly for the casual masses, is not a good thing IMO.  My 2¢..



I agree.  But it is great for enthusiasts like us who get a bunch of mountains dirt cheap.  

I do hate the increase in day ticket prices...people still seem to buy them though.  I don't go to the big resorts (ones that charge $90+) during peak winter weekends/holidays, but I always hear stories of long lines for day tickets at the window.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Count me out.
> 
> I am not a fan of these "pass battles" as I think they're bad for the skiing public in general, most of who do not have (or wish to have) a season pass.
> 
> The net effect of these pass alliances doing battle is an increase in single day ticket rates, the rates for which many people pay.  Making skiing more expensive (to the point they seek to "force" you to choose a pass option), for most people, and certainly for the casual masses, is not a good thing IMO.  My 2¢..



While I have a season pass (to a single resort) and am ultimately benefiting from the wars causing my pass price to drop, I still agree that trying to "force" people into buying season passes and pricing day tickets at rates that scare people away is not a good thing. In particular I still see high day ticket prices as a major roadblock to growth in the sport or even introducing new people to the sport (the exception being kids that are brought up skiing from a young age).


----------



## mbedle (Jan 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Count me out.
> 
> I am not a fan of these "pass battles" as I think they're bad for the skiing public in general, most of who do not have (or wish to have) a season pass.
> 
> The net effect of these pass alliances doing battle is an increase in single day ticket rates, the rates for which many people pay.  Making skiing more expensive (to the point they seek to "force" you to choose a pass option), for most people, and certainly for the casual masses, is not a good thing IMO.  My 2¢..



If I didn't spend 99% of my time skiing one resort, I couldn't agree with you more. But in my case, its nothing but a win for me. Plus, if Epic adds any places in the northeast to their 50% off group, its even better for me. My guess is that they will look to pick up a couple of NE resorts to add to their pass.


----------



## Jully (Jan 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Count me out.
> 
> I am not a fan of these "pass battles" as I think they're bad for the skiing public in general, most of who do not have (or wish to have) a season pass.
> 
> The net effect of these pass alliances doing battle is an increase in single day ticket rates, the rates for which many people pay.  Making skiing more expensive (to the point they seek to "force" you to choose a pass option), for most people, and certainly for the casual masses, is not a good thing IMO.  My 2¢..



Definitely nervous about the increased consolidation and ticket prices due to passes, but as that is the way the industry is just going right now, I don't think it is reversing anytime soon. Eventually a mountain will reverse the trend, I'm sure, by offering incredible ticket deals or something but the passes appear to be working well for the masses right now at least.


----------



## Jully (Jan 29, 2018)

gmcunni said:


> Perhaps in response to the new Ikon Pass...



Definitely seems like a response to the Ikon. Interesting that Telluride was one of the last independent large destination resort in CO. They were also a Mountain Collective resort. I doubt they will be next year.

The MCP will look really different with Tride and probably the new Ikon mountains off the pass.

The part that impacts me will be if Vail adds anywhere in the Northeast. The Ikon is currently a better NE option (though it still isn't great from a strictly eastern perspective, IMO).


----------



## cdskier (Jan 29, 2018)

Jully said:


> The MCP will look really different with Tride and probably the new Ikon mountains off the pass.



I wouldn't bet on that...I suspect there will be significant overlap between the two passes. And honestly, why not be part of multiple multi-pass options? Multiple ways to drive people to your resort isn't a bad thing.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 29, 2018)

Considering that Telluride is having another shitty season, I imagine that this was done, in part, for survival.  If you don't know what I am talking about, Utah and most of Colorado is in another terrible drought.  Telluride has only had 65" of snow for the entire season and is skiing on a 30-40" base.


----------



## abc (Jan 29, 2018)

cdskier said:


> I wouldn't bet on that...I suspect there will be significant overlap between the two passes. And honestly, why not be part of multiple multi-pass options? Multiple ways to drive people to your resort isn't a bad thing.


Yeah, right!

Would Ikon allow the mountains to stay on MCP while also ne part of Ikon?


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 29, 2018)

^MC would be stripped if they lost all of the ikon places. I suspect next year that those places will be on both passes.


----------



## Jully (Jan 29, 2018)

KustyTheKlown said:


> ^MC would be stripped if they lost all of the ikon places. I suspect next year that those places will be on both passes.



It'd be nice if they all stayed on the MC for sure, but it wouldn't shock me if Alterra/Ikon required exclusivity. Given there will be some MAX/MC style set # of days per resort associated with Ikon, if they all stayed on the MC they would poach each other's sales. Given Alterra and Aspen have both announced the MC will live next year, it wouldn't surprise me if you're right though.

Tride will be off the collective though. No way Vail lets them be on two passes.

Edit: And Tride is officially out of the MCP. http://www.tellurideinside.com/2018/01/telluride-ski-resorts-joins-epic-pass.html


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 29, 2018)

I think MC will be a lower tiered version of Ikon. MC will be the same useless 2 days per destination, and Ikon will be 5+ with some resorts having unlimited access. or ikon will have various epic pass style tiers. I don't have any inside info. I just know mc will still exist at least for one year and that it would make zero sense to continue to exist if it was losing squaw, alpine, mammoth, aspen, snowmass, alta, snowbird, Jackson.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 29, 2018)

abc said:


> Yeah, right!
> 
> Would Ikon allow the mountains to stay on MCP while also ne part of Ikon?



Why not? What's the harm? If Alterra's resorts are one of the key components, they'd be making money no matter which pass people picked.



KustyTheKlown said:


> ^MC would be stripped if they lost all of the ikon places. I suspect next year that those places will be on both passes.



Yup, why specifically mention in the FAQ that MCP will still exist if all those mountains were off it. It wouldn't be much of a pass if all the Ikon ones were gone and then there's no way they'd be so sure MCP would still exist.



KustyTheKlown said:


> I think MC will be a lower tiered version of Ikon. MC will be the same useless 2 days per destination, and Ikon will be 5+ with some resorts having unlimited access. or ikon will have various epic pass style tiers. I don't have any inside info. I just know mc will still exist at least for one year and that it would make zero sense to continue to exist if it was losing squaw, alpine, mammoth, aspen, snowmass, alta, snowbird, Jackson.



I think this is very much in line with what we'll see as well.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2018)

thetrailboss said:


> If you don't know what I am talking about, Utah and most of Colorado is in another terrible drought.



How bad is it in UT right now?  I thought things had gotten better the last few weeks.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 29, 2018)

there is no recovering from the abysmal start Utah and Colorado had to their season. 

I stopped following Utah resorts closely since I'm not going back that way this year, but I have been keeping an eye on crested butte (granted that is significantly east and south of SLC), and it's really ugly. 77 inches of snow YTD at crested butte. more snow has fallen at killington, Stratton, etc.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> How bad is it in UT right now?  I thought things had gotten better the last few weeks.



Pictures I have seen from people skiing there this week look a lot better than here. Trees are in play there.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 29, 2018)

KustyTheKlown said:


> there is no recovering from the abysmal start Utah and Colorado had to their season.
> 
> I stopped following Utah resorts closely since I'm not going back that way this year, but I have been keeping an eye on crested butte (granted that is significantly east and south of SLC), and it's really ugly. 77 inches of snow YTD at crested butte. more snow has fallen at killington, Stratton, etc.


difference maybe though that it rained here so 77 here is different than 77 there.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 29, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> difference maybe though that it rained here so 77 here is different than 77 there.



they had plenty of sunny days above freezing there too. i know comparing eastern YTD with our rain and thaws and western YTD is generally stupid and an apples to baseballs comparison. I'm just highlighting how absolutely terrible the southwest has been this season. a friend and i just split off from a group trip to crested butte/winter park for the first week of march. we are opting for fernie and kicking horse instead. i refuse to spend money and time away from work on skiing in Colorado this year, given how things have gone and look to continue going. my Utah trip already had to be kiboshed in favour of big sky.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> How bad is it in UT right now?  I thought things had gotten better the last few weeks.



Snowbird has a 65" base.  To date we are about 53% of average snowfall.  Telluride, at last check, was at 30-40%.  And now the f^&king ridge is coming back.  The first half of February looks warm and dry.

In comparison, Jackson Hole is at 117% average snowpack; Grand Targhee at 115%.  Big Sky is about 120%.

In my experience, Snowbird becomes "decent" at 75" base and "prime" above 100" base.  The problem we are having is not just lack of base, but infrequent storms such that the snow gets hammered without any refresher.  The forecast temps this week all look above 40 F for the valleys and lower areas...like Sundance...who may have to temporarily close if it continues.


----------



## medfordmike (Jan 29, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Count me out.
> 
> I am not a fan of these "pass battles" as I think they're bad for the skiing public in general, most of who do not have (or wish to have) a season pass.
> 
> The net effect of these pass alliances doing battle is an increase in single day ticket rates, the rates for which many people pay.  Making skiing more expensive (to the point they seek to "force" you to choose a pass option), for most people, and certainly for the casual masses, is not a good thing IMO.  My 2¢..



I love my Max Pass this year and my Pico pass too.  But I agree I don't think all these mega pass options will benefit the sport in the long run.  One of my nieces (8th grade) really wants to learn to ski.  Finances are very tight for her family.  Even if my spouse and I take her up and treat her to lessons, rental, etc. what happens if she loves it?  It has never been a cheap sport but you are looking at hundreds of dollars a day for a family to ski with lift tickets, rentals, etc. once you get beyond a beginner package.  At some point it just doesn't make sense.

I would offer up that I am also a motorcycle rider. The motorcycle industry is really struggling with its demographics.  Enthusiasts demand more power, more features and the industry is happy to do it.  But now they have an aging albeit wealthy market segment and too many are priced out or don't fit the market niche that is left.  Lots of attempts to change now but so much time has been lost.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 29, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> Pictures I have seen from people skiing there this week look a lot better than here. Trees are in play there.



So there are pictures and then there are "pictures".......


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 29, 2018)

thetrailboss said:


> So there are pictures and then there are "pictures".......


----------



## abc (Jan 29, 2018)

medfordmike said:


> I would offer up that I am also a motorcycle rider. The motorcycle industry is really struggling with its demographics.  Enthusiasts demand more power, more features and the industry is happy to do it.  But now they have an aging albeit wealthy market segment and too many are priced out or don't fit the market niche that is left.  Lots of attempts to change now but so much time has been lost.


So you're telling me ALL the motorcycle companies are going after the same demographic? All the while enough of the "other" demographics were un-served?


----------



## kingslug (Jan 30, 2018)

Just got back from Vail and it was...great. Almost 2 feet fell during the week. 1 foot the first 2 days of the trip, then 3 days of sun, then almost another foot. So its not as bad as you might think. The woods  had 3 feet in them. 3 powder days out of 6, I was happy as a clam. Alta/ Bird just got 2 more feet in the same time. Sure beats skiing on ice.
At first I cancelled the trip for myself and a relative. But went back in at the last minute, at great expense. Still felt it was worth it. I would have been sliding around on crap.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 30, 2018)

thetrailboss said:


> Snowbird has a 65" base.  To date we are about 53% of average snowfall.  Telluride, at last check, was at 30-40%.  And now the f^&king ridge is coming back.  The first half of February looks warm and dry.
> *
> In comparison, Jackson Hole is at 117% average snowpack; Grand Targhee at 115%.  Big Sky is about 120%.*



Well, the good news where you live is it's only maybe 5 or 6 hours to places like Jackson Hole or Big Sky for a three-day weekend, which is like me going to Lake Placid or Smuggler's Notch, respectively.


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 30, 2018)

thetrailboss said:


> Snowbird has a 65" base.  To date we are about 53% of average snowfall.  Telluride, at last check, was at 30-40%.  And now the f^&king ridge is coming back.  The first half of February looks warm and dry.
> 
> In comparison, Jackson Hole is at 117% average snowpack; Grand Targhee at 115%.  Big Sky is about 120%.
> 
> In my experience, Snowbird becomes "decent" at 75" base and "prime" above 100" base.  The problem we are having is not just lack of base, but infrequent storms such that the snow gets hammered without any refresher.  The forecast temps this week all look above 40 F for the valleys and lower areas...like Sundance...who may have to temporarily close if it continues.


Not gonna lie, coming back from Big Sky to this... sucks. :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2018)

Smellytele said:


>



Where was that?  Looks decent.  Reminds me of east coast tree skiing.


----------



## xwhaler (Jan 30, 2018)

thetrailboss said:


> Where was that?  Looks decent.  Reminds me of east coast tree skiing.


Off gad 2. It's my picture from yesterday. Full trip report from last 2 days on NMS.  Skiing Snowbird again today.  Conditions out here are really nice.  Way way better than anything east coast now.

Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 30, 2018)

xwhaler said:


> Off gad 2. It's my picture from yesterday. Full trip report from last 2 days on NMS.  Skiing Snowbird again today.  Conditions out here are really nice.  Way way better than anything east coast now.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app



Yes I stole it from xwhaler...


----------



## dlague (Jan 30, 2018)

My $.02

Yes snowfall has been lacking but the conditions are consistent.  We have been in a weekly 3-6 inch snowfall pattern which has touched up stuff nicely.  There have not been any hard refreeze days so everything that is open is skiing pretty darn good.  Today is a slight warm up then cold and snow.   IMO Loveland and A Basin have been spot on with opening terrain.  Keystone has incredible snow making capacity and cranked out runs in December.  Higher elevation bowls have gotten good snow especially at Breck where the wind blows snow from the backside into the bowls.  Worst day was New Years Day at Vail but from reports I hear - things are much better now.

As far as the OP, while it is exciting to hear about Telluride, it is a hike from the I-70 play that Epic Pass has and it is the only option down there.  I think it will be good for a long weekend for us in any case.  However, many of the Epic Pass locals are not overly excited.

Anxious to see Ikon Pass pricing,


----------



## snoseek (Jan 30, 2018)

Yeah this goddamn ridge has been following me over half a decade now. Mtb season starts sometime next week. We will be rolling dirt at lake level right about then. Skiing is decent here but low base. Last week was awesome but shallow


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 30, 2018)

dlague said:


> As far as the OP, while it is exciting to hear about Telluride, it is a hike from the I-70 play that Epic Pass has and it is the only option down there.  I think it will be good for a long weekend for us in any case.  However, many of the Epic Pass locals are not overly excited.



for me i'm hoping it is setup like vail/beaver.  on my local pass i get a few days at those resorts.  so for next year, if this works out, we'll plan a family trip for a long weekend to Telli.  having never been there i'm excited but certainly won't trek there solo on a day trip.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 30, 2018)

gmcunni said:


> we'll plan a family trip for a long weekend to Telli. .



Telli? No one says that, ever.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 30, 2018)

snoseek said:


> Yeah this goddamn ridge has been following me over half a decade now.



Where are you now?


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 30, 2018)

based on his reference to lake level, I'm guessing Tahoe.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 30, 2018)

raisingarizona said:


> Telli? No one says that, ever.



#startsomethingnew


----------



## Jully (Jan 30, 2018)

xwhaler said:


> Off gad 2. It's my picture from yesterday. Full trip report from last 2 days on NMS.  Skiing Snowbird again today.  Conditions out here are really nice.  Way way better than anything east coast now.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app



I was in Utah all last week and agree with this. Lots of stuff is bare with rocks and bushes sticking up through trails, but it is still easily skiable and the snow quality is SOmuch nicer and the terrain so much better than what is back east right now.

It is a bad year for Utah, but right now it kicks NE's butt.


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 30, 2018)

Jully said:


> I was in Utah all last week and agree with this. Lots of stuff is bare with rocks and bushes sticking up through trails, but it is still easily skiable and the snow quality is SOmuch nicer and the terrain so much better than what is back east right now.
> 
> It is a bad year for Utah, but right now it kicks NE's butt.


These comparisons are kind of pointless though.  Pretty much anywhere out West on their worst day is better than what we have out East on our best day.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2018)

xwhaler said:


> Off gad 2. It's my picture from yesterday. Full trip report from last 2 days on NMS.  Skiing Snowbird again today.  Conditions out here are really nice.  Way way better than anything east coast now.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app



:lol:  Small world.  I only did one or two runs off Gad 2 this past weekend.  While that looks good, you know that there are MANY other places that don't.  STH looked rough.

Compared to the NE?  Sure, it is better.  But that is apples to oranges.  Overall, for Utah, we are low.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 30, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> These comparisons are kind of pointless though.  Pretty much anywhere out West on their worst day is better than what we have out East on our best day.



going there again?


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 30, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> going there again?


There's no need to have an argument or discussion, it was a throw-away comment.  But, yeah, I do agree with the statement since I made it.  Don't get me wrong, I love New England and it is where my home is.  The mountains here just don't compare.

Personally, I also feel these other parts of the country are much nicer in scenery and natural attractions than New England is as well.  The leaves changing colors is cool I guess, but again, it just doesn't compare.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 30, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> There's no need to have an argument or discussion, it was a throw-away comment.  But, yeah, I do agree with the statement since I made it.  Don't get me wrong, I love New England and it is where my home is.  The mountains here just don't compare.
> 
> Personally, I also feel these other parts of the country are much nicer in scenery and natural attractions than New England is as well.  The leaves changing colors is cool I guess, but again, it just doesn't compare.



 A great day out West will beat a great day in the East. A "bad day" out west will also beat a "bad day" in the east. But a great day in the east will beat a "bad day" in the west.
I think views around Mt Washington (and to a somewhat lesser extent Mt Mansfield) do compare with other ski regions. Now does Mt Snow (just an example) views? No.


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 30, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> A great day out West will beat a great day in the East. A "bad day" out west will also beat a "bad day" in the east. But a great day in the east will beat a "bad day" in the west.
> I think views around Mt Washington (and to a somewhat lesser extent Mt Mansfield) do compare with other ski regions. Now does Mt Snow (just an example) views? No.


Of course a great day here will beat a bad day out West... again, I was being a bit facetious and over-generalizing with my statement.

Agreed that the views around Mt. Washington are nice, but that is as good as it gets and I disagree that those views compare with the scenery out West (for the most part).

It really is a pointless conversation/argument to have since they are different geographic areas.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 30, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> Pretty much anywhere out West on their worst day is better than what we have out East on our best day.





Jcb890 said:


> Of course a great day here will beat a bad day out West... again, I was being a bit facetious and over-generalizing with my statement.



Now I'm confused. Is the best day in the east better than the worst day in the west or not? You can't be on both sides of the argument! :razz:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 30, 2018)

As great as the west is, and is better than the east, I really think a lot of people absurdly overrate is versus east.  Either way you're still sliding on snow on expert terrain, moguls, trees, etc...


----------



## sankaty (Jan 30, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> As great as the west is, and is better than the east, I really think a lot of people absurdly overrate is versus east.  Either way you're still sliding on snow on expert terrain, moguls, trees, etc...



Totally agree.  I think some of the bad feelings people have about the east vs. west stem from folks who can only schedule a holiday week far in advance.  In the east, some years can be horrendous between crowds, weather, and snow conditions.  A bad week can happen out west, too, but the chances of just miserable conditions are much lower.  Most of us can pick and choose our days and times to ski here in the east, and most eastern winters have a fair amount of sublime skiing to choose from.


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 30, 2018)

Alright alright... forget I said anything. :lol:


----------



## Zermatt (Jan 30, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> Alright alright... forget I said anything. :lol:



Why? It’s true and I agree with it. Claiming it in a northeast skiing forum might be an uphill battle though 

I’ve had some amazing days skiing in the east. They are so rare I can literally remember each one. 

I’ll be skiing on the Rothorn this morning, searching out the remaining off piste powder stashes a week after the last snow. I’ll be wearing thin gloves, no face mask. I will have lunch outside without my jacket on and probably drink two large beers. Tonight it will snow.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 31, 2018)

Been to the Alps before as well during a low snow year and groomers were all you could ski. Had to take a lift down because the lower parts of the mountain had no snow. Had great days there as well. All I can say is I have had great days and bad days and no matter where the great days were they beat the bad days where ever they were. 15" of powder with a good base is always going to beat frozen wind blown refreeze crud no matter what the scenery is.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 31, 2018)

Smellytele said:


> All I can say is I have had great days and bad days and no matter where the great days were they beat the bad days where ever they were. 15" of powder with a good base is always going to beat frozen wind blown refreeze crud no matter what the scenery is.



THIS! I really don't understand how there can be an argument that the "worst" skiing day in X beats the "best" skiing day in Y. It simply isn't possible if the "worst" truly is a bad day. I don't care where you are. Even if you are somehow in a place that NEVER goes above freezing, if you have a whiteout day where you can't see 1 foot in front of you, that's not better than a perfect blue-bird day after a dump in the East.


----------



## sankaty (Jan 31, 2018)

The amusing thing about these discussions is that there is a lot of back and forth about things for which there really isn't any disagreement.

Nobody actually believes that the worst day out west beats the best day back east because it's obviously untrue.  I think people say this as shorthand to express that western skiing is better, on average, than eastern skiing, which again, just about everybody believes.  The arguments seem to be about semantics.  As far as I can tell, the only real disagreement is over the exact amount to which western skiing bests eastern skiing.


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 31, 2018)

billo said:


> Why? It’s true and I agree with it. Claiming it in a northeast skiing forum might be an uphill battle though
> 
> I’ve had some amazing days skiing in the east. They are so rare I can literally remember each one.
> 
> I’ll be skiing on the Rothorn this morning, searching out the remaining off piste powder stashes a week after the last snow. I’ll be wearing thin gloves, no face mask. I will have lunch outside without my jacket on and probably drink two large beers. Tonight it will snow.



This Rothorn sounds great.  Where out west is it?  Colorado?  Utah?  Having trouble finding it on the map.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 31, 2018)

is that a serious post? he's in Europe.


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 31, 2018)

KustyTheKlown said:


> is that a serious post? he's in Europe.



Really?  So he's using an anecdote about his little trip to the Alps to support his claim that a ridiculous statement about the relative merits of skiing in the western US v. the eastern US is obviously true?  Guess I stand corrected....


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 31, 2018)

Its true, we all know its true.  It just isn't worth the argument.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 31, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> Really? * So he's using an anecdote about his little trip to the Alps to support his claim that a ridiculous statement about the relative merits of skiing in the western US v. the eastern US* is obviously true?  Guess I stand corrected....



Dogs are better than cats, that's why I own ostriches.


----------



## Jully (Jan 31, 2018)

domeskier said:


> really?  So he's using an anecdote about his little trip to the alps to support his claim that a ridiculous statement about the relative merits of skiing in the western us v. The eastern us is obviously true?  Guess i stand corrected....



haha!!


----------



## Jully (Jan 31, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Dogs are better than cats, that's why I own ostriches.



+1


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 31, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Dogs are better than cats, that's why I own ostriches.


Well, dogs *ARE* better than cats.  That we can agree on. :lol:


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 31, 2018)

Jcb890 said:


> Its true, we all know its true.  It just isn't worth the argument.



But, but...



Jcb890 said:


> Of course a great day here will beat a bad day out West...



Now you're just playing with us, aren't you!


----------



## Jcb890 (Jan 31, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> But, but...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just playing with us, aren't you!


:lol:


sankaty said:


> Nobody actually believes that the worst day out west beats the best day back east because it's obviously untrue.  I think people say this as shorthand to express that western skiing is better, on average, than eastern skiing, which again, just about everybody believes.  The arguments seem to be about semantics.  As far as I can tell, the only real disagreement is over the exact amount to which western skiing bests eastern skiing.


^ This.

Of course I'll take a pow day in the East over a rainy day or crappy day out West.  I was exaggerating, over-generalizing and being a bit facetious with my original comments.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 31, 2018)

Just to add my.02 cents

If my memory was strong enough to rank my days all “timeness,”  …I’d have a few east coast days in my top 10 despite having been west quite a bit and having had some good luck with snowfall. Be hard to beat some of those deep day on western trips for the top spots though. 

I had Bird and Jackson trips last year with decent snow and some fresh, but I also had absurd luck with Stowe trips and would say my favorite day of the year was up there in April after 12+. I think I was the first down lookout shortly after opening and not sure I stopped grinning all day after that. Went right back up for round two and followed that with Starr into the lookout trees. That three run sequence was amazing.


----------



## FBGM (Jan 31, 2018)

Epic my b-hole. More east coast scrubs going to Jerry up the goods. 

Milf hunter out.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 6, 2019)

Even.More.Epic


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

I like these new multi-area east west passes a lot! 

Everyone knows the west is better than the east and it allows all the poor east coast skiers to fly out west and ski there instead. 

Which I love! More eastern goodness for me.


----------



## kingslug (Feb 6, 2019)

I like Snowbasin


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

JimG. said:


> I like these new multi-area east west passes a lot!
> 
> Everyone knows the west is better than the east and it allows all the poor east coast skiers to fly out west and ski there instead.
> 
> Which I love! More eastern goodness for me.


Is it true? Are you observing less skiers in mountains in the northeast?


----------



## JimG. (Feb 6, 2019)

abc said:


> Is it true? Are you observing less skiers in mountains in the northeast?



Yes I am.

But I'm pretty sure that's because I spend more and more of my ski time mid-week instead of weekends.


----------



## abc (Feb 6, 2019)

I don't remember finding too much crowd in the mountains in the northeast! Not for the past 10 years or so anyway.  

But that's because 1) I'm blackout on holidays in all the passes I've had; 2) I don't go to the "popular" mountains anyway. 

I've not skied Hunter for approximately 10 years. The last time I ski Killington, was in May. And the last time I ski Killington before May was again more than 10 years ago. I did ski Stratton a few times, but it was mid-week... 

As I actually work a "regular" job, the only reason I have no need to skiing weekends in the east, is I'm skiing out west on many of weekends. By the time I'm back east, I need to rest and catch up on chores, so that I can go out west again. All made possible by these multi-mountain passes. 

I'm leaving for Big Sky in 2 1/2 weeks. There will be no crowds in Big Sky.


----------



## benski (Feb 6, 2019)

Those are both mountain collective resorts. The mountain collective has many resorts that are on IKon but Epic does not have any overlap with other passes. Win mentioned working on the mountain collective recently so I doubt it’s done.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 6, 2019)

Snowbasin and Sun Valley skiers area already bitching about this, cant say I blame them.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 6, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Snowbasin and Sun Valley skiers area already bitching about this, cant say I blame them.



i'm already planning next year's spring break vacation to Sun Valley.


----------



## snoseek (Feb 7, 2019)

There is no room for the epic crowds in the cottonwoods....really its full here the roads are a major pain in the ass. Solitude is no longer solitude Im told and altabird is insanity when it snows...specifically 210 going up and down. I dream of a 20ish dollar toll that supplements a extended more efficient bus service and more parking at the mouth. The infrastructure just isn't there to support the epic pass. Feel for the snowbasin regulars. ..pow mow will see some refugees next year Im sure


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 7, 2019)

snoseek said:


> There is no room for the epic crowds in the cottonwoods....really its full here the roads are a major pain in the ass. Solitude is no longer solitude Im told and altabird is insanity when it snows...specifically 210 going up and down. I dream of a 20ish dollar toll that supplements a extended more efficient bus service and more parking at the mouth. The infrastructure just isn't there to support the epic pass. Feel for the snowbasin regulars. ..pow mow will see some refugees next year Im sure



Exactly.  Ikon has really crowded BCC...in less than a season.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

Not sure about the magnitude of the issue. Buddy of mine was at Solitude just this past Monday after the storm. She said "nobody there"!


----------



## Jully (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> Not sure about the magnitude of the issue. Buddy of mine was at Solitude just this past Monday after the storm. She said "nobody there"!



In my non-local opinion, it seems like Solitude has plenty of capacity on mountain before it gets to what any non-spoiled BCC skier would call crowded. People are just mad because it used to be EMPTY all the time and now there's a few minute long lift lines and I'm sure powder is disappearing much faster.

The road up there can't handle anyone else too... so getting to and from Solitude/Brighton now sucks tremendously more.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 7, 2019)

Jully said:


> In my non-local opinion, it seems like Solitude has plenty of capacity on mountain before it gets to what any non-spoiled BCC skier would call crowded. People are just mad because it used to be EMPTY all the time and now there's a few minute long lift lines and I'm sure powder is disappearing much faster.
> 
> The road up there can't handle anyone else too... so getting to and from Solitude/Brighton now sucks tremendously more.



The car traffic is the issue.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

snoseek said:


> There is no room for the epic crowds in the cottonwoods....really its full here the roads are a major pain in the ass.* Solitude is no longer solitude Im told and altabird is insanity when it snows**...specifically 210 going up and down.* I dream of a 20ish dollar toll that supplements a extended more efficient bus service and more parking at the mouth. *The infrastructure just isn't there to support the epic pass.* Feel for the snowbasin regulars. ..pow mow will see some refugees next year Im sure




This makes me wonder about the economics of getting paid to be on a pass & the ancillary benefit of having "more people" who will buy stuff, but who arent buying tickets directly from your hill, *versus* not being on the pass and having fewer people, but not driving away other skiers/riders who would otherwise be paying you for full-freight lift tickets.

That's a long-winded way of saying, if the financial benefit of being on this pass aren't significantly better than not being on a pass, in this scenario where crowding is becoming a big problem, perhaps it's better to have fewer people and NOT be on a pass.


----------



## EPB (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> This makes me wonder about the economics of getting paid to be on a pass & the ancillary benefit of having "more people" who will buy stuff, but who arent buying tickets directly from your hill, *versus* not being on the pass and having fewer people, but not driving away other skiers/riders who would otherwise be paying you for full-freight lift tickets.
> 
> That's a long-winded way of saying, if the financial benefit of being on this pass aren't significantly better than not being on a pass, in this scenario where crowding is becoming a big problem, perhaps it's better to have fewer people and NOT be on a pass.


Do you have any idea how non-Vail resorts are compensated for being on the epic pass? I've been curious, but admittedly haven't taken the time to dig in.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

eastern powder baby said:


> *Do you have any idea how non-Vail resorts are compensated for being on the epic pass?* I've been curious, but admittedly haven't taken the time to dig in.



I don't.   

It's possible that info could be in the MTN 10k, but my suspicion is it would be intentionally amalgamated rather than broken out due to both competitive reasons & negotiative reasons.


----------



## kingslug (Feb 7, 2019)

In the last 20 years or so I've seen the access to LCC and BCC go to shit and the crowding turn insane. My first time there they got 48 inches in 48 hours and I went..and fell on my face all day but no probs in or out. Yes the road would close for avalanches and it was an adventure getting out but now its becoming a shit show. I get real time reports from people I know all the time..as they sit in traffic for hours getting up there..they live 10 minutes away. 
So now rather than staying in town it looks like the best option is spend a ton more money and stay at the Cliff. I can stay for free in town..but if I can't get up there..whats the point.
It would suck if one day the road is totally jammed with cars and buses and a huge avi takes out a bunch of them. Its happened but not a massive scale. Then the talk of interconnecting and better access will heat up. Its headed in that direction any way..cause it ain't getting better...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

kingslug said:


> *they sit in traffic for hours getting up there..they live 10 minutes away.*



 Was this a one-time thing or something; at it's worst, it doesn't really take "hours" to get from, say, Cottonwood Heights to Solitude/Brighton or Alta/Snowbird, does it?



kingslug said:


> Then the talk of interconnecting and better access will heat up. *Its headed in that direction *any way..cause it ain't getting better...



The Eco-extremists unfortunately seem to be winning that battle.  The ONE Wasatch website hasn't been updated in over 3 years.

http://onewasatch.com/?page_id=123


----------



## jimk (Feb 7, 2019)

I’ve gotten pretty familiar with LCC in the last three years with about 8 visits to Cottonwood Heights, and I'm about to get a lot more familiar.  Traffic is definitely a serious consideration, esp. on weekend mornings when there’s new snow.  Two hour road closures (approx. 6-8AM) for avi work in the canyon are increasingly likely on powder mornings.  When there is no new snow the situation is usually fine.  Many locals are surprised they haven’t gone to 100% paid parking yet to reduce traffic and force carpooling, but that might put a heavier reliance on the UTA bus system that perhaps doesn’t have the capacity to handle a big ridership surge??  My pie in the sky suggestion is to build an old fashioned, high-capacity cogwheel train through a tunnel in the mountains from base of LCC to a suitable spot between Alta and Snowbird.

This 2017 report has a discussion and photos about what LCC is like for a big storm cycle when the place goes into a full powder panic:  http://www.dcski.com/forum/view_message.php?message_id=91448

About multi-resort pass compensation for participating resorts…I don’t know how it works either, but pretty telling when resorts like Snowbasin bounce from MCP to IKON to Epic.  There is definitely a significant increase in revenue and skier visits that they receive through these passes that has many resorts eager to participate and jockey for the best financial return.  I’m an unabashed ski touron and this whole multi-resort thing has come at the perfect time for me (retired with disposable income).


----------



## crazy (Feb 7, 2019)

100% paid parking, with some or all of the additional funds generated going to UTA to support more buses, would be an easy way to start the process off. The resorts have been interested in the ONE Wasatch idea of connecting the resorts with lifts. ONE Wasatch solves some small piece of the problem, and frankly why not do it if the resorts are going to pay for it, but there needs to be a bigger solution. Tunnels between BCC and LCC would help the LCC resorts, as the road to BCC is closed less frequently and doesn't see the capacity that the LCC road does. Having a tunnel from Park City to LCC/BCC would also be very helpful.

The idea of a cogwheel train through a tunnel is smart in a lot of ways. I've heard proposals for a gondola, but there are many issues with it, including evac and transport time. The big question is funding. Also, let's say we have a train/gondola - do we still let people drive? As long as its faster or more convenient to drive, people will continue driving, though having a toll or paid parking will help dissuade this. Also, what about the backcountry skiers who want to potentially drive up very early before the train/gondola is running? 

Lots of issues to work out. Save Our Canyons, one of the major eco-extremist groups, will have a knee jerk reaction against almost any proposal. Their end goal is for the resorts to shut down and become back country.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Was this a one-time thing or something; at it's worst, it doesn't really take "hours" to get from, say, Cottonwood Heights to Solitude/Brighton or Alta/Snowbird, does it?



YES.  This happens.  More often now.  On storm days or when a canyon is "closed" for early morning avalanche work.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 7, 2019)

jimk said:


> I’ve gotten pretty familiar with LCC in the last three years with about 8 visits to Cottonwood Heights, and I'm about to get a lot more familiar.  Traffic is definitely a serious consideration, esp. on weekend mornings when there’s new snow.  Two hour road closures (approx. 6-8AM) for avi work in the canyon are increasingly likely on powder mornings.  When there is no new snow the situation is usually fine.  Many locals are surprised they haven’t gone to 100% paid parking yet to reduce traffic and force carpooling, but that might put a heavier reliance on the UTA bus system that perhaps doesn’t have the capacity to handle a big ridership surge??  My pie in the sky suggestion is to build an old fashioned, high-capacity cogwheel train through a tunnel in the mountains from base of LCC to a suitable spot between Alta and Snowbird.
> 
> This 2017 report has a discussion and photos about what LCC is like for a big storm cycle when the place goes into a full powder panic:  http://www.dcski.com/forum/view_message.php?message_id=91448
> 
> About multi-resort pass compensation for participating resorts…I don’t know how it works either, but pretty telling when resorts like Snowbasin bounce from MCP to IKON to Epic.  There is definitely a significant increase in revenue and skier visits that they receive through these passes that has many resorts eager to participate and jockey for the best financial return.  I’m an unabashed ski touron and this whole multi-resort thing has come at the perfect time for me (retired with disposable income).





crazy said:


> 100% paid parking, with some or all of the additional funds generated going to UTA to support more buses, would be an easy way to start the process off. The resorts have been interested in the ONE Wasatch idea of connecting the resorts with lifts. ONE Wasatch solves some small piece of the problem, and frankly why not do it if the resorts are going to pay for it, but there needs to be a bigger solution. Tunnels between BCC and LCC would help the LCC resorts, as the road to BCC is closed less frequently and doesn't see the capacity that the LCC road does. Having a tunnel from Park City to LCC/BCC would also be very helpful.
> 
> The idea of a cogwheel train through a tunnel is smart in a lot of ways. I've heard proposals for a gondola, but there are many issues with it, including evac and transport time. The big question is funding. Also, let's say we have a train/gondola - do we still let people drive? As long as its faster or more convenient to drive, people will continue driving, though having a toll or paid parking will help dissuade this. Also, what about the backcountry skiers who want to potentially drive up very early before the train/gondola is running?
> 
> Lots of issues to work out. Save Our Canyons, one of the major eco-extremist groups, will have a knee jerk reaction against almost any proposal. Their end goal is for the resorts to shut down and become back country.



Both make complete sense.  However, UTA is a complete shit show.  It is basically either a dysfunctional political punching bag for folks or a complete self-serving money grab for others who end up "on the board" and see to it that their own land development projects are benefitted by UTA routes.  It is too bad because there IS a complete NEED for better public transit.  

As to the railway, that is a truly "Back to the Future" idea because Snowbird's founder Ted Johnson lobbied hard for funding to build a loop railway that ran between BCC and LCC but the amount of $$$ in the 1970's and 1980's was too high.  It is astronomical now.  

There is limited land at the mouth of each canyon for park and rides.  Most lots fill up quickly.  

For the meantime, they will continue to do nothing about the deal.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 7, 2019)

kingslug said:


> In the last 20 years or so I've seen the access to LCC and BCC go to shit and the crowding turn insane. My first time there they got 48 inches in 48 hours and I went..and fell on my face all day but no probs in or out. Yes the road would close for avalanches and it was an adventure getting out but now its becoming a shit show. I get real time reports from people I know all the time..as they sit in traffic for hours getting up there..they live 10 minutes away.
> So now rather than staying in town it looks like the best option is spend a ton more money and stay at the Cliff. I can stay for free in town..but if I can't get up there..whats the point.
> It would suck if one day the road is totally jammed with cars and buses and a huge avi takes out a bunch of them. Its happened but not a massive scale. Then the talk of interconnecting and better access will heat up. Its headed in that direction any way..cause it ain't getting better...



Remove the road and put a train in that everyone has to take...


----------



## benski (Feb 7, 2019)

crazy said:


> 100% paid parking, with some or all of the additional funds generated going to UTA to support more buses, would be an easy way to start the process off. The resorts have been interested in the ONE Wasatch idea of connecting the resorts with lifts. ONE Wasatch solves some small piece of the problem, and frankly why not do it if the resorts are going to pay for it, but there needs to be a bigger solution. Tunnels between BCC and LCC would help the LCC resorts, as the road to BCC is closed less frequently and doesn't see the capacity that the LCC road does. Having a tunnel from Park City to LCC/BCC would also be very helpful.
> 
> The idea of a cogwheel train through a tunnel is smart in a lot of ways. I've heard proposals for a gondola, but there are many issues with it, including evac and transport time. The big question is funding. Also, let's say we have a train/gondola - do we still let people drive? As long as its faster or more convenient to drive, people will continue driving, though having a toll or paid parking will help dissuade this. Also, what about the backcountry skiers who want to potentially drive up very early before the train/gondola is running?
> 
> Lots of issues to work out. Save Our Canyons, one of the major eco-extremist groups, will have a knee jerk reaction against almost any proposal. Their end goal is for the resorts to shut down and become back country.



I like the 100% payed parking plan or the no cars idea. I went to Zermatt last year and thought the lack of cars in the village was nice. I think railway would be a lot more expensive. The Swiss mountain railways are also not very fast and not compatible with the main rail network. A gondola would be smarter, since there is no wait time, it fits with the ski area motif, and has less impact. You can move up to 5000p/h according to Dopplmeyr.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 7, 2019)

benski said:


> I like the 100% payed parking plan or the no cars idea. I went to Zermatt last year and thought the lack of cars in the village was nice. I think railway would be a lot more expensive. The Swiss mountain railways are also not very fast and not compatible with the main rail network. A gondola would be smarter, since there is no wait time, it fits with the ski area motif, and has less impact. You can move up to 5000p/h according to Dopplmeyr.



Have the train like a tram. 2 tracks with trains always moving in the opposite direction.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

thetrailboss said:


> *YES.  This happens.  More often now.  On storm days or when a canyon is "closed" for early morning avalanche work*.



Okay, but unless I'm misunderstanding, this is different.

The road itself is "closed", but that's different than sitting in traffic for "hours" to get there.  Once you see the sign at the bottom that the canyon is closed, you can turn around on Wasatch Blvd. & either bag the day & go home or come back at lunchtime, right?

Whereas I-70 in Colorado, people literally report sitting in traffic jams a few hours with the road actually open.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> *Have the train like a tram. 2 tracks with trains always moving in the opposite direction*.



This sounds like a great idea.  

 You could probably run 3 electric trolleys per track if needed, but how do you get this past the Eco-nuts?  

That's the problem.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Okay, but unless I'm misunderstanding, this is different.
> 
> The road itself is "closed", but that's different than sitting in traffic for "hours" to get there.  Once you see the sign at the bottom that the canyon is closed, you can turn around on Wasatch Blvd. & either bag the day & go home or come back at lunchtime, right?
> 
> Whereas I-70 in Colorado, people literally report sitting in traffic jams a few hours with the road actually open.


No, they sit in traffic AFTER the road re-opened.

The point, which you're missing, is the delay in opening the road means twice as much traffic is trying to jam into the canyon in half the time! 

I think 2 hrs qualify as "hourS"?

Alternatively, people had opted to sit at the mouth of the canyon AWAITING for the road to open. Because they know if they're not the first to go up the canyon, they would sit IN TRAFFIC for just as long, if not longer. 

Yes, I've been there. it went like a quarter mile in 1/2 hr. I ended up turning around and went to Park City! I still got a decent amount of skiing in there, but missed the fresh powder. People from the same hotel I was in, got up to the canyon 2 hrs after my ski hit the snow.


----------



## snoseek (Feb 7, 2019)

Love the idea of a train. Would need to run 24 hours though. I get off work around 11pm. People also come up very early for work. Parking logistics would need major thought also.


----------



## benski (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> This sounds like a great idea.
> 
> You could probably run 3 electric trolleys per track if needed, but how do you get this past the Eco-nuts?
> 
> That's the problem.



You get rid of the road. Convert the base areas to car free villages. Its a big project before, but such resorts exist, most notable Zermatt. Cars the the absolute worst for the environment.


----------



## benski (Feb 7, 2019)

Also trains can be impacted by snow, I was delayed by over an hour traveling between ski areas by train in Switzerland during a storm.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 7, 2019)

benski said:


> Also trains can be impacted by snow, I was delayed by over an hour traveling between ski areas by train in Switzerland during a storm.



Cable car trains. So on tracks but over head cables moving them. Or even better-monorails 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## kingslug (Feb 7, 2019)

My friend takes pictures of the mess he sits in..posts it on fb all the time..this particular storm system was rough


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 7, 2019)

abc said:


> No, they sit in traffic AFTER the road re-opened. The point, which you're missing, is *the delay in opening the road means twice as much traffic is trying to jam into the canyon in half the time! *



How many days per season do these avalanche road closures occur, is it really a big problem that's routine, or is it only a big problem if it happens to happen to you one of the 8 days per 208 day ski season?



benski said:


> *You get rid of the road. Convert the base areas to car free villages.* Its a big project before, but such resorts exist, most notable Zermatt.



That's a bridge too far for me in terms of PITA expense + actual expense.   Now in addition to the considerable construction costs, you're also talking about mandatory operating 365 days per year, almost 24 hours a day (probably 19'ish hours) with numerous FTE and benefits, retirement etc... That's not happening.


----------



## crazy (Feb 7, 2019)

You can't get rid of the road. You can ban personal vehicles from it, but emergency response including fire and EMS need to be able to travel up and down the road. As BenedictGomez mentions too, unless public transit ran 24/7, staff and others will need to be able to get to/from in the off hours. Also, what about mountaineers and backcountry skiers who want to park at 4am to start a long, technical uphill?

Again, banning personal cars and forcing people to use some public transit solution is one option. Tolls or 100% paid parking (with some proceeds going towards improving public transit) is another solution where vehicles are allowed, but the increased costs mean less people end up driving. I will say that the increased costs may impact locals more than tourists. If I'm a tourist, who cares about $20 to park when I've already spent way, way more than that to fly there, rent a hotel, eat meals, etc. If paid parking/tolls ends up costing quite a bit, you might also see more demand for the on-mountain lodging options, which, given the inability to add supply, will drive up prices for the Cliff Lodge, Goldminer's Daughter, and so on.


----------



## abc (Feb 7, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> How many days per season do these avalanche road closures occur, is it really a big problem that's routine, or is it only a big problem if it happens to happen to you one of the 8 days per 208 day ski season?


As many days as powder days, I'm told. 

(I'm not local, *thetrailboss *might have have more concrete numbers as to how many powder days the Cottonwoods have in a season).

My understanding (and my experience) is, every time there's significant snow, they need to do avalanche mitigation on the cliffs along the road. So the road is closed. 

So it's every powder day. I've actually been there for maybe only 3 storm days. One we sat at the canyon mouth waiting for it to open. One we decided to go to Big Cottonwood instead. Both worked out. But the 3rd time, I sat in traffic for about an hour before bailing to Park City. In that last incident (2 years ago). I couldn't get close enough to even divert to BCC.


----------



## dlague (Feb 8, 2019)

I like it!  A second UT option.

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 8, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's possible that info could be in the MTN 10k, but my suspicion is it would be intentionally amalgamated rather than broken out due to both competitive reasons & negotiative reasons.



So I poked around in their 10K, and as I suspected it's not broken out, but only tacitly mentioned.


----------



## FBGM (Feb 8, 2019)

Vail Resorts = AIDS


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 8, 2019)

abc said:


> As many days as powder days, I'm told.
> 
> (I'm not local, *thetrailboss *might have have more concrete numbers as to how many powder days the Cottonwoods have in a season).
> 
> ...



So it depends.  

This season we are having a GREAT snow year.  They have had A LOT of problems with LCC.  It has impacted my skiing 3 days...out of 17 so far.  But it is aggravating because my daughter is in ski camp at Snowbird and it cost a lot of coin.  The problem is exactly what someone said--the problem is that they close the road usually from 6-8am or so.  Have to be at the mountain at 9am for ski school?  You need to leave SLC like at 6:30am or 7am and then sit in line on the road to the Canyon for an hour, 90 minutes, or more before driving up en masse with everyone else.  If you leave at even 7:15 you can be stuck for much longer.  

Then the drive down can be a mess if everyone leaves at the same time.


----------



## kingslug (Feb 9, 2019)

Funny, but I would still take that over the 5 hour drive to Stowe. But its something that needs to be addressed at some point...cause its only getting worse. 
Soon they will be saying "Alta..no one skis there..its too crowded"


----------



## crazy (Feb 9, 2019)

kingslug said:


> Funny, but I would still take that over the 5 hour drive to Stowe. But its something that needs to be addressed at some point...cause its only getting worse.
> Soon they will be saying "Alta..no one skis there..its too crowded"



Although I sympathize with the road situation in LCC and BCC, and sincerely hope that change happens soon, skiing is still so much more accessible in Utah, and frankly in Denver too on I-70, than it is for people like me who have to drive over 2 hours just to get to the NH resorts and 3.5 hours to get to the northern vermont resorts from Mass. And if it's a powder day and the roads are not great, it could take quite a bit longer to get anywhere.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 18, 2019)

just got less epic....

https://www.arapahoebasin.com/a-basinvail-end-partnership-/


----------



## gregnye (Feb 18, 2019)

gmcunni said:


> just got less epic....
> 
> https://www.arapahoebasin.com/a-basinvail-end-partnership-/




But A-basin just got better!!! So long crowds!!


----------



## Edd (Feb 18, 2019)

I’m reading this as throwing polite shade at Vail. 

“We are very proud of how wonderful Arapahoe Basin has become from the unparalleled skiing and riding to the incredible scenery. With diverse ski runs including some of the most intense terrain in North America and a culinary operation that is regularly listed among the top ten in the country, the ski area has developed a very special community that feels like home. In order to continue to build on this spirit and the experience we have created, Arapahoe Basin and Vail Resorts will not be renewing their pass partnership for the 2019/2020 season,” said Arapahoe Basin Chief Operating Officer Alan Henceroth.”




Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (Feb 18, 2019)

gmcunni said:


> just got less epic....
> 
> https://www.arapahoebasin.com/a-basinvail-end-partnership-/



Now let's start the "who do they partner with now" debate. If only peaks pass had a western option.. lol I'll keep dreaming


----------



## JimG. (Feb 18, 2019)

Good for A-basin!

Hopefully they can work out a plan to stay independent.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 18, 2019)

Edd said:


> I’m reading this as throwing polite shade at Vail.





GregoryIsaacs said:


> Now let's start the "who do they partner with now" debate. If only peaks pass had a western option.. lol I'll keep dreaming



will be interesting. if they jump to ikon that would seem to be a slap in the face to Vail.   it would be cool to see a partnership with a primarily east coast pass, would make a lot of east coasters happy with a "free" summit county vacation option.


----------



## dlague (Feb 18, 2019)

That is a game changer IMO.  We have the EPIC local pass and a third of our days if not more are spent at A Basin.  The last two years have been crazy at A Basin.  Parking is limited and fills up fast.  They even run a shuttle down to Keystone at times.

I am a veteran and A Basin does a $99 season pass including dependents.  Hope that continues.  We are now considering A Basin and Loveland.  Loveland provides 3 days of skiing at several resorts which provides variety as well.  We do not ski Vail or Beaver Creek much - been there done that.  So that will not be missed.  Breck technically is our home mountain and provides a nice alternative to Saturday on the 70 since we drive 24 and 9.

We might have consider the Ikon pass as well, but we like the October and May,June skiing at A Basin.

Everything makes sense Keystone plans on October opening and Breck is planning is staying open until Memorial Day.

So ABasin is already on the Gems Card so some partnership there would be cool.

https://www.coloradoski.com/store/gems-card-2018-2019 

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 18, 2019)

dlague said:


> Breck technically is our home mountain and provides a nice alternative to Saturday on the 70 since we drive 24 and 9.



same. i don't mind the ride and actually look forward to the spot in Hartsel where the buffalo hang out.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 18, 2019)

gmcunni said:


> same. i don't mind the ride and actually look forward to the spot in Hartsel where the buffalo hang out.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 19, 2019)

dlague said:


> That is a game changer IMO.  We have the EPIC local pass and a third of our days if not more are spent at A Basin.  The last two years have been crazy at A Basin.  Parking is limited and fills up fast.  They even run a shuttle down to Keystone at times.
> 
> I am a veteran and A Basin does a $99 season pass including dependents.  Hope that continues.  We are now considering A Basin and Loveland.  Loveland provides 3 days of skiing at several resorts which provides variety as well.  We do not ski Vail or Beaver Creek much - been there done that.  So that will not be missed.  Breck technically is our home mountain and provides a nice alternative to Saturday on the 70 since we drive 24 and 9.
> 
> ...


I have a buddy who is in the military (reserves) and always gets the $99 pass - can't beat that!


----------



## tnt1234 (Feb 19, 2019)

How do these passes work for mountains not owned by the parent company?  Like A-basin....what kind of cut did they get from pass sales?  Or did they only get paid when an epic holder skied their mountain?  How does it all work?


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Feb 19, 2019)

that's the million dollar question. 

with this decision, I'm guess it isn't much and they had hope to make money off of food and beverage from the epic pass holders.


----------



## boston_e (Feb 19, 2019)

tnt1234 said:


> How do these passes work for mountains not owned by the parent company?  Like A-basin....what kind of cut did they get from pass sales?  Or did they only get paid when an epic holder skied their mountain?  How does it all work?



I don't know if it is the same for every resort, but I read an article discussing that Sugarbush did not receive anything for being a part of Ikon (other than the hope to sell food/beverage/rentals/retail etc from the skier visits).


----------



## cdskier (Feb 19, 2019)

boston_e said:


> I don't know if it is the same for every resort, but I read an article discussing that Sugarbush did not receive anything for being a part of Ikon (other than the hope to sell food/beverage/rentals/retail etc from the skier visits).



Interesting. I find that rather difficult to believe...


----------



## Jully (Feb 19, 2019)

boston_e said:


> I don't know if it is the same for every resort, but I read an article discussing that Sugarbush did not receive anything for being a part of Ikon (other than the hope to sell food/beverage/rentals/retail etc from the skier visits).



Link to the article?


----------



## boston_e (Feb 19, 2019)

Jully said:


> Link to the article?



Trying to search for it, it was some sort of interview with Win Smith... was before ski season when i read it and found it surprising.


----------



## mikec142 (Feb 19, 2019)

crazy said:


> Although I sympathize with the road situation in LCC and BCC, and sincerely hope that change happens soon, skiing is still so much more accessible in Utah, and frankly in Denver too on I-70, than it is for people like me who have to drive over 2 hours just to get to the NH resorts and 3.5 hours to get to the northern vermont resorts from Mass. And if it's a powder day and the roads are not great, it could take quite a bit longer to get anywhere.



Drove back to NJ from Burlington yesterday in a relatively minor snowstorm.  Instead of the usual 5.5 hour trip, it was 8 hours. Granted it was the Monday of a holiday weekend and there's always a traffic jam on 87 South on this weekend.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 19, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> Drove back to NJ from Burlington yesterday in a relatively minor snowstorm.  Instead of the usual 5.5 hour trip, it was 8 hours. Granted it was the Monday of a holiday weekend and there's always a traffic jam on 87 South on this weekend.




We waited that little storm out and left later in the day and the drive took the normal time.  Almost 3" fell by the time it was over, and it was about as dry as snow gets.  You could literally blow it off you car.


----------



## kingslug (Feb 19, 2019)

It sure blew off the slopes...


----------



## machski (Feb 19, 2019)

boston_e said:


> I don't know if it is the same for every resort, but I read an article discussing that Sugarbush did not receive anything for being a part of Ikon (other than the hope to sell food/beverage/rentals/retail etc from the skier visits).


You missed a big nugget in that article.  SB and all partner resorts on Ikon get $60 or 65 (can't remember) per visit of an Ikon guest.  Obviously, they get nothing if Ikon holders don't show and even if they do, substantially below even their discounted day ticket pricing.  I would imagine Epic is similar with their partner resorts.

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## slatham (Feb 19, 2019)

Epic just got less Epic. A-Basin is pulling out of the Epic pass. Too many people on the Epic pass resulting in it being too crowded. This was always one of the issues people theorized would occur. Interesting to see if other areas over time make same decision.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 19, 2019)

boston_e said:


> Trying to search for it, it was some sort of interview with Win Smith... was before ski season when i read it and found it surprising.



I think I found it: https://vtskiandride.com/in-the-race-to-buy-ski-areas-who-wins/

Here's the quote from that article:


> Sugarbush doesn’t get any revenue from Ikon Pass sales, but Smith says that’s OK because it draws new interest in the resort. Sugarbush has also seen an increase in skier visits since it joined the Mountain Collective in 2017. Most of those were from first time skiers or skiers new to Sugarbush.
> 
> “The value of joining the Ikon Pass for Sugarbush is exposure,” said Smith. Sugarbush, which brands itself around “community,” also has a strong local following, with more of its season pass sales coming from Vermont than from any other state, including Massachusetts and New York.



The quote is interesting and at least to me a bit vague. At face value, you could take "no revenue from Ikon Pass sales" to mean they get nothing just because a pass is sold. That makes sense. It doesn't say anything about what they get when it is used at SB though. Win saying the value is "exposure" could imply that they really get nothing per use, but it could also just be him saying he sees the exposure as a benefit of joining and not meaning they really get no direct revenue sharing from usage.



machski said:


> You missed a big nugget in that article.  SB and all partner resorts on Ikon get $60 or 65 (can't remember) per visit of an Ikon guest.  Obviously, they get nothing if Ikon holders don't show and even if they do, substantially below even their discounted day ticket pricing.  I would imagine Epic is similar with their partner resorts.



If it is the article I found that you're thinking about, then I don't see that part either. What you're saying makes sense though (although in reality those numbers seem pretty high to me as it could really bite Alterra on the ass if someone used all their partner resort days). In the East alone there were 35 potential partner days for the full Ikon. At a $900 cost, that's only around $25/day they could shell out and leaves Alterra with nothing for running the pass and nothing for usage at their own resorts (never mind if someone used it days out west too). Personally I'd think the revenue sharing is more dynamic based on usage. For example maybe Alterra says 50% of Ikon revenue is theirs and the rest is split between partner resorts based on percentage of use. So if overall 5% of partner days were used at resort A, then that resort gets 5% of the 50% shareable revenue. The more partner days used overall, the less each resort gets per use. If enough days were used, they could end up seeing only a few dollars per use. I have no insight into how this really works, but that's the type of model I would envision makes the most sense.


----------



## boston_e (Feb 19, 2019)

That is indeed the article I was remembering.  Good detective work!

The first time I read it as taking it to mean they really get nothing per use, but as you mentioned it does not exclude the possibility of some revenue based on usage.

it may be different depending on the partner resort and what they have to offer / negotiate with.  Powdr Corp (for example) could be in a stronger position with being able to offer both Copper and Killington than SB is as a true independent.


----------



## abc (Feb 19, 2019)

Perhaps this is the beginning of the end? 

I've always suspect it's too good to be true that we get to ski tons of mountains for one low price. That's why I take as much advantage of it as possible and as quickly as I can manage. 

Everybody complained about the crowding at Vail resorts. But the price of the pass is so irresistible, well... 

Then came Ikon, which exaggerated the crowding of many more mountains by an even larger ratio! They made a point, to Alta, to solitude etc...

If A-basin succeed in having a healthy season AFTER leaving Vail, some other mountains (Alta?) will probably do the same. Or they may model after A-basin, join for a few years to raise their profile. Then go it alone once they believe they had created a larger following...?


----------



## cdskier (Feb 19, 2019)

abc said:


> Everybody complained about the crowding at Vail resorts. But the price of the pass is so irresistible, well...
> 
> Then came Ikon, which exaggerated the crowding of many more mountains by an even larger ratio! They made a point, to Alta, to solitude etc...



Do we really think Ikon contributes more to crowding at mountains than Epic? I would have thought sales of Epic passes were above the sales level for Ikon passes. And Ikon has far more limits for partner resorts (A-Basin was unlimited on Epic as a partner vs a max of 7 days if they were on Ikon). I'd be curious to see if A-Basin joins Ikon or maybe Mountain Collective. Their CEO already said they would be talking with other resorts and resort groups about opportunities. Could they also work to create some new smaller multi-mountain pass with only a select number of other resorts?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 19, 2019)

It's an interesting dynamic that reminds of the Yogi'ism, _"nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"._

That said, if the revenue sharing from skier visits (I'm making a big assumption that this is how it works) isnt substantial, I can see how being on one of these gigantic passes could backfire for smaller areas whose bread-and-butter is not being crowded, not having terrible parking issues, and not having long lift lines (Arapahoe Basin & Solitude come to mind).  So perhaps in that vein it makes logical sense for Arapahoe Basin to pull out of EPIC.  Given the wailing and gnashing of teeth I've seen from long-time Solitude loyalists on social media, I wonder if it perhaps doesnt make much sense for Solitude to be on IKON.  Incremental revenue is great, but not if it comes at the expense of alienating a majority of your most important customers.


----------



## abc (Feb 20, 2019)

Or it could be as simple as A-basin wanted an increase in their share of revenue sharing than Vail was prepared to give. 

A-basin’s partnership agreement was done long time ago. The industry had changed now. And with Ikon new on the market, A-basin may just want to play a wait and see game.


----------



## drjeff (Feb 20, 2019)

I also think that many mountains will start to look at the data along the lines of is the "benefit" for their core customers/passholders of being a part of a multi resort pass worth the inconvenience that having more people at that resort over the course of the season and how it may have affected their core customers experiences during the season.....

On a similar, albeit smaller level, I know that many of my regular Mount Snow friends, while we enjoy the lower cost of our Peak passes, wouldn't mind paying a bit more like we did a few years ago when Mount Snow was available on a much more limited basis to other Peak Resort passholders unless one bought their top end product that had unlimited Mount Snow days a season. We've had many a spirited discussion on the lifts and at various apres establishments about being a regular at a top tier resort on a multi resort pass and is the $$ we save on a lower priced, unlimited reciprocal privileges within the pass resorts, and how it's added to the crowds?  Now maybe if Peak bought Jay, and some of the Peak pass crowd went there instead of Mount Snow.......


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 20, 2019)

If a mountain is making more money then those that think they are the core skiers may not be their core skiers anymore. They may think they are but are they?


----------



## cdskier (Feb 20, 2019)

Here's a question with regards to crowds as a result of these cheap and/or multi-mountain passes...

Where are these crowds coming from? According to stats, skier visits are down a bit from 10 years ago and about level with where they were 20 years ago. We keep hearing growth is relatively flat.

Everyone can't possibly be seeing "more crowds" at their resort if those stats are accurate. So...

A) Some areas are seeing less visits (who?)
B) Skier visit stats are not accurate (or are MORE accurate now but were not accurate in the past)
C) Less resorts to spread skiers out so the remaining resorts are absorbing crowds (personally not buying this too much as most resorts that have gone NELSAP are smaller ones and I don't see their loss as major contributors to crowds elsewhere)
D) Change in skier habits - i.e. more people skiing weekends while less are skiing midweek
E) Other - something else I'm not thinking of at the moment
F) We're going to see a sizeable increase in skier visits when this season's stats come out


----------



## abc (Feb 20, 2019)

I'd pick A: Some areas are seeing less visits (who?)

The majority of the population are living east of the Mississippi. A small drop on each of those gazilion tiny resort can add up to be a "crowd" in A-basin/Alta/Solitude (or I-70, Cottonwood approach access).

D could be in play too. Not on purpose but a result of demographic changes. When an ice-coaster finds a job at SLC, he went from skiing a week (5 mid-week days) in Alta to skiing a bunch of weekends!

   In the east, A is definitely in play. Just look at ourselves. How many who used to ski many days in smaller resort are not skiing in the "mega" resorts just because our pass include it? 

Myself: before Vail/Max/Ikon include any eastern resorts, I split my time between Plattekill/Pico/Jay. Their lower cost day ticket has a lot to do with my choices. Last few years, I've skied mostly in resorts included in my pass. Last year, I didn't ski at Plattekill even once! That's really rare for me. 

Frankly, at $80/day at Stratton skiing with all the crowds and stuck at lift lines, I'd take $50 at Pico or Plattekill any time! But flip those numbers around: $0 at Stratton finding some window to avoid the crowd, or $50 at Plattekill with guarantee 0 crowd... It's not so clear cut any more. 

Since I only have so many days available to ski each winter. I'm not skiing more because I can ski for free (actually, I do, but up to a limit without losing my job) The days I'm skiing at Stratton is the day I'm NOT skiing at Plattekill.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 20, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> *If a mountain is making more money then those that think they are the core skiers may not be their core skiers anymore. They may think they are but are they?*



I touched on this, but IMO the additional revenue would need to be great in order to alienate your customer base significantly.  Is that likely?  We dont know, but I doubt it.  

The reality is these pass partnerships are transient & potentially not long-lasting.  So if that is indeed a given mountain's attitude, they better be careful whom they piss off in a frequently changing pass environment in which you do not retain sole decision-making power on property-mix, skier days, term, price, etc....


----------



## dlague (Feb 20, 2019)

slatham said:


> Epic just got less Epic. A-Basin is pulling out of the Epic pass. Too many people on the Epic pass resulting in it being too crowded. This was always one of the issues people theorized would occur. Interesting to see if other areas over time make same decision.


Old new discussed earlier in the thread 

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dlague (Feb 20, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Do we really think Ikon contributes more to crowding at mountains than Epic? I would have thought sales of Epic passes were above the sales level for Ikon passes. And Ikon has far more limits for partner resorts (A-Basin was unlimited on Epic as a partner vs a max of 7 days if they were on Ikon). I'd be curious to see if A-Basin joins Ikon or maybe Mountain Collective. Their CEO already said they would be talking with other resorts and resort groups about opportunities. Could they also work to create some new smaller multi-mountain pass with only a select number of other resorts?


Good point Ikon pass sales projections 250,000 passed Epic Pass (all versions) 925,000.  Last year Vail hit 950,000 passes sold.

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## boston_e (Feb 20, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> I touched on this, but IMO the additional revenue would need to be great in order to alienate your customer base significantly.  Is that likely?  We dont know, but I doubt it.
> 
> The reality is these pass partnerships are transient & potentially not long-lasting.  So if that is indeed a given mountain's attitude, they better be careful whom they piss off in a frequently changing pass environment in which you do not retain sole decision-making power on property-mix, skier days, term, price, etc....



On the flip side, I wonder if the transient skiers (who, for example, use up all their IKON days at partner resorts) tend to spend more additional money per day while there. (Do they need lodging, buy lunch, replace forgotten gloves etc etc at a much higher rate than a pass holder for that particular resort).

To me it might make sense that a "full time" pass holder for a resort is more likely to be established with lodging already, more equipped to pack lunch, less likely to forget gloves or goggles at their home, than the person who has 7 days at a variety of resorts and moves from one to the next.

In other words, who is more profitable for a resort, the season pass holder who skis 40 days, packs a lunch on most of them, never needs lodging, keeps all his gear at his place near the mountain or the IKON skier who comes 7 days a year, always buys lunch, might need lodging, maybe has to buy a piece of gear etc etc?


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 21, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Do we really think Ikon contributes more to crowding at mountains than Epic? I would have thought sales of Epic passes were above the sales level for Ikon passes. And Ikon has far more limits for partner resorts (A-Basin was unlimited on Epic as a partner vs a max of 7 days if they were on Ikon). I'd be curious to see if A-Basin joins Ikon or maybe Mountain Collective. Their CEO already said they would be talking with other resorts and resort groups about opportunities. Could they also work to create some new smaller multi-mountain pass with only a select number of other resorts?



Ikon and Epic have both had similar crowding effects even though Epic sold almost four times as many passes. It honestly depends on the existing market and the previous offerings. I think A-Basin will go to either Mountain Collective or will team up with Loveland and offer a Continental Divide pass. They could theoretically offer a free shuttle between the two resorts to help with the parking issues (it's only a 15-20 min drive) that have plagued A-Basin this year.



cdskier said:


> Here's a question with regards to crowds as a result of these cheap and/or multi-mountain passes...
> 
> Where are these crowds coming from? According to stats, skier visits are down a bit from 10 years ago and about level with where they were 20 years ago. We keep hearing growth is relatively flat.
> 
> ...



A) Smaller ski resorts, including those out of business.
B) Meh... Public companies definitely can't lie about these numbers, and private companies can twist them but straight up lying would be bad PR.
C) In 1990/91, there were 569 ski resorts in the US. 2017/18 had 472. Even in a scenario with zero growth in total visits, that's almost 20% fewer mountains for the same number of skiers.
D) The increase in development of ski-in/ski-out or within walking distance real estate has had a small, but somewhat noticeable impact. Skiers are able to wake up at the same time and be on the mountain earlier and until later. Also, with day pass prices increasing and fewer mountains offering limited hour passes (such as an afternoon or evening only pass), skiers feel inclined to ski more hours to make the day worth the price of admission.
E) High speed lifts are a small contributor. Even though a high speed quad carries the same total number of skiers per hour as a fixed grip quad, riders spend about half as much time on the lift and are then able to ski more laps, which is more time on the trail, which leads to more pileup at the base of lifts, etc. Also, more people want to ride a high speed lift compared to a fixed grip and they will tend to cluster disproportionally (meaning a parable fixed grip may have a lower ride time including lift line). This has sometimes resulted in ski resorts removing secondary lifts and some capacity.
Also the advent of "cut the line" passes at some mountains increase lines. If an average wait time is 5 minutes and there are 10 skiers, there will be 50 minutes of total wait time needed for 10 skiers to load the chair. Now, if just one of those skiers has a wait time of 0 minutes because he cuts the line with his pass, the other nine skiers need to now wait an average 5.5 minutes, which is a 10% increase. There are studies that have been done on the effect FastPass has had on ride wait times at Disney, and this is the same exact concept.
F) This has been an excellent winter out West and there was a good early season in the Northeast (hopefully good March in store as well). This should lead to skier visitation numbers above preseason expectations.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 21, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> B) Meh... Public companies definitely can't lie about these numbers, and private companies can twist them but straight up lying would be bad PR.



I didn't mean they were lying about numbers. I'm referring more to accuracy due to technology changes. Today we can get an exact skier visit count of each season passholder thanks to scanning of passes. 20 years ago we didn't have that and resorts often had to roughly estimate the number of skier visits per season pass.



skitheeast45 said:


> C) In 1990/91, there were 569 ski resorts in the US. 2017/18 had 472. Even in a scenario with zero growth in total visits, that's almost 20% fewer mountains for the same number of skiers.



Yes, but the number of mountains alone is not the key. Many of those were smaller mountains. You'd need to ideally look at the reduction in uphill capacity or something like that as a result of those ski resort closures which could change it to only a 5% reduction that needed to be redistributed elsewhere. Spread that over 472 resorts and the impact would be minimal.


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 21, 2019)

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/town_county/article_74e0e79c-ed83-5a4f-b5b6-408b365126b0.html

Jackson Hole with some hard data regarding Ikon effect.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 21, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/town_county/article_74e0e79c-ed83-5a4f-b5b6-408b365126b0.html
> 
> Jackson Hole with some hard data regarding Ikon effect.



Living here, all of those Ikon visits have happened in the last six weeks or so. I expect that when all is said and done this season, it will end up being closer to 20-25%. 

What was really amazing, is that crowds were lighter this past holiday weekend than the previous 4 or so. I have never seen that happen where holiday crowd numbers actually decrease. All due to Ikon blackouts.


----------



## Jully (Feb 21, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/town_county/article_74e0e79c-ed83-5a4f-b5b6-408b365126b0.html
> 
> Jackson Hole with some hard data regarding Ikon effect.



Less than a 14% increase, probably actually around 10% due to Ikon really isn't that bad in my book. It seems to me, at Jackson Hole at least, that the complaining about lines and resort crowds has been a thing for years as the resort experiences significant growth (3 record skier visit years in the past 5).

Ikon just gives the crowds a name to yell in frustration. There's no saying that Jackson wouldn't have 8% higher skier visits this year without the Ikon too.


----------



## Jully (Feb 21, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Living here, all of those Ikon visits have happened in the last six weeks or so. I expect that when all is said and done this season, it will end up being closer to 20-25%.



If that is true then I take back my other post. 20-25% would be a legit increase due to just one pass product and not offset that much by declining ticket sales.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 21, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/town_county/article_74e0e79c-ed83-5a4f-b5b6-408b365126b0.html
> 
> Jackson Hole with some hard data regarding Ikon effect.



This quote made me laugh....



> “But there’s no question it’s more crowded, and there are a lot more skiers who are not good skiers out there.”


----------



## gladerider (Feb 21, 2019)

jackson hole grew so much over the last 2 decades. during my last visit, i checked the real estate listing and i was shocked how expensive the houses were. 
reading the comments on the bottom of that article, i noticed that the unhappy locals think that these ikon pass holders have access to their mountain for free. i have an ikon pass. i don't think each day i visit is free. yes, i bought cheap lift tickets, but not free.
this is an industry trend. they can't really do anything about it. with increased skier days, the resort revenues go up. it is a simple economics.
looks like the resort has some work to do if the visitors are saying they won't come back.


----------



## Jully (Feb 21, 2019)

gladerider said:


> jackson hole grew so much over the last 2 decades. during my last visit, i checked the real estate listing and i was shocked how expensive the houses were.
> reading the comments on the bottom of that article, i noticed that the unhappy locals think that these ikon pass holders have access to their mountain for free. i have an ikon pass. i don't think each day i visit is free. yes, i bought cheap lift tickets, but not free.
> this is an industry trend. they can't really do anything about it. with increased skier days, the resort revenues go up. it is a simple economics.
> looks like the resort has some work to do if the visitors are saying they won't come back.



Hadn't looked at the comments. Some are hilarious. They're talking about "free" days everywhere on the pass... that is what the pass is - a bunch of days at a bunch of places.

At its core it is an interesting concept though - maybe in future years Jackson may demand fewer days on Ikon. Who knows if 4 v. 7 days actually would decrease the number of people there on Ikon. I feel like the average ski vacation does not include more than 4 days of skiing.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 21, 2019)

gladerider said:


> reading the comments on the bottom of that article, i noticed that the unhappy locals think that these ikon pass holders have access to their mountain for free. i have an ikon pass. i don't think each day i visit is free. yes, i bought cheap lift tickets, but not free.
> this is an industry trend. they can't really do anything about it. with increased skier days, the resort revenues go up. it is a simple economics.



Well, not necessarily.  I doubt that the "revenue share" is very significant for the partner resorts.  A lot of the non-Alterra resorts are banking on increased traffic meaning more food and beverage revenue, lodging revenue, or other services to make up for the fact that Ikon or Epic Passholders aren't paying full window rate.  And at least from what I have seen and heard from staff, these pass visitors aren't buying food or lodging to make up for the discount.  So revenues are only up slightly while traffic is up.  Plus, a lot of these deals are reciprocal deals...so as a Snowbird passholder I get X free days at Solitude or wherever.  So Snowbird uses that to market to me and to get me to buy a Snowbird pass.  This is another reason why Ikon, for example, doesn't have to pay Snowbird a lot for a passholder to ski for a day.  

The bigger issue is that folks like me pay full freight for a resort pass and are now getting less of a quality experience because the place is getting flooded by people skiing their "free days" on a discounted pass at another resort.  So what is starting to happen at places like A-Basin, Jackson Hole, and Alta-Bird is that the resort passholders are getting upset at the resort for the wheeling and dealing.  The point that the anger is displaced onto the Ikon/Epic Passholders is accurate.  The real problem is the resort management for not getting the balance right.

And on another note the sense of entitlement from the "local" Jackson Hole skiers is simply breathtaking.


----------



## gladerider (Feb 21, 2019)

thetrailboss said:


> Well, not necessarily.  I doubt that the "revenue share" is very significant for the partner resorts.  A lot of the non-Alterra resorts are banking on increased traffic meaning more food and beverage revenue, lodging revenue, or other services to make up for the fact that Ikon or Epic Passholders aren't paying full window rate.  And at least from what I have seen and heard from staff, these pass visitors aren't buying food or lodging to make up for the discount.  So revenues are only up slightly while traffic is up.  Plus, a lot of these deals are reciprocal deals...so as a Snowbird passholder I get X free days at Solitude or wherever.  So Snowbird uses that to market to me and to get me to buy a Snowbird pass.  This is another reason why Ikon, for example, doesn't have to pay Snowbird a lot for a passholder to ski for a day.
> 
> The bigger issue is that folks like me pay full freight for a resort pass and are now getting less of a quality experience because the place is getting flooded by people skiing their "free days" on a discounted pass at another resort.  So what is starting to happen at places like A-Basin, Jackson Hole, and Alta-Bird is that the resort passholders are getting upset at the resort for the wheeling and dealing.  The point that the anger is displaced onto the Ikon/Epic Passholders is accurate.  The real problem is the resort management for not getting the balance right.
> 
> And on another note the sense of entitlement from the "local" Jackson Hole skiers is simply breathtaking.



are you saying that the resort revenues are not up due to increased traffic? i don't buy that. i don't have any facts and it is purely an assumption of mine, but increased traffic has to have a net positive impact on the revenue and i am not talking about revenue sharing.
i don't see how a skier visiting a resort cannot spend any money. i would think that it is the pass holders who do not spend any money on the resort other than their passes.

time will tell. where i come from, it's all about the $. if JHMR comes off of the ikon in the next few years, that would be because they are not seeing the net positive impact on their bottom line. if they stay, they are experiencing the net positive impact. time will tell.  

regarding the sense of entitlement you mentioned. yes. there certainly is a vibe of exclusivity. with the real estate so highly priced, i don't know where all the workers live. i bet they come from far away each day or cram into places.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 21, 2019)

gladerider said:


> are you saying that the resort revenues are not up due to increased traffic? i don't buy that. i don't have any facts and it is purely an assumption of mine, but increased traffic has to have a net positive impact on the revenue and i am not talking about revenue sharing.



Sure, revenue is up, but not as much as you think.  For example, if you have 50 more skiers coming, but they are not buying any food, beverages, or lessons, then you have 50 more bodies on the slopes, but not necessarily the full amount of revenue potential that you planned.  Resorts actually use a formula based on their skier days to project how much revenue they will make.  So in this case, if I am a manager, I am banking on these folks to enjoy their "free day" but then to buy a couple beers or to grab some souvenirs, or in other words to generate me more money on this skier day to recoup my loss on not getting the rack rate on the skier or rider.  And, anectdotally at least to this point, it sounds as if this "other" revenue is not happening.  And the question is if the ski area is losing business from someone who either would buy a season pass or pay full freight but now won't because the lines are too long or the parking lot is too full and they drive on to the next place.

So sure, for example if Alterra is paying you $30 for the day, you have $1,500 more in revenue.  But honestly you want those 50 people to buy other things to make more money.  The issue is if it is worth the crowding, wear and tear, increased demands on infrastructure to bring in that minimal amount of money. Some are now saying it is not.  It will be interesting to see if any resorts do change the Ikon/Epic reciprocal deals.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 21, 2019)

thetrailboss said:


> Well, not necessarily.  I doubt that the "revenue share" is very significant for the partner resorts.  A lot of the non-Alterra resorts are banking on increased traffic meaning more food and beverage revenue, lodging revenue, or other services to make up for the fact that Ikon or Epic Passholders aren't paying full window rate.  And at least from what I have seen and heard from staff, these pass visitors aren't buying food or lodging to make up for the discount.  So revenues are only up slightly while traffic is up.  Plus, a lot of these deals are reciprocal deals...so as a Snowbird passholder I get X free days at Solitude or wherever.  So Snowbird uses that to market to me and to get me to buy a Snowbird pass.  This is another reason why Ikon, for example, doesn't have to pay Snowbird a lot for a passholder to ski for a day.
> 
> The bigger issue is that folks like me pay full freight for a resort pass and are now getting less of a quality experience because the place is getting flooded by people skiing their "free days" on a discounted pass at another resort.  So what is starting to happen at places like A-Basin, Jackson Hole, and Alta-Bird is that the resort passholders are getting upset at the resort for the wheeling and dealing.  The point that the anger is displaced onto the Ikon/Epic Passholders is accurate.  The real problem is the resort management for not getting the balance right.
> 
> And on another note the sense of entitlement from the "local" Jackson Hole skiers is simply breathtaking.



Allegedly Jackson gets 80-82 bucks a day. AND Vail offered more to be on Epic but the owners hate Vail so told them to pound sand. 

Retail and F&B are down revenue wise despite the increase in visits. Exactly how much my source would not say. The juice is not worth the squeeze when you give up the customer that will spend 5k on a new ski kit when they arrive and then literally leave it in their Four Seasons room when they depart in trade for a couple brown bag 25 year old bros from Colorado that stay in the Motel 6. 80% of the skier visits is better if they spend buku bucks. 

Call it entitlement, but when you go from being the premier resort in the country to taking anyone and their mother who shows up is going to change the locals opinion. We had a great thing here, and now it is changing. No one likes it when things change from great to _________. That being said, there are some dudes who do take a bit to far. It is just skiing and Jackson's terrain hasn't changed. It is still rad, just different. 

I got yelled at last weekend by a 60 year old lady for skiing fast 50 yards away from her. People ski fast in Jackson? Who'd a thunk that? We had a great system for lift mazes, now its just a bunch of ikoners cutting lines. This never happened before. 

We are also in a major housing crunch and there is no staff to handle this increase in people. The product has suffered as a result. No one likes this.

I suspect the Ikon is going to get more expensive for less days to try and even this stuff out.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 21, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Retail and F&B are down revenue wise despite the increase in visits. Exactly how much my source would not say. The juice is not worth the squeeze when you give up the customer that will spend 5k on a new ski kit when they arrive and then literally leave it in their Four Seasons room when they depart in trade for a couple brown bag 25 year old bros from Colorado that stay in the Motel 6. 80% of the skier visits is better if they spend buku bucks.



Bingo.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 21, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Allegedly Jackson gets 80-82 bucks a day.



Do you think that is a reliable number? If one person uses all 7 of their JH days, that would nearly eat up the price of the Ikon pass and not leave much for Alterra themselves (or for any other resorts that Ikon days are used at).



> I suspect the Ikon is going to get more expensive for less days to try and even this stuff out.



I could definitely see the structure changing next year. This was the first year so a lot to learn on how to do it right.


----------



## gladerider (Feb 21, 2019)

time will tell


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 21, 2019)

More Epic


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 21, 2019)

gmcunni said:


> More Epic
> View attachment 24644




My belief is the MTN domestic organic growth is likely drying up, and they need to "search" for growth internationally. The company has not done well recently & shed something like 1/3 of its' stock price.

   I also suspect they're feeling the crunch of others getting into their season pass game and starting to put a not insignificant dent in their bread & butter.  If the MTN margin starts to drop, it will point to my being correct, but time will tell.   Personally I HATE these pass wars & the artificially high single day ticket prices they've created, which I believe is negative for the entire sport of alpine skiing long-term, so I am actively rooting for MTN to fail.    I was glad to see Arapahoe Basin bolt, but it will mean nothing if they simply join a different mega-pass in 2019/20.


----------



## Zermatt (Feb 22, 2019)

Somebody please explain how Jackson gets $80 a day for my Ikon visits? (Note, I think I paid $599 for my Ikon Pass)

In reality I believe they receive next to nothing for a visit so in the view of somebody that paid for a full season pass my Ikon visits are "free".  That would bother the crap out of me if I had a full pass as a local. Ironically, their jobs and entire winter economy is based on skier visits so they need to find the right balance.


----------



## drjeff (Feb 22, 2019)

billo said:


> Somebody please explain how Jackson gets $80 a day for my Ikon visits? (Note, I think I paid $599 for my Ikon Pass)
> 
> In reality I believe they receive next to nothing for a visit so in the view of somebody that paid for a full season pass my Ikon visits are "free".  That would bother the crap out of me if I had a full pass as a local. Ironically, their jobs and entire winter economy is based on skier visits so they need to find the right balance.



I wonder if it's more like Jackson, as a "premiere name" resort on the Ikon pass, gets $80 per Ikon scanned at their resort regardless of if the passholder uses it 1 time or the max number of times, rather than $80 for each day each Ikon pass is scanned at the resort?


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 22, 2019)

billo said:


> Somebody please explain how Jackson gets $80 a day for my Ikon visits? (Note, I think I paid $599 for my Ikon Pass)
> 
> In reality I believe they receive next to nothing for a visit so in the view of somebody that paid for a full season pass my Ikon visits are "free".  That would bother the crap out of me if I had a full pass as a local. Ironically, their jobs and entire winter economy is based on skier visits so they need to find the right balance.



Well Jackson and Aspen are the premier resorts on the pass. It is not unreasonable to think they get a much higher daily rate than say Sunday River, which totally relies purely on volume of skier visits to make their money, both pre and post Ikon. 

Ikon is betting on people not spending a full 7 days in Jackson or Aspen and a whole lot more days at Winter Park. I suspect they underestimated the volume of use it would get. Despite this, even if they pay 80 bucks for each 100K additional skier visit that is still only 8 million on 8800 passes or so. That isn't a lot ultimately. We'll see when pricing comes out. 

8 million buys you a mid-level ski place in Jackson. It isn't a lot of money to ruin the reputation of a resort worth probably a billion dollars.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 22, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Do you think that is a reliable number? If one person uses all 7 of their JH days, that would nearly eat up the price of the Ikon pass and not leave much for Alterra themselves (or for any other resorts that Ikon days are used at).
> 
> 
> 
> I could definitely see the structure changing next year. This was the first year so a lot to learn on how to do it right.



It is a small town ultimately. I trust my source but it could be different, but I doubt by much. I do know that at 154 a day it is barely above wholesale.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 22, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Ikon is betting on people not spending a full 7 days in Jackson or Aspen and a whole lot more days at Winter Park. I suspect they underestimated the volume of use it would get. Despite this, even if they pay 80 bucks for each 100K additional skier visit that is still only 8 million on 8800 passes or so. That isn't a lot ultimately. We'll see when pricing comes out.



Exactly.  I think there will be an adjustment this coming season.



> 8 million buys you a mid-level ski place in Jackson. It isn't a lot of money to ruin the reputation of a resort worth probably a billion dollars.



I agree.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 22, 2019)

billo said:


> *Somebody please explain how Jackson gets $80 a day for my Ikon visits? *(Note, I think I paid $599 for my Ikon Pass)
> 
> In reality I believe they receive next to nothing for a visit so in the view of somebody that paid for a full season pass my Ikon visits are "free".  That would bother the crap out of me if I had a full pass as a local. Ironically, their jobs and entire winter economy is based on skier visits so they need to find the right balance.



Yeah, there is no chance that that is factually correct, it simply doesnt work.  The concept Dr. Jeff laid out is far more reasonable, though I'd suggest it too is likely not reality.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 22, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yeah, there is no chance that that is factually correct, it simply doesnt work.  The concept Dr. Jeff laid out is far more reasonable, though I'd suggest it too is likely not reality.



I agree. I find it difficult anyone in the finance department at Alterra would have signed off on giving JH (or anyone) a relatively high fixed amount per day and simply "hoping" that not too many JH days were used in order to make the financial numbers work. There's way too much risk involved with that. I can absolutely see JH getting a significantly larger amount per day than other resorts such as Sunday River, Killington, Sugarbush, etc. But I still think it either needs to have a maximum ceiling built in (i.e. we'll give you $80 a day up to a maximum of 1000 days) or be some sort of weighted percentage sharing. Alterra had to somehow protect themselves from the possibility of a lot of days being used in one place.

Definitely will be interesting to see the pricing and structure for next season. Of course if they want to continue to market themselves as an alternative to Epic however, then I don't think they can substantially change the price. Reducing the number of days at partner resorts (or even just certain partner resorts) seems likely though.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 22, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yeah, there is no chance that that is factually correct, it simply doesnt work.  The concept Dr. Jeff laid out is far more reasonable, though I'd suggest it too is likely not reality.



Come on Bene, do the math. Even if Alterra sells half the amount of passes as the Epic, and all of them were the 599 pass, and Jackson gets 120K Ikon visits, that is still under 4% of overall pass revenue. That is worst case scenario for the Alterra/Jackson relationship. Even if that happened at all the partner resorts, that still leaves over 100 million in Alterras pocket to run the resorts they own, before even touching other revenue streams like f&b, retail and lessons. 

The numbers absolutely work for Alterra in the sense there is no way they are losing money. I think they are going to raise the cost primarily because the demand justifies it and they want more profit, which I suspect is not at the level they want. 

The real question is do the numbers work for Jackson, which I think given the loud and numerous complaints they are getting here locally, they don't.


----------



## Zermatt (Feb 22, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> The real question is do the numbers work for Jackson, which I think given the loud and numerous complaints they are getting here locally, they don't.



So it doesn't work for Jackson, it doesn't work for Alta/Snowbird...and who else? Aspen, Deer Valley?

Then who is left?  I have a feeling 19/20 will be very different.


----------



## machski (Feb 22, 2019)

billo said:


> So it doesn't work for Jackson, it doesn't work for Alta/Snowbird...and who else? Aspen, Deer Valley?
> 
> Then who is left?  I have a feeling 19/20 will be very different.


Aspen and Deer Valley are staying on the Ikon, they are a part of Alterra after all (just considered their Elite or Luxury group, thus the no unlimited days on Ikon).

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 22, 2019)

machski said:


> Aspen and Deer Valley are staying on the Ikon, they are a part of Alterra after all (just considered their Elite or Luxury group, thus the no unlimited days on Ikon).
> 
> Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app



Right.  Alterra owns Deer Valley.  Aspen is an owner of Alterra.  It is a bit confusing.  Alterra is a merger of KSL and Crown.  Crown owns Aspen IIRC.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 22, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Come on Bene, do the math. Even if Alterra sells half the amount of passes as the Epic, and all of them were the 599 pass, and Jackson gets 120K Ikon visits, that is still under 4% of overall pass revenue. That is worst case scenario for the Alterra/Jackson relationship. Even if that happened at all the partner resorts, that still leaves over 100 million in Alterras pocket to run the resorts they own, before even touching other revenue streams like f&b, retail and lessons.



I thought I read somewhere IKON is only running at about 25% of EPIC numbers, but maybe I'm misremembering.   At any rate, $80 a pop is too much.  I cannot believe JH would be given that much juice and other resorts accept merely "a drop of juice" by comparison.  If JH were the 1 premier option on that pass, I could understand it in a plausible loss-leader marketing fashion, but there are plenty of fantastic IKON resorts already that I dont see why passing JH a huge portion of pass sales to those who ski there would be that necessary.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 22, 2019)

Dude seriously, do the math. Alterra brought in a couple hundred million dollars from this pass. They can front the cash. It isn't unlimited to Jackson at 80 bucks per visit, they capped it for a reason.

You are basically just stating your opinion, which in this case, you have nothing to base off of other than your gut. I know their wholesale numbers, 80 is right in line with lift tickets being the better part of 160 bucks. 

Jackson, and Aspen, have always been in another league compared to any other resort in the country. They are going to get more. These are the premier resorts in the country, if not the world, and you are talking about them like Sugarloaf and Loon are direct competitors. Places like that SHOULD be getting a lot less. The market has already determined this prior to Ikon. You think the ownership of Jackson was like, sure give me the same rate as Loon? Please. 

It sure feels like they are slumming it with the Ikon clientele. Maybe they are just trying to fluff overall skier visits to maximize the resorts value prior to selling the joint, which is the other rumor floating around the tram dock.....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 22, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Dude seriously, do the math. Alterra brought in a couple hundred million dollars from this pass. They can front the cash. It isn't unlimited to Jackson at 80 bucks per visit, they capped it for a reason.
> 
> You are basically just stating your opinion, which in this case, you have nothing to base off of other than your gut. I know their wholesale numbers, 80 is right in line with lift tickets being the better part of 160 bucks.



I never said I'm absolutely correct, I just think your rumor is likely false.   Is it possible your $80 figure is right?  Sure.  The math you lay out is not impossible, I just see it as completely unnecessary for Alterra to pay that much.    This coincides with the fact that I dispute your belief that Jackson Hole is the most desirable ski destination in The Milky Way Galaxy.  Jackson Hole is high volume, but it sees fewer skier visits than several western resorts that are already on IKON (Mammoth, Steamboat, etc).  Again, possible?  Sure.  But if so I have no idea why Alterra would want JH so bad that it would literally give away most of its' pass revenue every time someone vacations there.  Seems neither likely, nor logical.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 22, 2019)

Yeah ok, Jackson isn't considered a premier ski area now? We can nit pick the number 1 place in the country but you are probably the first person that wouldn't consider it in the running. 

You cannot see why Alterra wouldn't want a couple jewels in their crown? Winter park is great and all but not exactly worth bragging about.


----------



## machski (Feb 22, 2019)

Look, bottom line is partner resorts on Ikon DO make revenue from each day used at their resorts.  I know this because I asked the question at SR that where I am a Gold NE passholder and an Ikon base passholder, is there a financial incentive for the mountain to use my 5 days off the Ikon.  The answer was yes.

Now, I don't know what that revenue $ is per day, I didn't ask for specifics as I figured I wouldn't get those.  It may not be huge, but there is something for the partner resorts.  They are not just getting flooded by Ikon passes and not getting a dime from the visit 

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 22, 2019)

Quit bitching and ski somewhere else. If you protest with your wallet then they might see what multi-resort passes are doing. Bitching here will lead to nothing. WAAAAHHHHH!


----------



## Jully (Feb 22, 2019)

machski said:


> Look, bottom line is partner resorts on Ikon DO make revenue from each day used at their resorts.  I know this because I asked the question at SR that where I am a Gold NE passholder and an Ikon base passholder, is there a financial incentive for the mountain to use my 5 days off the Ikon.  The answer was yes.
> 
> Now, I don't know what that revenue $ is per day, I didn't ask for specifics as I figured I wouldn't get those.  It may not be huge, but there is something for the partner resorts.  They are not just getting flooded by Ikon passes and not getting a dime from the visit
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app



Haha so if I wanted to give more money to SR I should use my Ikon days there (also SR passholder and Ikon)?


----------



## drjeff (Feb 22, 2019)

Sounds like the underlying thing is that if folks like multi resort passes with resort collaboration verses single company ownership, that buying a burger and a beer or 3 at the resort might help convince the collaboration resort GM's/Owners to stay part of the collaboration verses getting out since the revenue gain isn't commensurate with the added skier visits....

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 24, 2019)

Ikon will probably change their pass structure next year, meaning adding passes with more restrictions, to solve some of these problems. The non-Alterra mountains may like to remain independent, but they see the future and the reality is that the number of visitors flying in was decreasing as Epic expanded into the Midwest unless they got on board with special deals (ie discounts for people with season passes at other resorts or some partnership pass). They also understand Mountain Collective will probably die, as Snowbasin/Sun Valley are going Epic and releasing a new pass next year with unlimited at both (and possibly limited days at other resorts) and Aspen/Squaw/Mammoth are going Ikon only. These mountains all have good relationships with Aspen/Alterra from Mountain Collectice and are therefore more willing to join Ikon as an add-on instead of going Epic. They may not like where the future is going, but from a business perspective, adapt or die.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 24, 2019)

https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/18/arapahoe-basin-epic-pass-vail-resorts-split/

https://sgbonline.com/alterra-cmo-erik-forsell-talks-ikon-pass-success-industry-consolidation-more/


----------



## gladerider (Feb 25, 2019)

after this thread, i got more interested and did some reading. here is a good article that aligns to my thinking. 
ultimately, i think the resorts like JHMR have to make a decision. bet on the passes or against them. if given the option, i'd rather take the growing pain option like the a-basin's parking lot issue rather than deal with low skier traffic. interesting times for a skier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ses-are-great-for-ski-buffs-until-they-re-not


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 25, 2019)

^ interesting read.   

The guy they quoted from Magic Mountain has the same fear I posted about a few pages back, that EPIC/IKON are going to be destructive to the future of skiing from a "new skier/new snowboarder growth" standpoint.


----------



## gladerider (Feb 26, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> ^ interesting read.
> 
> The guy they quoted from Magic Mountain has the same fear I posted about a few pages back, that EPIC/IKON are going to be destructive to the future of skiing from a "new skier/new snowboarder growth" standpoint.



agree. the strategy seems to be:
1- increase the daily lift ticket prices forcing the skiers to buy up one of these passes
2- once you are on one of these passes, you are unlikely to visit a mountain not on your pass (which supports your point about these passes being negative to new skier growth)
3- buy up smaller mountains around the country to feed their premier destinations in the rockies paying premium $ for everything
4- keep improving the mountain portfolio to take the the leadership position

looks like there is quite a bit more consolidation left in the next few years. but i think this article is spot on.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 26, 2019)

Ikon pricing remains virtually the same for next year, 50 dollar increase

Jackson stays on the pass. 

This is the current lift line situation: 



Traffic just to park extends almost 10 miles all the way into town. This is unsustainable.

Teton pass is closed so I'm extra salty about the whole thing but Targhee looks better and better despite its boring terrain.


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Ikon pricing remains virtually the same for next year, 50 dollar increase
> 
> Jackson stays on the pass.
> 
> ...



Jesus when were these taken? Looks like mount snow on Presidents day weekend! I can only imagine what the tram line looked like! It really is getting out of control. Im thinking for next year I may go somewhere totally off the beaten path like southern CO


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 26, 2019)

These were the webcams as of 10 minutes or so ago.


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> These were the webcams as of 10 minutes or so ago.



There is nothing better in this world than hundreds of Goretex wearing hardos trying to "get theirs"!


----------



## xlr8r (Feb 26, 2019)

https://www.ikonpass.com/en/2019-2020-ikon-pass-on-sale

Looks to be the same for New England next year, just cost $50 more.  Surprised at how unchanged it is from this year.  I will stay with Epic Local again next year if this is all Ikon is going to offer for New England


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 26, 2019)

GregoryIsaacs said:


> There is nothing better in this world than hundreds of Goretex wearing hardos trying to "get theirs"!



I wonder what percentage of those skiers are Ikon pass holders hoping to catch a glimpse of some celebrity or business mogul drenched in expensive champagne and what percentage are local hangers-on silently fuming about Ikon pass holders.


----------



## slatham (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> These were the webcams as of 10 minutes or so ago.



On a non holiday Tuesday? Strike JHMR from my to do list.

I may follow GregoryIssacs and just head to non EPIC/IKONIC resorts.

This will be their downfall. That and ignoring those new - or wanting to try - the sport.

I am joining a group of guys at Stowe next weekend 3/9-10 (thanks to the "Buddy Pass" discounts). How have crowds been at Stowe?


----------



## NYDB (Feb 26, 2019)

Omg


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (Feb 26, 2019)

slatham said:


> This will be their downfall. That and ignoring those new - or wanting to try - the sport.



Exactly! Try going through that website as if you had never skied before... it would make ZERO sense on what you are actually buying....

Can someone even find a link that describes what mountains come unlimited and the blackout days with the base pass?

That website just makes me angry for no reason! I get you have 38 resorts but knowing when you can and cant ski them would be a nice addition!


----------



## cdskier (Feb 26, 2019)

GregoryIsaacs said:


> Exactly! Try going through that website as if you had never skied before... it would make ZERO sense on what you are actually buying....
> 
> Can someone even find a link that describes what mountains come unlimited and the blackout days with the base pass?
> 
> That website just makes me angry for no reason! I get you have 38 resorts but knowing when you can and cant ski them would be a nice addition!



Full details were posted in the past for last season's passes. I suspect more details will be posted for next year's pass before they actually go on sale. Perhaps they are still finalizing some details (for example maybe "up to 7 days at 23 destinations" doesn't mean all 23 destinations will be 7 days. Maybe some will be more restricted with fewer days).


----------



## p_levert (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> These were the webcams as of 10 minutes or so ago.



Check it now: https://www.jacksonhole.com/live-mountain-cams.html

Not bad at all.  I think you're scaring us with an early morning pinch point.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Ikon pricing remains virtually the same for next year, 50 dollar increase
> 
> Jackson stays on the pass.



Give it's non-hoiday mid-week, are you absolutely certain there are no extenuating circumstances leading to that line?   Avy work going on elsewhere, a lift or lifts closed, etc....


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 26, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Give it's non-hoiday mid-week, are you absolutely certain there are no extenuating circumstances leading to that line?   Avy work going on elsewhere, a lift or lifts closed, etc....



Here's the bottom of Apres Vous yesterday.


----------



## snoseek (Feb 26, 2019)

I totally get why these things are getting bought up. I think it will sharply increase as well...word is out. 

With that said fuck this pass. The holiday weekend was the slowest weekend for a while, in reality it brings way more people to the same already busy mountains, everyone funneling to the same resorts. I've bought alot of day tickets to obscure mountains on my days off this year. I guess this is the future of skiing.


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> These were the webcams as of 10 minutes or so ago.



That was taken at opening this morning when all lifts were delayed due to avalanche control, so everyone was just standing around waiting. I therefore wouldn't call that an accurate depiction of the mountain today.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 26, 2019)

That is a 1 hour long + lift line. That sucks no matter how you want to slice it.


----------



## gregnye (Feb 26, 2019)

Nothing can be as bad as this. Not my photo. Was posted on here (or maybe another forum I forget) a few years ago. Taken at Vail Resorts (the village)


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> That was taken at opening this morning when *all lifts were delayed due to avalanche control*, so everyone was just standing around waiting. I therefore wouldn't call that an accurate depiction of the mountain today.



Ahhhh, my guess was correct.   Thank the lord for Jackson Hole's sake, that looked..... horrible.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2019)

snoseek said:


> * The holiday weekend was the slowest weekend for a while, in reality it brings way more people to the same already busy mountains, everyone funneling to the same resorts. I've bought alot of day tickets to obscure mountains on my days off this year. I guess this is the future of skiing.*



I do not believe so.    

My prediction is that this entire thing falls apart within 10 years, and Robert Katz's name will become something of a joke or a "remember when" in ski circle conversation much the way Les Otten is today.  

Why?  Because while the pass sales data may look great today, I do not believe this is a financially sustainable model long-term.


----------



## jaytrem (Feb 26, 2019)

19/20 Ikon details are out.  My gamble that it would be god for the end of 18/19 has paid off.  No I can start planning next years spring trip.  We're going some place warm, where the beer flows like wine, where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano, I'm talking about a little place called Aspen!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2019)

jaytrem said:


> We're going some place warm, where the beer flows like wine, where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano,* I'm talking about a little place called Aspen!*



It was actually Breckenridge, Park City, and Copper Mountain!


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 26, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Ahhhh, my guess was correct.   Thank the lord for Jackson Hole's sake, that looked..... horrible.



Avi danger is indeed quite high, but it is high quite often at a mountain that averages 450" of snow a year. This happened yesterday, and Sunday. And 4 times last week, and so on and so on. Delayed openings of 15-45 minutes happen a couple dozen times per year. This is not an aberration but the new normal this year.


----------



## mbedle (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Avi danger is indeed quite high, but it is high quite often at a mountain that averages 450" of snow a year. This happened yesterday, and Sunday. And 4 times last week, and so on and so on. Delayed openings of 15-45 minutes happen a couple dozen times per year. This is not an aberration but the new normal this year.



I would say that the avalanche danger is at an all time high, considering they closed the back country gates for the first time every.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 26, 2019)

This is not true, not even two years ago the pass was closed for almost a week and so was the village due to conditions. We had more snow at all elevations then as well. 

It is like you guys are rooting for Jackson to suck.


----------



## Zermatt (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> This is not true, not even two years ago the pass was closed for almost a week and so was the village due to conditions. We had more snow at all elevations then as well.
> 
> It is like you guys are rooting for Jackson to suck.



The village was closed because all the power lines got blown down in a bad wind storm.

Something just doesn't add up for the crowds at Jackson. Where are all these people staying?  There are only so many beds within reasonable driving distance from Jackson.  If 100% occupancy in your hotels/rentals means hour long lift lines something is wrong.  I have to imagine resorts in CO have close to 100% occupancy in peak weeks and they don't have lift line disasters.  Are there just thousands of additional people couch surfing and living in campers?


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 26, 2019)

jaytrem said:


> 19/20 Ikon details are out.  My gamble that it would be god for the end of 18/19 has paid off.  No I can start planning next years spring trip.  We're going some place warm, where the beer flows like wine, where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano, I'm talking about a little place called Aspen!



Doesn't look like the specific day allocation for the partner resorts has been set yet...at least from my read of the site.


----------



## Kleetus (Feb 26, 2019)

jaytrem said:


> 19/20 Ikon details are out.  My gamble that it would be god for the end of 18/19 has paid off.  No I can start planning next years spring trip.  We're going some place warm, where the beer flows like wine, where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano, I'm talking about a little place called Aspen!


Headed there in a couple weeks. Very stoked to see if the legends of flocking women are true [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G892A using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2019)

it does look like the full pass was reduced to 7 days per place. wasn't it 9 this year?

i'll almost definitely go ikon base again, but i'd really love to see them add jay and a catskills spot to round out my eastern skiing.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 26, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> This is not true, not even two years ago the pass was closed for almost a week and so was the village due to conditions. We had more snow at all elevations then as well.
> 
> It is like you guys are rooting for Jackson to suck.


I don't know about rooting for Jackson to suck, but I'm guessing many of the people questioning you don't realize that you've been a resident of the area for what? A decade?

If you say the crowds are at all time highs, I'm certainly not going to question you.

Unfortunately for you, I don't see Jackson pulling out of Icon.  Too much of a high end resort these days. A-Basin being just a ski area and a major metro day trip destination can be a little more nimble.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Feb 26, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> it does look like the full pass was reduced to 7 days per place. wasn't it 9 this year?
> 
> i'll almost definitely go ikon base again, but i'd really love to see them add jay and a catskills spot to round out my eastern skiing.



Was 7 and 5 this year too. Wouldn't be shocking if access was reduced at places this next year though.

It's interesting how we're talking about Ikon/Alterra (and I personally believe they might) cares about crowds and/or the partner resorts on the pass might have the leverage to force a change. We don't have those conversations for Epic/Vail. I haven't heard how Telluride and other Epic partners crowds were, but I can't imagine they're substantially better than JHMR or LCC experienced this year.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 26, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> it does look like the full pass was reduced to 7 days per place. wasn't it 9 this year?
> 
> i'll almost definitely go ikon base again, but i'd really love to see them add jay and a catskills spot to round out my eastern skiing.



No, it was 7 this year for the full (although I still interpret the website the same way trailboss does with it perhaps not being a full 7 at all destinations).

I don't think I see Jay being added to any multi-mountain pass until they are sold and we see who ends up buying them. Anywhere in the Cats being added to Ikon is just wishful thinking for people in the NJ/NY area. I don't see any chance of that happening. They just don't fit the Ikon resort destination profile.


----------



## Jully (Feb 26, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't know about rooting for Jackson to suck, but I'm guessing many of the people questioning you don't realize that you've been a resident of the area for what? A decade?
> 
> If you say the crowds are at all time highs, I'm certainly not going to question you.
> 
> ...



Could places have signed multi year deals with Ikon? Just because we don't see changes this year might not mean the resorts don't want change.

While I agree the industry is moving towards Epic/Ikon or bust since an interesting plurality of destination skiers have one, AdironRider is right in that Jackson Hole is special. There was no Ikon, but they were setting skier records in recent seasons.

Unless the owners are trying to really maximize profit in the short term, then I'd expect they could do absolutely fine on their own. I know nothing about the owners intentions though, but AR made it seem like they might care about that.


----------



## Zermatt (Feb 26, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> it does look like the full pass was reduced to 7 days per place. wasn't it 9 this year?
> 
> i'll almost definitely go ikon base again, but i'd really love to see them add jay and a catskills spot to round out my eastern skiing.



No, it was 7.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 26, 2019)

Jully said:


> It's interesting how we're talking about Ikon/Alterra (and I personally believe they might) cares about crowds and/or the partner resorts on the pass might have the leverage to force a change. We don't have those conversations for Epic/Vail. I haven't heard how Telluride and other Epic partners crowds were, but I can't imagine they're substantially better than JHMR or LCC experienced this year.



Interesting point, but I think some of that also has to do with the fact that some of our regular members here on AZ happen to have close ties to JH and Utah. Do we have anyone that lives in or near Telluride? They're the only US-based Epic partner if I remember correctly.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2019)

ah, my mistake.

just caught up on the thread.

i haven't really experienced any insane crowding at ikon resorts this year, and i've skied all holiday times.

copper and winter park over x-mas week. no problems really. 

copper and a-basin over mlk weekend. really bad traffic up i-70, and we knew enough to get to a-basin early to avoid a parking nightmare, but lift lines were never really bad

revelstoke, lake louise, and sunshine last week. no lines. maybe a few at louise on the snowy saturday. nothing bad.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 26, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Interesting point, but I think some of that also has to do with the fact that some of our regular members here on AZ happen to have close ties to JH and Utah. Do we have anyone that lives in or near Telluride? They're the only US-based Epic partner if I remember correctly.



crested butte is also partnered with epic. and stevens pass wa, which i would bet money is a shitshow.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 26, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> crested butte is also partnered with epic. and stevens pass wa, which i would bet money is a shitshow.



They're not partners...Vail bought them.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 26, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> *i haven't really experienced any insane crowding at ikon resorts this year, and i've skied all holiday times.
> *
> copper and winter park over x-mas week. no problems really.
> 
> copper and a-basin over mlk weekend. really bad traffic up i-70, and we knew enough to get to a-basin early to avoid a parking nightmare, but lift lines were never really bad



Doesn't shock me.  I'd suspect the vast majority of IKON passholders are on the pass that blocks out holidays.   

Thus, ironically, I wouldn't expect holiday IKON crowding, as the economics of IKON are more sensible on the cheaper pass, as 5 days per mountain is enough for most vacationers, and there's only a handful of dates blocked.  The pricier pass makes no sense for most skiers, with the exception of some CA, CO, and UT locals, etc.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 26, 2019)

Well they now added info to the FAQ section on the Ikon 19/20 announcement page that lists the resorts included with each pass and how many days. Full 7 (or 5) even at JH.

There goes the theory they would adjust for next year.


----------



## Zand (Feb 26, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Well they now added info to the FAQ section on the Ikon 19/20 announcement page that lists the resorts included with each pass and how many days. Full 7 (or 5) even at JH.
> 
> There goes the theory they would adjust for next year.



They could always change things but I'd hope they wouldnt be low enough to make negative changes.


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 26, 2019)

Ikon just wants to start selling the passes at the beginning of March and did a rough check with all of the partners to make sure the existing deals were working out well. Like last year, they will continue to tinker with the destinations and days over the course of the offseason. 



KustyTheKlown said:


> ah, my mistake.
> 
> just caught up on the thread.
> 
> ...



I was at Stratton for MLK/President's Day and Tremblant over New Year's. For Stratton, MLK had shorter lines than President's Day and they were both crazy long. However, not the longest I have seen in my 100+ times skiing there even though the base lodge was possibly the most crowded(I attribute this to Snow Bowl Express spreading people out). I haven't been to Tremblant quite enough times to adequately judge what ridiculously busy meant, but it was an absolute mess in terms of lines when I was there and employees were saying it was the most crowded they had ever seen it. A-Basin has mentioned that lift lines are not their choking point, rather parking is, so your assessment makes sense. Winter Park and Copper (especially) are both on pace for record years in terms of skier visits, so maybe you are skiing the mountain well or "crowded" for them is different than "crowded" for you.



BenedictGomez said:


> I do not believe so.
> 
> My prediction is that this entire thing falls apart within 10 years, and Robert Katz's name will become something of a joke or a "remember when" in ski circle conversation much the way Les Otten is today.
> 
> Why?  Because while the pass sales data may look great today, I do not believe this is a financially sustainable model long-term.



The difference between Les Otten and Robert Katz is that Otten was able to boost revenue but the profits never kept up with the mounting debt while Katz has boosted revenue and profits with manageable debt. As of October 2018, Vail had a debt to equity ratio of 1.15, which puts it in the 39th percentile for large companies (almost middle of the pack). Companies with D/E ratios below 1.5 are generally considered solid.

The part that I do believe is unsustainable is partnership mountains. Either A) Ikon or Epic is paying a non-Vail/Alterra mountain (ie Telluride or Jackson Hole) too much per ski day ($70? $80?) where they will lose more revenue from the partnership than they would gain otherwise (ie they will pay maybe $150k to the resort but only gain $130k more in additional revenue as a result of the partnership), or B) The partner mountains are getting paid too little or nothing at all per skier day and are losing more revenue in potential ticket/pass sales without the partnership than they are gaining in total revenue from the partnership (ie Snowbasin or Sugarbush get only $20 per skier day plus an average of $30 in ancillary spending from 100k Epic/Ikon skiers for $5m in revenue while 50k of those skiers would have purchased passes directly from the mountain anyway for $80 per skier day plus the same $30 in ancillary spending for $5.5m in revenue). Before Vail purchased Triple Peaks, they had recently started a partnership for the Epic Pass similar to what Telluride has but both sides realized it made more sense for Triple Peaks to sell.

A pass that I think could work in the future for independent mountains is something like the Mountain Collective of Max Pass where no one resort conglomerate is the anchor, meaning money can be split more easily. Alternatively, a season pass at one mountain that comes with a couple 2 days or so at a few other mountains could work (this is the Power Pass). For example, the Arizona Snowbowl season pass comes with 3 days at Copper, Marmot, and a number of other mountains. If that was my home mountain/pass, I would spend a week at one of those mountains for a ski trip because I get a few days free but would still have to buy a few days worth of lift tickets. Basically gives me a discount but still gives the mountains additional revenue.


----------



## abc (Feb 27, 2019)

Debate as much as you like. Don’t buy Ikon because some unnamed internet dude pin some pictures on the web. It’ll be even shorter lift line for me!

Ive put in 20+ days in various Ikon mountains. I didn’t see anything like in the picture. But to keep proper perspective, Jackson at opening had always shocked me with their lines. I’ve gone to Jackson quite a few times BEFORE Ikon was a “thing”. That said, I had pretty good luch with snow in Jackson. So the lines may have something to do with that!


----------



## Zermatt (Feb 27, 2019)

Zand said:


> They could always change things but I'd hope they wouldnt be low enough to make negative changes.



Not once they start selling passes. Any negative changes would result in lawsuits.


----------



## cdskier (Feb 27, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> Ikon just wants to start selling the passes at the beginning of March and did a rough check with all of the partners to make sure the existing deals were working out well. Like last year, they will continue to tinker with the destinations and days over the course of the offseason.



Tinker with destinations by possibly adding someone else, sure. Tinkering with number of days by offering less days than already stated at some resorts, not a chance once it goes on sale. You can't advertise as one thing and then take things away once you start selling them. Last year the only tinkering they did with days was adding some (i.e. allowing 7 at each of SR, SL, Loon instead of 7 combined as originally announced).


----------



## drjeff (Feb 27, 2019)

billo said:


> Not once they start selling passes. Any negative changes would result in lawsuits.





cdskier said:


> Tinker with destinations by possibly adding someone else, sure. Tinkering with number of days by offering less days than already stated at some resorts, not a chance once it goes on sale. You can't advertise as one thing and then take things away once you start selling them. Last year the only tinkering they did with days was adding some (i.e. allowing 7 at each of SR, SL, Loon instead of 7 combined as originally announced).



Bingo.... Short of a resort listed on the pass closing, taking anything away from what is listed at the start of sales is just asking for a major problem (even if it only affects a few people), whereas adding extras on top of an already specified list of benefits will 99.99% of the time never create a problem


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 27, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> Ikon just wants to start selling the passes at the beginning of March and did a rough check with all of the partners to make sure the existing deals were working out well. Like last year, they will continue to tinker with the destinations and days over the course of the offseason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would never ski those ikon places in the east on a holiday. That is asking for trouble. Tremblant on a holiday weekend is a unique hell. Magic, Burke, Bolton, Platty, etc are where you ski the east on a holiday.

And BG, I have the base level pass, I’ve just visited the resorts out west that aren’t blacked out for holidays


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 27, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> I would never ski those ikon places in the east on a holiday. That is asking for trouble. Tremblant on a holiday weekend is a unique hell. Magic, Burke, Bolton, Platty, etc are where you ski the east on a holiday.
> 
> And BG, I have the base level pass, I’ve just visited the resorts out west that aren’t blacked out for holidays



I love Magic and have skied there before when they have reached their lift ticket cap... it can be worse than any other mountain! Last year I skied Magic when only Red was operating (as Black was down as usual) when they reached peak and stopped selling day passes and they had a 45 min wait for the lift. Perhaps the opening of the Green Chair has helped with this problem, as I have never been there at peak this season. If I wanted to avoid the crowds skiing a normal weekend, I would go to one of the mountains you mentioned. If I wanted to avoid the crowds skiing a holiday weekend, I wouldn't go skiing.


----------



## Zand (Feb 27, 2019)

Didn't wait in a single line at Sunday River on President's day.


----------



## NYDB (Feb 27, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> I love Magic and have skied there before when they have reached their lift ticket cap... it can be worse than any other mountain! Last year I skied Magic when only Red was operating (as Black was down as usual) when they reached peak and stopped selling day passes and they had a 45 min wait for the lift. Perhaps the opening of the Green Chair has helped with this problem, as I have never been there at peak this season. If I wanted to avoid the crowds skiing a normal weekend, I would go to one of the mountains you mentioned. If I wanted to avoid the crowds skiing a holiday weekend, I wouldn't go skiing.



Re: Magic - Once the new black is running there will be no more lines.  I actually think they could run Black (as a quad) and green (and skip red)  and be good on a holiday weekend in the future.


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 27, 2019)

NY DirtBag said:


> Re: Magic - Once the new black is running there will be no more lines.  I actually think they could run Black (as a quad) and green (and skip red)  and be good on a holiday weekend in the future.



That is true. However, I think I read that they will be increasing their daily ticket sales cap once the Black 2.0 opens next year, so maybe not as big of an impact as it would otherwise be. Still, that lift will be a game changer for the mountain.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 27, 2019)

Jully said:


> Was 7 and 5 this year too. Wouldn't be shocking if access was reduced at places this next year though.
> 
> It's interesting how we're talking about Ikon/Alterra (and I personally believe they might) cares about crowds and/or the partner resorts on the pass might have the leverage to force a change. We don't have those conversations for Epic/Vail. I haven't heard how Telluride and other Epic partners crowds were, but I can't imagine they're substantially better than JHMR or LCC experienced this year.



Well....Telluride is nowhere near a major city.  LCC is in the SLC metro area.  Telluride is a destination area.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## nycskier (Feb 27, 2019)

jaytrem said:


> 19/20 Ikon details are out.  My gamble that it would be god for the end of 18/19 has paid off.  No I can start planning next years spring trip.  We're going some place warm, where the beer flows like wine, where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano, I'm talking about a little place called Aspen!



Unfortunately the free spring skiing at most Ikon resorts doesnt start until April 8th so my gamble that I could use it in March turned up snake eyes! If it was valid from 3/5 when they go on sale I probably could have put 4 to 10 days on the pass before next season even began.


----------



## machski (Feb 27, 2019)

thetrailboss said:


> Well....Telluride is nowhere near a major city.  LCC is in the SLC metro area.  Telluride is a destination area.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


And let me just say, it's not just LCC in SLC.  BCC is pretty bad too on the weekend.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 27, 2019)

machski said:


> And let me just say, it's not just LCC in SLC. * BCC is pretty bad too on the weekend.*



And with both Solitude & Brighton now on the pass, I assume this is solely the IKON effect?

I recall many posters on here loving Brighton & Solitude partially because of how "empty" they always are.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 27, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> And with both Solitude & Brighton now on the pass, I assume this is solely the IKON effect?
> 
> I recall many posters on here loving Brighton & Solitude partially because of how "empty" they always are.



Yep.  BCC was always quiet. Now not so much...


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## skitheeast45 (Feb 28, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> And with both Solitude & Brighton now on the pass, I assume this is solely the IKON effect?
> 
> I recall many posters on here loving Brighton & Solitude partially because of how "empty" they always are.



I would not be surprised to see Alterra invest in a new lift at Solitude this summer to combat the Ikon effect. It's traffic is way up due to it being the only unlimited resort in the area, although the 7 days at Brighton, Deer Valley, and Alta/Snowbird have helped. Solitude's hourly lift capacity is only 16,600 and Brighton's is 13,200. For comparison, Alta's is 16,840 and Snowbird's is 18,500, so LCC has an hourly capacity 5,540 (~18%) above BCC, which was fine when BCC had less traffic, but creates problems when the canyons start having similar amounts of traffic. A new Sunrise detachable at Solitude and new lift either in between Milly and Crest or east of Great Western at Brighton could be game changers.


----------



## crazy (Feb 28, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> I would not be surprised to see Alterra invest in a new lift at Solitude this summer to combat the Ikon effect. It's traffic is way up due to it being the only unlimited resort in the area, although the 7 days at Brighton, Deer Valley, and Alta/Snowbird have helped. Solitude's hourly lift capacity is only 16,600 and Brighton's is 13,200. For comparison, Alta's is 16,840 and Snowbird's is 18,500, so LCC has an hourly capacity 5,540 (~18%) above BCC, which was fine when BCC had less traffic, but creates problems when the canyons start having similar amounts of traffic. A new Sunrise detachable at Solitude and new lift either in between Milly and Crest or east of Great Western at Brighton could be game changers.



Does Brighton own the backcountry between Milly and Crest? If it's Forest Service land they would have to go through a long process to make it part of their resort lease, and Save Our Canyons would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. Save Our Canyons wants the current resort boundaries to stay in place forever, and for mountains like Alta with private land holdings outside of their current skiable acreage to give up those private land holdings to backcountry skiers.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 28, 2019)

crazy said:


> Save Our Canyons would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. *Save Our Canyons wants the current resort boundaries to stay in place forever, and for mountains like Alta with private land holdings outside of their current skiable acreage to give up those private land holdings to backcountry skiers.*




Reading between the lines, I'm pretty sure Save Our Canyons wants the ski areas to close forever and have bicycles, solar powered buses, and non-farting unicorns, as the only LCC/BCC access. 

 Reviewing their stuff, they seem to be a mixed-bag of 50:50 eco-extremists & selfish backcountry hogs cobbled together for the same goal.  It's really a shame, because OneWasatch would lead to massive economic expansion for the entire area.


----------



## slatham (Feb 28, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> That is true. However, I think I read that they will be increasing their daily ticket sales cap once the Black 2.0 opens next year, so maybe not as big of an impact as it would otherwise be. Still, that lift will be a game changer for the mountain.



That would be a good problem for them to have. IMHO a fully functioning Black quad added to Red and Green will add more capacity than the resulting increase in skier visits, at least initially. Possible (and obvious) exception is a full on Powder Day over a holiday weekend. I was there on such a day this year - MLK Sunday - and even with that crowd the addition of a Quad would have all but eliminated the lines. Now what none of us know is, how many people stayed away that day knowing that with Black not running lines would be long? And how many people were turned away after reaching cap (someone here does know this).

On the pass discussion, I would hope that Mountain Collective and Freedom pass might form some viable third option that might include Magic and other independents.

I stand by my prediction that overcrowding on holiday weekends (or even normal weekends) will force a radical change to these passes, and in the process probably turn off a bunch of people to the skiing experience. Lose lose.


----------



## machski (Feb 28, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> I would not be surprised to see Alterra invest in a new lift at Solitude this summer to combat the Ikon effect. It's traffic is way up due to it being the only unlimited resort in the area, although the 7 days at Brighton, Deer Valley, and Alta/Snowbird have helped. Solitude's hourly lift capacity is only 16,600 and Brighton's is 13,200. For comparison, Alta's is 16,840 and Snowbird's is 18,500, so LCC has an hourly capacity 5,540 (~18%) above BCC, which was fine when BCC had less traffic, but creates problems when the canyons start having similar amounts of traffic. A new Sunrise detachable at Solitude and new lift either in between Milly and Crest or east of Great Western at Brighton could be game changers.


From what I saw on Sunday, Brighton seemed like they were getting packed in early but Solitude was no problem getting in or parking.  They did have cars outside on the road at the end of the day, but the place really quieted down after noon time, hardly a line anywhere after that.  I felt lines at Solitude were fine for a weekend, not bad at all.  They could use a better flow into the lift and RFID gates, but the lift capacity seemed more than adequate.  Perhaps a 6 on the summit and then move that quad to replace Eagle which has to be one of the oldest Dopp HSQ's still in full service.

As to Brighton, a transfer lift over the parking lot between Millie and main Lodge would be nice.  The problem there is all the choice terrain you see is mostly OB, kind of sad.  My guess is they don't own any of it nor have access rights to it.  So it is likely what it is.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 28, 2019)

slatham said:


> I stand by my prediction that overcrowding on holiday weekends (or even normal weekends) will force a radical change to these passes, and *in the process probably turn off a bunch of people to the skiing experience.* Lose lose.



The far greater threat to the industry is that people never start skiing & snowboarding in the first place due to the artificially high single-day ticket rates.  *And you cannot model this.*

Here's my allegory for what I believe is currently in the early days of taking shape in the US ski industry.

Imagine you find an enormously large lake, and there is a very tasty species of fish in that lake.  The lake is positively teeming with fish.  So instead of fishing poles, one day you decide to start using very large nets to harvest as many fish as possible at once, and suddenly you're making money hand-over-fist selling fish.  This lake is so vast and with so many disconnected regions where the fish come from, that it is initially difficult, if not nearly impossible to realize that after 10 or 12 years, you're starting to see fewer & fewer small fish.  In fact, you may not even notice this harmful phenomena for a while given the number of medium to big fish in the lake still seem relatively plentiful.  Eventually this "over-harvesting" catches up to the entire fishing industry and harms everyone connected to the lake.

I've seen this before in other industries, which is a big part of why I genuinely believe Katz is going to ultimately fail, and I also genuinely believe it will look to nearly all observers as if he's wildly successful, right up until the point that he isnt.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 28, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> The far greater threat to the industry is that people never start skiing & snowboarding in the first place due to the artificially high single-day ticket rates.  *And you cannot model this.*
> 
> Here's my allegory for what I believe is currently in the early days of taking shape in the US ski industry.
> 
> ...



I don't know man, I think the ski industry went away from the affordable mom and pop places a long time ago. Sure there are a few holdouts like McIntyre or Suicide Six, but the vast majority of kids and adults who get into skiing are already relatively well off. This was the case even back in the day. 

Even if lift tickets are 20 bucks, you still need to drive a substantial distance, have a full kit of winter gear, rentals, food. The sport has never been THAT affordable and while they are basically holding steady overall with skier visits, I don't think you are going to see the industry completely die off in 10 years.


----------



## FBGM (Feb 28, 2019)

Vail is such a cancer to the ski community. Just drove past that truck stop off I-70 last week and almost puked.


----------



## abc (Mar 1, 2019)

> Even if lift tickets are 20 bucks, you still need to drive a substantial distance, have a full kit of winter gear, rentals, food. The sport has never been THAT affordable and while they are basically holding steady overall with skier visits, I don't think you are going to see the industry completely die off in 10 years.


somehow, the Europeans managed to get to the Alps, rent/buy ski gear & winter clothing, feed themselves during the ski days!

either them Europeans are a lot wealthier than Americans, or this “skiing being a rich man’s sport” aren’t really true.


----------



## mbedle (Mar 1, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Reading between the lines, I'm pretty sure Save Our Canyons wants the ski areas to close forever and have bicycles, solar powered buses, and non-farting unicorns, as the only LCC/BCC access.
> 
> Reviewing their stuff, they seem to be a mixed-bag of 50:50 eco-extremists & selfish backcountry hogs cobbled together for the same goal.  It's really a shame, because OneWasatch would lead to massive economic expansion for the entire area.



That might just be one of your best responses. non-farting unicorns... lol BG you just made my morning.


----------



## mbedle (Mar 1, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> The far greater threat to the industry is that people never start skiing & snowboarding in the first place due to the artificially high single-day ticket rates.  *And you cannot model this.*
> 
> Here's my allegory for what I believe is currently in the early days of taking shape in the US ski industry.
> 
> ...



I wonder how many people actually learn to ski or ride at the major resorts compared to the smaller and mid size resorts. Day pass prices at the smaller to mid-size resorts are still pretty low and affordable. Even Vails feeder hill resorts have pretty reasonable day passes. I just don't see the buying up of the major resorts and increasing their day pass prices being a major deterrent to the majority of people that want to learn to ski or ride.


----------



## urungus (Mar 1, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> I don't know man, I think the ski industry went away from the affordable mom and pop places a long time ago. Sure there are a few holdouts like McIntyre or Suicide Six, but the vast majority of kids and adults who get into skiing are already relatively well off. This was the case even back in the day.



Weekend ticket to Suicide Six is $75 which is pretty expensive for a hill of its size.


----------



## tumbler (Mar 1, 2019)

mbedle said:


> I wonder how many people actually learn to ski or ride at the major resorts compared to the smaller and mid size resorts. Day pass prices at the smaller to mid-size resorts are still pretty low and affordable. Even Vails feeder hill resorts have pretty reasonable day passes. I just don't see the buying up of the major resorts and increasing their day pass prices being a major deterrent to the majority of people that want to learn to ski or ride.



I think a great number of people buy packages of lessons, groups, etc that are all inclusive with equipment and lift ticket at the big resorts.  All resorts offer deals and everyone nowadays is looking for deals.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 1, 2019)

mbedle said:


> I wonder how many people actually learn to ski or ride at the major resorts compared to the smaller and mid size resorts. Day pass prices at the smaller to mid-size resorts are still pretty low and affordable. Even Vails feeder hill resorts have pretty reasonable day passes. I just don't see the buying up of the major resorts and increasing their day pass prices being a major deterrent to the majority of people that want to learn to ski or ride.



Even some of these smaller hills are being bought as Vail & Alterra have grown increasingly acquisitive.  But frankly, regardless of who owns the small hills, the more important thing is that Vail & Alterra have massively boosted their lift ticket prices, and as a consequence price inflation is already bleeding through to the smaller hills.   As a "non-pass person" I have definitely noticed this over the last 5'ish years, single day tix at non-IKON, non-Vail resorts are on the rise.  Jay Peak is ~$90 now.  Little Smuggs is ~$80, etc....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 1, 2019)

tumbler said:


> *I think a great number of people buy packages of lessons, groups, etc that are all inclusive with equipment and lift ticket at the big resorts.*  All resorts offer deals and everyone nowadays is looking for deals.



Everyone should, but my belief is that it's a far smaller percentage of people than you might think.  I worked at Stowe's Ski School for 6 seasons, and admittedly with no sort of study or way to prove this, it is my belief from my experience that more people either show up with ski shop rentals and buy a lift ticket, or get ski rentals at the mountain but forego the beginner lesson.


----------



## skitheeast45 (Mar 1, 2019)

Lift ticket prices are up across the board because costs have simply increased drastically. Making snow instead of relying on natural snow is a significant cost increase in terms of electricity usage, creating a water pipe network, etc. Additionally, ski lifts are more expensive to install than ever before (even fixed grips) because of less competition and more regulation. The government agreements with resorts on federal/state land are also often lopsided and, unfortunately, create another fixed cost variable, as resorts have to pay a fee per skier day (instead of a flat rate which could lower costs with higher traffic).



crazy said:


> Does Brighton own the backcountry between Milly and Crest? If it's Forest Service land they would have to go through a long process to make it part of their resort lease, and Save Our Canyons would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. Save Our Canyons wants the current resort boundaries to stay in place forever, and for mountains like Alta with private land holdings outside of their current skiable acreage to give up those private land holdings to backcountry skiers.




I am not sure who the owner is, but I do know at least some of it is within Brighton's SUP. And yes, Save Our Canyons will put up a fight, but they have time and time again and yet Snowbird built out Mineral Basin and has plans to do the same in Mary Ellen Gulch. It's such a shame Save Our Canyons, a group with the intention of protecting the environment, attacks the one industry that relies on the environment so much that it is trying as hard as it can to prevent climate change, keep as much of the natural beauty as possible, etc. They would be better off going after polluters in SLC, trying to build a train or gondola in BCC/LCC to replace car traffic, etc.


----------



## ss20 (Mar 1, 2019)

Word on the gondi today at Killington was over President's week they sold out of rentals and started putting bindings on entry-level skis for sale from their shops...

I'm finishing my 5th season teaching at my local hill...can't say I've noticed an increase or decrease in lessons from my eye-ball view.  More foreign nationalities though.  I've also noticed this at other resorts I visit in the northeast.


----------



## mrvpilgrim (Mar 1, 2019)

some mountains are making the effort to make learning more affordable with first time programs and low cost tickets to the learning slopes
My home mountain is Sugarbush
Last weekend my daughter had a non skier friend up for the weekend
2 hour first timer group lesson(which turned out to be a private as she was the only one signed up), rentals for the day,plus a beginners lift ticket for the day came to about $115
not listed at the ticket window but always available is a $30 ticket good on the magic carpet and the village lift
while I am not familiar with other mountains offering I believe most must offer similar opportunities


----------



## machski (Mar 2, 2019)

Sunday River offers a beginner ticket for $40 good on the Sundance Carpet, South Ridge Express Quad and Little White Cap Quad.  With LWC thrown in, that accesses so nice terrain including a couple decent glades off LWC.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## crazy (Mar 2, 2019)

mrvpilgrim said:


> some mountains are making the effort to make learning more affordable with first time programs and low cost tickets to the learning slopes
> My home mountain is Sugarbush
> Last weekend my daughter had a non skier friend up for the weekend
> 2 hour first timer group lesson(which turned out to be a private as she was the only one signed up), rentals for the day,plus a beginners lift ticket for the day came to about $115
> ...





machski said:


> Sunday River offers a beginner ticket for $40 good on the Sundance Carpet, South Ridge Express Quad and Little White Cap Quad.  With LWC thrown in, that accesses so nice terrain including a couple decent glades off LWC.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app



Many beginners don't realize that this is all the terrain that they need to learn on. Sugarbush and Sunday River are awesome mountains with loads of terrain, but for someone who is just starting to learn how to ski, all of that terrain is overkill and most of it inaccessible. The package deals for true beginners of lift ticket + rentals + group lessons are often a really good deal. Even though their skiing friends might be talking about big mountains like Sugarbush, Sunday River, Killington, Stowe, etc. true beginners are much better off sticking to smaller, independent resorts to learn. Near Boston, I would direct beginners to Ski Bradford, Nashoba Valley, Ski Ward. Yes, they're small and don't have a lot of terrain, but they're cheap and great to learn on. 

When people talk about the cost of day tickets at the most expensive mountains in the country discouraging people to get into skiing in the first place, I think they're forgetting the bigger picture. Lift ticket + rentals + group lesson combos for true beginners are relatively affordable, even at big resorts. More than that, true beginners should be learning at small, regional mountains (or even hills) that have much lower day ticket prices. Plus, let's not forget that day tickets are merely one piece of a large puzzle: look at how much transportation and equipment costs just to be able to get to the hill and ski when you get there!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 2, 2019)

crazy said:


> When people talk about the cost of day tickets at the most expensive mountains in the country discouraging people to get into skiing in the first place, I think they're forgetting the bigger picture.* Lift ticket + rentals + group lesson combos for true beginners are relatively affordable*, even at big resorts.



And it has always been that way.

The problem is, at least from my experience, many people arent even aware that exists, or do, but have no interest in going a "package" route to for a variety of reasons.  I cannot emphasize enough how many first-time skiers show up at a resort expecting to pay the single day lift ticket price, THEN at the resort learning there are better options.  Well, you cant get them "to" the resort if they are frightened away from sticker shock.  This is the fear I have, which is apparently echoed by some in the industry according to that article posted a few pages back.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 3, 2019)

I have a cousin who recently moved to Tokyo.  It somewhat surprised me to hear how relatively affordable the skiing is there as you often here about how expensive Japan is.

$140 gets you a lift ticket to Kagura, high end rental and round trip ticket on a bullet train from Tokyo roughly two hours away. 

Not "cheap", but certainly less expensive than I was expecting. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Mar 3, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> I have a cousin who recently moved to Tokyo.  It somewhat surprised me to hear how relatively affordable the skiing is there as you often here about how expensive Japan is.
> 
> $140 gets you a lift ticket to Kagura, high end rental and round trip ticket on a bullet train from Tokyo roughly two hours away.
> 
> ...



That's awesome. Same thing in Winter Park CO would be $250.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 3, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> Lift ticket prices are up across the board because costs have simply increased drastically. Making snow instead of relying on natural snow is a significant cost increase in terms of electricity usage, creating a water pipe network, etc. Additionally, ski lifts are more expensive to install than ever before (even fixed grips) because of less competition and more regulation. The government agreements with resorts on federal/state land are also often lopsided and, unfortunately, create another fixed cost variable, as resorts have to pay a fee per skier day (instead of a flat rate which could lower costs with higher traffic).



I'm not sure I agree with your snow-making cost argument for many resorts in the northeast. When were resorts relying more on natural snow vs making snow in the northeast? Snow-making could arguably be one of the costs that has actually decreased in the past 5-10 years due to substantially less energy costs required to make snow thanks to low-e equipment.

Even for the cost of lift installs, sure they have gone up, but it seems many resorts have also slowed down putting in new lifts and instead try to extend the life of their current ones as long as possible.

The more I think about it, the less I think lift ticket prices going up across the board is due to drastic cost increases. If that was true, season pass prices would be going up substantially as well. In reality, those prices have come down at many resorts. In my view, the bottom line is that many areas now prefer to "lock in" a bigger percentage of their annual revenue and reduce the variability of how many day tickets are sold. The day ticket prices are being driven up to try to push more people towards the guaranteed revenue of a season pass. Don't get me wrong, costs in many areas have without a doubt gone up, but I still don't believe that is actually what is the main driver behind day ticket prices increasing so much.


----------



## skitheeast45 (Mar 4, 2019)

cdskier said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your snow-making cost argument for many resorts in the northeast. When were resorts relying more on natural snow vs making snow in the northeast? Snow-making could arguably be one of the costs that has actually decreased in the past 5-10 years due to substantially less energy costs required to make snow thanks to low-e equipment.



Climate change has resulted in less snowfall. For example, Stratton averages 180" per year because they typically receive between 160-200". However, in recent years that has trended towards 140-180". That 2 foot difference also comes throughout the season in terms of additional rain, so now more snowmaking is needed to not only make up for the lost snow but also account for the harmful rain. Many resorts have also instituted earlier/later opening/closing dates months before the season starts. When the mountain will open on X day and close on Y day regardless of the weather, they often need to supplement Mother Nature to achieve these goals. You are right that snow guns are more energy efficient, which does make the operating costs lower, but these guns are more expensive so there is a higher upfront cost that is a big deal for some resorts. Additionally, it has become the norm to expand snowmaking to most trails on the mountain in an effort to have as much terrain open as possible. 



cdskier said:


> Even for the cost of lift installs, sure they have gone up, but it seems many resorts have also slowed down putting in new lifts and instead try to extend the life of their current ones as long as possible.



The reason many smaller resorts have resulted to secondhand chair and extending the lives of current chairs is because of the cost of a new lift. Newer lifts have additional technology to enhance the lift experience for both maintenance workers, lift operators, and riders, but that technology comes at a cost. Smaller resorts who have kept prices low tend to not have new fancy lifts while mountains with higher prices tend to have new fancy lifts.



cdskier said:


> The more I think about it, the less I think lift ticket prices going up across the board is due to drastic cost increases. If that was true, season pass prices would be going up substantially as well. In reality, those prices have come down at many resorts. In my view, the bottom line is that many areas now prefer to "lock in" a bigger percentage of their annual revenue and reduce the variability of how many day tickets are sold. The day ticket prices are being driven up to try to push more people towards the guaranteed revenue of a season pass. Don't get me wrong, costs in many areas have without a doubt gone up, but I still don't believe that is actually what is the main driver behind day ticket prices increasing so much.



That is absolutely true and the entire logic behind the Epic Pass first launching ten years ago. The whole idea is to have revenue guarantees to stabilize profits/revenue year over year as the industry had previously been very erratic in terms of yearly profits.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> Climate change has resulted in less snowfall.



No; it hasnt.


----------



## ss20 (Mar 4, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> No; it hasnt.



^^^^ correct.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2019)

ss20 said:


> ^^^^ correct.



Are you guys denying the claim that there has been less snow or the claim that the reason there has been less snow is climate change?

Data from the EPA suggests there has been a trend toward less snow and more rain recorded at U.S. weather stations during winter months from 1930-2007:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-snowfall

Whether these data are indicative of climate change is, of course, a further question.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 4, 2019)

And another thread has gone into the climate change debate.....

:roll:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> *Are you guys denying the claim that there has been less snow or the claim that the reason there has been less snow is climate change?*



Yes, ergo yes (i.e. both).

And we don't have to speculate, because snowfall is one of the few things we have durable weather records for.  

The best snowfall data we have for Vermont is not Stratton, but Burlington.  We have ~130 years of reliable data with a mean snowfall of ~73 inches per year, and for 15 of the last 20 years the snowfall has been > 73 inches in Burlington.  That is a significant 50% increase in delta from mean in the last 20 years.  


So no, no matter how many times you hear this nonsense, "climate change" is not killing our ski resorts.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2019)

thetrailboss said:


> And another thread has gone into the climate change debate.....



Not necessarily.  Skitheeast45 made a reasonable claim that the costs of running a ski resort have gone up in part because there has been less snow and more rain in recent years.  I thought that was interesting and did a quick Google search that revealed data to back that up.  Other people may have data to the contrary.  It is a question of the relationship between increased reliance on snowmaking and regional snowfall rates.  Perhaps there is a better/fuller explanation of why resorts may be more reliant on snowmaking today, many of which skitheeast45 already mentioned in his/her interesting and informative post.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2019)

thetrailboss said:


> And another thread has gone into the climate change debate.....
> 
> :roll:



The good news is, this one is so easily debunked there wont be much of a debate.

And prima facie, even if you 100% believe in man-made global warming, if people just stop and think about how small the flipping temperature variance is over the last 100 years it should be pretty obvious there wouldn't be a huge change in snowfall.  LOL  

Just goes to show that if people keep hearing something repeated 1000 times, eventually they'll believe it (SEE: availability heuristic)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> And we don't have to "speculate", because snowfall is one of the few things we have durable weather records for.



Agreed, although the broader data set in the EPA study does suggest a trend toward less snow and more rain in the contiguous U.S. over a 77 year period.  Burlington may be a statistical outlier.  Of course, snowmaking wasn't a thing for most of those years, so the EPA data do not necessarily support an explanation for increase in snowmaking costs.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> And prima facie, even if you 100% believe in man-made global warming, if people just stop and think about how small the flipping temperature variance is over the last 100 years it should be pretty obvious there wouldn't be a huge change in snowfall.  LOL



That depends on the average temperatures at which most snow falls.  A difference in 1 degree can mean the difference between snow and rain.  If most snow falls within the 31/32 degree range, then slight changes in temperature could have significant effects on average snowfall.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> the broader data set in the EPA study does suggest a trend toward less snow and more rain in the contiguous U.S. over a 77 year period.



Does it?  

I wonder why the EPA (in 2014) chose 1930 as their starting point given there's widely available data long before that.   I sure hope it doesn't have anything to due with the fact that the 30'ish years prior was generally a fairly unsnowy time period in most places.  

You may want to consider the political nature of your source, which is why I prefer just looking at the raw data when possible (like this raw data, which is mostly UNDER the mean 76 inches of snowfall recorded during a 130 year period).


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Does it?
> 
> I wonder why they chose 1930 as their starting point given there's widely available data long before that.



I agree 100% that authors cherry-pick data that support their positions. I was curious too see whether snowfall has decreased over the past century or not and the EPA study provided the only evidence I found one way or the other.  I have no vested interest in what the correct answer turns out to be - just interested in what it is.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> I have no vested interest in what the correct answer turns out to be - just interested in what it is.



And I have no interest in turning this into a climate change thread.  I just wanted to demonstrate with 130'ish years worth of data, (the largest data-set that exists for Vermont) that skitheeast45's claim that snowfall in Vermont is way down over the years, is easily refuted.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 4, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> Not necessarily.  Skitheeast45 made a reasonable claim that the costs of running a ski resort have gone up in part because there has been less snow and more rain in recent years.  I thought that was interesting and did a quick Google search that revealed data to back that up.  Other people may have data to the contrary.  It is a question of the relationship between increased reliance on snowmaking and regional snowfall rates.  Perhaps there is a better/fuller explanation of why resorts may be more reliant on snowmaking today, many of which skitheeast45 already mentioned in his/her interesting and informative post.



Even if there is less snow and more rain (I'm not getting into that part of the debate), is it enough to force ski areas to change their snow-making plans? Many areas make a set amount of snow and make that decision long before they know how much snow (or rain) they will get in a given year. The resorts I'm most familiar with have not made any substantial changes to the amount of snow they're putting down on trails. If there's a really bad year, they may re-fire up the system later than normal, but that's a one-off event that they don't plan for and isn't something that would be reflected as continually driving up costs (which was the start of this discussion).

For the sake of argument, let's assume some areas did change their snow-making plans in the past 15 years and increased output. Energy usage has dropped drastically in that time-frame thanks to low-e guns and other improvements. Did resorts increase output enough to overcome the cost savings they saw from moving to low-e? Or did they use that energy savings money to help offset other increases in operational budgets?

No one is denying costs overall have gone up, but I maintain that is not what has driven the SUBSTANTIAL increase in day ticket prices. If you look at the past 10-15 years, many day ticket rates have more than doubled. Meanwhile many season pass prices have actually come down in that same time-frame at some resorts (or at the ones where it did go up, it increased at a much slower rate than the day ticket prices). An interesting metric to use in comparing the change in prices is to look at the break-even number of days for a season pass. 15 years ago you had to ski 20+ days to make a season pass worth it at resorts like K, SB, Stowe, Okemo, Mt Snow. Now at many resorts you break even in under 10 days.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2019)

cdskier said:


> * If you look at the past 10-15 years, many day ticket rates have more than doubled. Meanwhile many season pass prices have actually come down in that same time-frame* at some resorts (or at the ones where it did go up, it increased at a much slower rate than the day ticket prices). An interesting metric to use in comparing the change in prices is to look at the break-even number of days for a season pass. *15 years ago you had to ski 20+ days to make a season pass worth it at resorts like K, SB, Stowe, Okemo, Mt Snow. Now at many resorts you break even in under 10 days.*



This is why I say it's entirely "artificial", and I choose that word specifically, because the price of the single day ticket at many of these places no longer has any relevance to a resort's cost of operations & profit.  

It is merely an intentionally expensive marker set to drive season pass sales, which as you noted are lower.  And in some extreme cases, the "break even" is far fewer than even 10 days!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2019)

What do you think happens if Vail & Alterra should reach market saturation with season pass sales?

Do we believe a publicly traded company like Vail will simply accept stagnant or declining growth?     Hmmmm........

Something here is going to give, eventually.  I know not the hour or the day, but something is going to give.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Even if there is less snow and more rain (I'm not getting into that part of the debate), is it enough to force ski areas to change their snow-making plans? Many areas make a set amount of snow and make that decision long before they know how much snow (or rain) they will get in a given year. The resorts I'm most familiar with have not made any substantial changes to the amount of snow they're putting down on trails. If there's a really bad year, they may re-fire up the system later than normal, but that's a one-off event that they don't plan for and isn't something that would be reflected as continually driving up costs (which was the start of this discussion).



Presumably resorts set their snowmaking budgets based on their own historic data.  If their experience shows a decrease in snow or an increase in rain events, they adjust their snowmaking budgets as necessary to ensure that they can give their clients the sliding surface and season length they are accustomed to.  I don't think they are doing this on the fly as weather changes.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 4, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> Presumably resorts set their snowmaking budgets based on their own historic data.  If their experience shows a decrease in snow or an increase in rain events, they adjust their snowmaking budgets as necessary to ensure that they can give their clients the sliding surface and season length they are accustomed to.  I don't think they are doing this on the fly as weather changes.



Correct. How much of a decrease in natural snowfall is going to realistically make a resort want to make more snow though? Even a 2-3 foot drop in snowfall over the course of a season would not have much impact on actual snow-depth on core snow-making trails. Realistically if you think about it, average snowfall is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to snow-making because you're going to regularly have years both below and above that average and have no way to predict which will happen when. So you need to make snow at a depth that you believe will keep your trails covered for the length of time you want regardless of how much natural snow you receive.



BenedictGomez said:


> This is why I say it's entirely "artificial", and I choose that word specifically, because the price of the single day ticket at many of these places no longer has any relevance to a resort's cost of operations & profit.
> 
> It is merely an intentionally expensive marker set to drive season pass sales, which as you noted are lower.  And in some extreme cases, the "break even" is far fewer than even 10 days!



Exactly!



BenedictGomez said:


> What do you think happens if Vail & Alterra should reach market saturation with season pass sales?
> 
> Do we believe a publicly traded company like Vail will simply accept stagnant or declining growth?     Hmmmm........
> 
> Something here is going to give, eventually.  I know not the hour or the day, but something is going to give.



I agree. Enjoy the low pass prices while you can. They won't last forever.


----------



## skitheeast45 (Mar 4, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> Not necessarily.  Skitheeast45 made a reasonable claim that the costs of running a ski resort have gone up in part because there has been less snow and more rain in recent years.  I thought that was interesting and did a quick Google search that revealed data to back that up.  Other people may have data to the contrary.  It is a question of the relationship between increased reliance on snowmaking and regional snowfall rates.  Perhaps there is a better/fuller explanation of why resorts may be more reliant on snowmaking today, many of which skitheeast45 already mentioned in his/her interesting and informative post.



Thank you for this. I didn't mean to spark a debate on climate change, as I really can't believe a group of people who rely on snow for the sport(s) they love are denying basic science. I am attaching the an image from the EPA with a map of *average* snowpack changes in the western US from 1955-2016 for those who need proof.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/snowpack-figure1-2016.png



BenedictGomez said:


> What do you think happens if Vail & Alterra should reach market saturation with season pass sales?
> 
> Do we believe a publicly traded company like Vail will simply accept stagnant or declining growth?     Hmmmm........
> 
> Something here is going to give, eventually.  I know not the hour or the day, but something is going to give.



International growth is viewed as the future. Vail purchased two additional Australian resorts and has been eyeing Japan for a while. China was cited in their recent investor day as their next potential market and their middle class is growing and eager to ski. It's the only area of the world with major growth in ski sport participants. The government is also pushing winter snow sports, which is helpful in a communist country.

https://www.ozy.com/acumen/how-china-plans-to-double-the-number-of-skiers-worldwide/89779
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2018...nas-emerging-ski-industry-chinas-skiing-boom/


----------



## EPB (Mar 4, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> I didn't mean to spark a debate on climate change, as I really just assumed a group of skiers on the internet would be as easy to convince as me that climate change is a crisis because it threatens my ability to ski.



Fixed the quote for you.

I hope you see the irony in choosing a cherry picked data set to rebuke a different data set that you think is cherry picked. Perhaps you've convinced yourself that the EPA is giving it to you straight because they have no reason to convince you that the environment needs protecting... I think that human civilization has an effect on the climate - don't get me wrong, but there's huge inventive for big government proponents to tell you that the environment is in worse shape than it is. At the end of the day, if climate change is an existential threat, it makes giving more power over the economy to the government much more palatable to the average voter. 

Skiers make a particularly gullible group given their vested interest in the cold. That said, I'm confident that Vail, Alterra and others want you to get to their resorts at whatever the cost h to the environment appens to be. Those guys getting on their high horses over climate change is a sanctimonious joke.

Remember, this propensity toward buying into climate change is emotional. Being able to regurgitate an article hyping the severity of climate change does not make you "for science". It more likely suggests that you're an uncritical reader. I haven't seen a single bold climate change prediction come remotely close to true. It seems clear to me that the climate science community has duped the public into thinking it can forecast climate change in a way it simply cannot. Their propensity to walk back studies rather than amend them to the downside (more severe) suggests they are more interested in proving climate change is a problem rather than determining what we're really up against. If they were so sure that climate change is as bad as they say, there would be no need to shout down "non believers" (ironic religious parallel?) because it would be so obvious that they are wrong.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 4, 2019)

So back to that Epic Pass...


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## skitheeast45 (Mar 5, 2019)

I understand the unlikelihood of changing someone's mind in an internet argument, but:



eastern powder baby said:


> Fixed the quote for you.
> 
> I hope you see the irony in choosing a cherry picked data set to rebuke a different data set that you think is cherry picked.



Me sending a single link to back an argument does not mean that is the only source that validates my point. If you are unable to use Google and see all 3 billion results for climate change yourself, I am more than willing to help. I just thought that particular picture was a very simple visual aid in connecting the issue to the industry. I can safely say my data is not cherry picked when it comes from the vast majority of the scientific community while data against climate change is, by definition, cherry picked because it is selected from the tiny minority, ignoring overwhelming mounds of evidence that you do not agree with.



eastern powder baby said:


> Perhaps you've convinced yourself that the EPA is giving it to you straight because they have no reason to convince you that the environment needs protecting...



They do have reasons, you are correct. But, all of the major energy companies who fought the EPA for years are in agreement with them on this issue. When the proponents of both sides of the argument are in agreement on basic facts, maybe you should start with those facts as your baseline.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change
https://www.shell.com/sustainabilit...ns/climate-change-public-policy-position.html
https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change
http://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/climate-change-position_final.pdf



eastern powder baby said:


> I think that human civilization has an effect on the climate - don't get me wrong, but there's huge inventive for big government proponents to tell you that the environment is in worse shape than it is. At the end of the day, if climate change is an existential threat, it makes giving more power over the economy to the government much more palatable to the average voter.



I am against government intervention in the economy unless its absolutely necessary. I am against much of their current regulation and wish they would privatize certain departments/branches. However, when the primary sources of emissions are not the ones feeling most of the negative consequences, some intervention is necessary. I am from New Jersey and companies used to dump dangerous chemicals in our rivers. Many of them are still dangerous to enter to this day. That practice would have continued without government intervention. Was this only done to give the government more power over the average voter? Or were there genuinely concerned voters who voted people into office to enact legislation to protect themselves when they were being disproportionately harmed? The government restricts certain individual freedoms/rights to preserve different freedoms/rights of others.



eastern powder baby said:


> Skiers make a particularly gullible group given their vested interest in the cold. That said, I'm confident that Vail, Alterra and others want you to get to their resorts at whatever the cost h to the environment appens to be. Those guys getting on their high horses over climate change is a sanctimonious joke.



Vail, Alterra, and practically all resort operators see climate change as one of their most prominent issues and are addressing it at the expense of current profits. Taos is a certified B-Corp, Abasin gives $20 off lift tickets to those who carpool, Squaw is in the process of being 100% powered by renewable energy, etc. Almost every mountain lists climate change initiatives on their website and I'm attaching Vail's below. (Does that mean I'm cherry picking by not listing every ski resort website when they all list similar initiatives and believe the same thing?)

http://www.vailresorts.com/Corp/info/environment.aspx



eastern powder baby said:


> Remember, this propensity toward buying into climate change is emotional.



Absolutely true because it is the best way to convey almost ANY message from a psychological point of view, regardless if it is good or bad.



eastern powder baby said:


> Being able to regurgitate an article hyping the severity of climate change does not make you "for science". It more likely suggests that you're an uncritical reader.



This is not regurgitating a single argument. This is listening to the consensus of 95-100% of scientists and their opposition and making an informed decision. In 1997, Gallup conducted a poll that found 4% of Americans believed Elvis was still alive, yet I did not see the general public point to this group as evidence against his death like you are doing to the similar percent of scientists who are skeptical of climate change. You may or may not be a critical reader, but if you are only reading one side or absolutely refusing to believe those more knowledgable on this particular subject you are not being a critical thinker.

Your claim of being "for science" is absolutely ridiculous. I guess I am "for science" by being an engineer who understands basic chemical reactions we have created that produce toxins, like NOx, and release heat.



eastern powder baby said:


> I haven't seen a single bold climate change prediction come remotely close to true. It seems clear to me that the climate science community has duped the public into thinking it can forecast climate change in a way it simply cannot. Their propensity to walk back studies rather than amend them to the downside (more severe) suggests they are more interested in proving climate change is a problem rather than determining what we're really up against.



There is no consensus on exact future projections, only ranges of estimates, and I cannot say for certain what the extent will be, as I recognize I am not well enough informed for a precise prediction. But, I was only presenting hard data, numbers from historical measurements. The snowpack numbers were not predictions exaggerating the severity of the issue but rather simple facts that any idiot with a measuring stick could have discovered. Mainstream media tends to latch to the most extreme projections, which does make it seem like these projections are the norm. However, a critical thinker would be able avoid into this trap and read scientific articles outside this bubble that do not make headlines.



eastern powder baby said:


> If they were so sure that climate change is as bad as they say, there would be no need to shout down "non believers" (ironic religious parallel?) because it would be so obvious that they are wrong.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



Our planet was on a path to eliminating diseases such as measles and polio due to vaccines, which is a visible change, yet people still started to doubt these "scientists" and their "research" and we are now having outbreaks in countries where these diseases had previously been eradicated. The unfortunate reality is that many people are simply unable to see a rock flying through the air until it hits them in the face.

We are all on this ship together. If we are not able to get most people in agreement that the water we are taking on is a problem, we will not have enough hands to grab buckets, start dumping water overboard, and keep the ship afloat.

If you don't believe scientific consensus, jump up and float right into space because gravity is just another one of their "theories". If you need to see something to believe it, don't worry as you float higher as thinking humans need "oxygen" to breathe is ridiculous because you cannot see those molecules in the air with the naked eye.

My apologies to the moderator for going off topic, but I felt compelled to give a rebuttal to the response.


----------



## Edd (Mar 5, 2019)

eastern powder baby said:


> there's huge inventive for big government proponents to tell you that the environment is in worse shape than it is. At the end of the day, if climate change is an existential threat, it makes giving more power over the economy to the government much more palatable to the average voter.



Conservative media uses this type of argument to scare dupes into voting against their own interests on a range of issues. It’s amazingly effective.


----------



## EPB (Mar 5, 2019)

Edd said:


> Conservative media uses this type of argument to scare dupes into voting against their own interests on a range of issues. It’s amazingly effective.


I know. When I lived in NY, I used to gleefully listen to my Democratic governor's brother crush partisans at Fox News for stoking fear. Good thing he gave it to me straight when he told me the economy was going to struggle with a wild card running the White House...

Out of respect for TB and the forum, I'm bowing out on this one. Until I see any of these predictions come true, I'm going to be convinced these guys are moving the needle in search of their own agenda. Outside of showing me an example, you're wasting your time. Group think is a real contagion, and the way they threaten scientists who dissent with loss of career is a major red flag. Polluters blowing smoke up their regulators' backsides won't cut it.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

Quick edit: Just read your whole post. It was very long. Are you kidding me with the Vail marketing material? Same with Taos. Do you think they're making bad business decisions on purpose? Grow up - they think acting sanctimonious is good for their bottom line. 

Regarding gravity and vaccines - that's just a silly straw man that should be pointed out for what it is. People who don't vaccinate their kids are the WORST and I don't need convincing on gravity - that's kinda the point...


----------



## boston_e (Mar 5, 2019)

cdskier said:


> I think I found it: https://vtskiandride.com/in-the-race-to-buy-ski-areas-who-wins/
> 
> Here's the quote from that article:
> 
> ...



A little more info on this earlier discussion:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-01/epic-vs-ikon-battle-for-the-best-ski-pass

From that article:




> In October, Alterra invited leaders of the continent’s largest non-Vail resorts to New York City’s Gansevoort hotel. Their pitch was, “If you won’t let us buy you, honor our season pass, and we’ll split the revenue even-steven.” Under the partnership agreements, a resort would be paid for each day a skier swiped her Ikon Pass—either a negotiated fee or a “blended rate” based on how many Ikon days were tallied over the course of a winter. Stephen Kircher, president of Boyne Resorts, which owns nine properties spread from Maine to Oregon, says the offer went over well, particularly among ski areas that had been fending off Vail for years. “I emailed them within about eight seconds,” he says.



So it seems that Win did mean that they don't get anything from the sale of an Ikon pass but likely do get some revenue based on the number of Ikon passes scanned, which makes more sense than the way I first read it.


----------



## skiur (Mar 5, 2019)

Climate has been changing for billions of years.  There have been warm periods and there have been cold periods.  How can we look at data for a few hundred years and say this is what it is? Here is one fact I can tell you, the climate will always change, we will have warm periods where the oceans will grow as ice melts, and we will have cold periods where glaciers will make their way down to Virginia.  Its been going on for billions of year so dont give me any data that is for a few hundred years and tell me it means anything.


----------



## EPB (Mar 5, 2019)

skiur said:


> Climate has been changing for billions of years.  There have been warm periods and there have been cold periods.  How can we look at data for a few hundred years and say this is what it is? Here is one fact I can tell you, the climate will always change, we will have warm periods where the oceans will grow as ice melts, and we will have cold periods where glaciers will make their way down to Virginia.  Its been going on for billions of year so dont give me any data that is for a few hundred years and tell me it means anything.


This is a big topic and I doubt there are any pros here. I know in my profession, outsiders think they know a lot more than they do. I feel guilty for taking this off the rails and urge you to let it go on this thread.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## LItoCOtoMA (Mar 5, 2019)

Let’s get this back to the epic pass. Prices were announced. Quick (not all encompassing) summary

Epic Pass - $939 (Unrestricted to Stowe, Okemo, Sunapee)

Epic Local -  $699 (Unlimited access to Stowe with Holiday Restrictions, plus unlimited, unrestricted access to Okemo & Mount Sunapee)

Ikon Pass - $949 (Unrestricted at Stratton, 7 days no blackouts at Killingotn/Pico, Sugarbush, Sunday River, Loon, Sugarloaf)

Ikon Base Pass - $649 (5 days and Holiday Restrictions at all NE mountains)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2019)

skitheeast45 said:


> I didn't mean to spark a debate on climate change, as I really can't believe a group of people who rely on snow for the sport(s) they love are denying basic science.



It doesn't have to be about climate change at all.   In fact, it really WASNT about climate change, you started (and persist) on rolling that ball down hill.  

 We can just focus on the fact that what you posted about snowfall totals in Vermont is easily proven to be demonstrably 100% false, "climate change" or not.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2019)

Has the EPIC pass made Stowe obnoxiously crowded on weekends?   I would have the answer to be, "yes", but I havent seen much posted about that. 

 I do believe whatever Stowe's attendance is now, it will be worse next year for sure, because EPIC was announced fairly late for it (i.e. many people didnt know), as well as the fact that Year 2 for almost any sales endeavor tends to see a sizeable bump in growth.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 5, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Has the EPIC pass made Stowe obnoxiously crowded on weekends?   I would have the answer to be, "yes", but I havent seen much posted about that.
> 
> I do believe whatever Stowe's attendance is now, it will be worse next year for sure, because EPIC was announced fairly late for it (i.e. many people didnt know), as well as the fact that Year 2 for almost any sales endeavor tends to see a sizeable bump in growth.



Surprisingly, we never really had many Stowe skiers on this site.  Hell, now we don't have very many people at all on this site.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Has the EPIC pass made Stowe obnoxiously crowded on weekends?   I would have the answer to be, "yes", but I havent seen much posted about that.
> 
> I do believe whatever Stowe's attendance is now, it will be worse next year for sure, because EPIC was announced fairly late for it (i.e. many people didnt know), as well as the fact that Year 2 for almost any sales endeavor tends to see a sizeable bump in growth.


No first hand experience this season, but I'm told if you're not there first thing it's a bad scene parking. Same deal coming off the mountain end of day.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## slatham (Mar 5, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> No first hand experience this season, but I'm told if you're not there first thing it's a bad scene parking. Same deal coming off the mountain end of day.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Plan to be there Fri/Sat with several Stowe locals. Will pas along their take on things. But to the comment above, the worry from a year or so ago was parking and traffic more so than lift lines.


----------



## farlep99 (Mar 5, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Has the EPIC pass made Stowe obnoxiously crowded on weekends?   I would have the answer to be, "yes", but I havent seen much posted about that.
> 
> I do believe whatever Stowe's attendance is now, it will be worse next year for sure, because EPIC was announced fairly late for it (i.e. many people didnt know), as well as the fact that Year 2 for almost any sales endeavor tends to see a sizeable bump in growth.



I ski Stowe regularly.  Don't find crowds to be any worse than before the Vail purchase.  It does seem that it's a bit more crowded on weekends later into the season, but this is completely anecdotal.  March/April weekends seem busier than before the purchase.  Holiday weekends are a shit-show (i don't even bother)- although they were like that before.  Most locals i know have the epic local and are blacked out holidays anyway.  Midweek is still midweek.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 5, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Has the EPIC pass made Stowe obnoxiously crowded on weekends?   I would have the answer to be, "yes", but I havent seen much posted about that.
> 
> I do believe whatever Stowe's attendance is now, it will be worse next year for sure, because EPIC was announced fairly late for it (i.e. many people didnt know), as well as the fact that Year 2 for almost any sales endeavor tends to see a sizeable bump in growth.



i tend to ski stowe once a year on my skiVT pass. just what i can afford. i love it there and i'd ski it more if i could swing it.

i was there last saturday. i arrived at about 8:30 and parked without issue in the mansfield lot near the over-easy gondola, which is what i was shooting for. 

taking care of our passes etc at spruce at 8:45 was a breeze. i skied 3 runs with my girlfriend on the spruce meadows quad with no lines at all.

i went to meet my friends on the mansfield side at 10, and the gondola and fourrunner had significant but not crazy lines. maybe a 10 minute wait. the lookout and mountain chairs had no lines at all.

by 12:30 lines dissipated and while it was never ski-on, i also never waited more than 5 minutes after lunchtime

pretty normal sunny saturday in early march i think. not much if any noticeable epic pass difference

apparently MLK weekend was a complete disaster tho. my buddy said it took him 3 hours to get from waterbury to the base. apparently a tractor trailer went off the road and blocked everything tho.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 5, 2019)

So new epic product for this year,  Epic for everyone. 

Basically a way to purchase up to 7 day tickets.    Restricted $621 unrestricted $731.  I'd say this is a way to market their product to the 1 week out west crowd. 

http://news.vailresorts.com/corporate/epicdaypass.htm


----------



## ss20 (Mar 5, 2019)

jimmywilson69 said:


> So new epic product for this year,  Epic for everyone.
> 
> Basically a way to purchase up to 7 day tickets.    Restricted $621 unrestricted $731.  I'd say this is a way to market their product to the 1 week out west crowd.
> 
> http://news.vailresorts.com/corporate/epicdaypass.htm



Wow...the low-low price if $90 a day??  Sign me up...not...


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 5, 2019)

have you ever tried to purchase a day ticket at a Vail Resort property?  That actually is a deal to sign up for if you are going west or even a few days at Stowe.


----------



## ss20 (Mar 5, 2019)

jimmywilson69 said:


> have you ever tried to purchase a day ticket at a Vail Resort property?  That actually is a deal to sign up for if you are going west or even a few days at Stowe.



Ik Vail resorts are expensive.  Works when they have limited competition out west.  But how many upper-tier destinations are within 2 hours of Stowe?  Cannon, Jay, K, Smuggs, Gore, Whiteface, Sugarbush, Bretton Woods...etc.  Buy online a month or so in advance for any of those guys and you'll pay between $60 and $90 a day...closer to the $60 a day benchmark at many of those places...


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 5, 2019)

I think its pretty clear they aren't trying to compete with anyone.  so your choice is if you want to ski at a Vail Resort in the east your best bet is a pass or these advance tickets.

Otherwise, as you stated, there are plenty of great places to SKI THE EAST!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2019)

I'm noticing Vail has partnered with Ski.com to sell EPIC passes.  Has Vail ever used 3rd-party vendors to sell EPIC passes before?

I'm wondering if this is part of the IKON pressure.



> Purchase your 2019-20 Epic Pass from Ski.com and receive the following benefits:
> Access to Ski.com’s Epic Pass Concierge services, which include:
> Expert advice on how to maximize your Epic Pass
> Free ski-trip planning and booking services to Epic Pass destinations
> ...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2019)

jimmywilson69 said:


> I think its pretty clear they aren't trying to compete with anyone.  *so your choice is if you want to ski at a Vail Resort in the east your best bet is a pass or these advance tickets.
> *



The only people in the east who'd likely buy an EPIC pass are Stowe regulars or people western tripping.    I guess this should include Okemo regulars too, but if you're choosing to be a regular at Okemo rather than Stowe you've got issues.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 5, 2019)

they exist (okemo regulars). its mind boggling. they congregate on the Ski the East facebook group (which may be the worst corner of the eastern ski internet. holy shit).


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2019)

If all you are into is cruising groomers and that represents a LARGE portion of skiers, Okemo will suit people just fine and is much closer to the vast majority of people.   That's where my family skied when I was a kid.  It was 2.5 hours from metro Boston and then later 2:15 from the Hartford area. My father had little interest in commuting 4 hours each way after a 60 hour work week.

Likewise if I get to a point of affording a seasonal rental in ski country, it will be in N. Conway vs Stowe or Sugarbush.  1:45 each way vs 3:30.  I spend WAY to much time driving all week to want to deal with a long commute to relax. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 5, 2019)

yuck.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2019)

To each their own. Had a blast as a kid skiing there.  As an adult I avoid southern VT like the plague on weekends.  Only place I could probably tolerate over there these days is Magic, but IMO Wildcat > Magic and its closer. 

 Having a killer week up in N Conway now actually.  Wildcat, Attitash and Black have all been fantastic. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Mar 5, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> yuck.



Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean everyone has that opinion.



deadheadskier said:


> To each their own. Had a blast as a kid skiing there.



Exactly. My first trips to VT years ago were to Okemo and I had a great time. Today I wouldn't want to ski there on a regular basis, but I'm sure someone like my brother that loves cruisers and hates bumps would love it. Plus like DHS said as well in another post, it is also a lot closer than N VT for many people. For some people, driving distance absolutely factors in.

Honestly I'm quite happy there's people that love places like Okemo. Otherwise places like Sugarbush and Stowe would be a heck of a lot more crowded if everyone preferred places like that compared to somewhere like Okemo.


----------



## medfordmike (Mar 5, 2019)

I am not an Okemo guy but get there once or twice a season usually in March.  I ski with friends there and it fits their skill set just fine. For me Sunapee is much cheaper via Epic than the older passes pre Vail which I never considered.  Not likely anyone's favorite on here and not mine either but nice views, 1.5 hours from Boston, and good snowmaking in lean years means I don't need to go far for a day trip.  I often hit it up this year on Friday mornings or Monday afternoons so I get a half day of skiing and a half day of work around going to my weekend place. I do Pico on weekends, particularly holiday weekends. I hope to hit Stowe for another day or two this season as well.  I really like Stowe but at this point in life i wont drive more than two hours for a day trip which means I need to plan it.   

A lot of people ski Sunapee and outside the Epic Pass there are not a lot of great options to get access cheaply.  It is not Magic, MRG, or many other better places.  It is basically a step up from Wachusett.  But I can say I had Max and i really don't see a huge difference between Loon and Okemo, Sunapee, or Stratton and I don't dislike Loon or Stratton but blue is blue. Ikon has great western mountains but family and work life don't allow that much travel. So it works for some and based on lift lines at both Okemo and Sunapee it is a pretty good number.

I also like the North Conway area but 3 hours is not happening on a Friday night after a long commute. 
Otherwise I think it is a great area to explore some old school areas which I enjoy more than Sunapee and neither multi pass option works great. While neither Ikon or Epic Local are perfect I am glad to have the choice.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 6, 2019)

We had the MAX addon last year so skied a bunch of days at Okemo.  It's not my favorite mountain, but I had a great time.  I don't think that the bumps and trees in the Jackson Gore area are obviously inferior to most other S VT mountains (Magic excluded).  Pico is our home mountain, but Okemo does offer more options when we're skiing with families who are not as experienced.


----------

