# 2018/19 Skier visits



## slatham (May 1, 2019)

Flash report from NSAA is over 59 million, up 11% YOY.

Given all the noise about EPIC and Ikon-ic crowding this year I would have expected higher. Massive snow year out West, good to very good year in the East, strong economy, etc.


----------



## drjeff (May 1, 2019)

slatham said:


> Flash report from NSAA is over 59 million, up 11% YOY.
> 
> Given all the noise about EPIC and Ikon-ic crowding this year I would have expected higher. Massive snow year out West, good to very good year in the East, strong economy, etc.



In the end, if one can (could) look area to area with visitation numbers, I suspect that you'd see that the multi resort passes such as the Epic and Ikon ended up doing more of a lateral shift in skier visits where you'll see an uptick at the Epic/Ikon resorts and some decreases, or flat numbers at some non Epic/Ikon resorts.

As was reported in the latest Ski Area Management Magazine (which arrived in my mailbox yesterday) there was an article that looked at the Epic/Ikon effect with respect to some areas (The Utah areas, Jackson Hole, Stowe among others were mentioned) where there were numerous complaints from the locals, who often had to get the more expensive passes since the multi resort passes had their home mountains on limited number of days often, that while the Epic/Ikon passes did ad visits (the 10-15% number was common), that the number of "locals" skiing on non Epic/Ikon passes, because of the good snow year, was up often in the 20-30% range over the previos year.  So it's not all about the Epic and Ikon, there are likely many factors adding to the numbers across the country


----------



## Smellytele (May 1, 2019)

If people have the epic or Ikon passes do skier visits really matter? Is that a good measurement of revenue or success?


----------



## cdskier (May 1, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> If people have the epic or Ikon passes do skier visits really matter? Is that a good measurement of revenue or success?



Fair question...but then again, wouldn't that question also apply to any season pass-holders and not just Epic/Ikon ones?


----------



## urungus (May 1, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> If people have the epic or Ikon passes do skier visits really matter? Is that a good measurement of revenue or success?



Most visits will result in some sort of revenue for the resort, even if lift ticket is already paid for:  food purchases, a few drinks, maybe take a lesson, rent some equipment, stay in the hotel, buy something in the gift shop, etc


----------



## urungus (May 1, 2019)

Also do the affiliated resorts (on the pass but not owned by the parent) get some sort of payment from Epic/Icon for each skier visit ?


----------



## Smellytele (May 2, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Fair question...but then again, wouldn't that question also apply to any season pass-holders and not just Epic/Ikon ones?



Right I just was going with the topic. So I am saying Skier visits is not the best thing to go with to measure success. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## slatham (May 2, 2019)

urungus said:


> Also do the affiliated resorts (on the pass but not owned by the parent) get some sort of payment from Epic/Icon for each skier visit ?



Yes, we just don't know the formula for how much is paid out.


----------



## gladerider (May 2, 2019)

there has been a few articles written about the skier visit increase this past season. while ikon/epic did have an impact, they attributed the increase to one of the best snow in recent memory. net of it all is that the increased business is good for the industry period. we won't really know the true impact of the ikon/epic until we have a bad snow season to balance it off.


----------



## shwilly (May 2, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> Right I just was going with the topic. So I am saying Skier visits is not the best thing to go with to measure success.



It doesn't give you the whole story for operating P&L, but I'd say it's very important for the health of the sport and industry. The more people have more good days, the more people will fall in love with skiing. Many of the fanatics getting tons of days on their passes are buying real estate, teaching their kids to ski, and bringing friends along to buy day tickets. Converting more fanatics is a good thing!

I don't know how noisy skier visits are from year to year, but in general an 11% year-over-year increase in a mature industry is fantastic.


----------



## slatham (May 2, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> Right I just was going with the topic. So I am saying Skier visits is not the best thing to go with to measure success.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Agreed there are some major short comings, but I am not aware of another metric, available to the public, that broadly represents the health of the ski industry.


----------



## abc (May 2, 2019)

While we don't know the precise numbers, we know the basic just from human nature.

1) Good snow year, more people ski more days. (basically, if you had a good time, you want to go again)

2) New pass means new area to check out. A.K.A. "lateral shift". Mind you, the shift is TO mountains included in the new pass.

So there's no doubt Ikon is responsible for some of the increase. But we don't quite know how to separate that increase from the increase due to good snow year. All we know is the combo is causing significant crowding in some mountains, while other mountains are handling the increase much more gracefully.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 2, 2019)

shwilly said:


> I'd say *it's very important for the health of the sport and industry. The more people have more good days, the more people will fall in love with skiing.* Many of the fanatics getting tons of days on their passes are buying real estate, teaching their kids to ski, and bringing friends along to buy day tickets. Converting more fanatics is a good thing!  I don't know how noisy skier visits are from year to year, but in general* an 11% year-over-year increase in a mature industry is fantastic.*



I doubt many people are, _"falling in love with skiing"_ at $169 single-day lift ticket prices.   

That 11% YoY increase is almost certainly driven by locals & EPIC/IKON, not by new participants.


----------



## mister moose (May 2, 2019)

shwilly said:


> I don't know how noisy skier visits are from year to year, but in general an 11% year-over-year increase in a mature industry is fantastic.



I took the time to put this graph together 9 years ago.  You can see the number of skier visits to VT has been bouncing around 4 million per year.   I haven't done an update, but news flash, the number of skier visits for the 17-18 season was...



3.97 million visits.  If you're not good at math,_ it's the same._

There's been variations due to the economy, big gas price hiccups, or bad snow years, but getting over the hiccups isn't growth.

Vermont skier visits for 18-19 aren't out yet.  One thing we might see as the cheap multi mountain passes take hold is a true increase in visits.  More skiers owning season passes might well turn into more visits per skier.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 2, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> If people have the epic or Ikon passes do skier visits really matter? Is that a good measurement of revenue or success?



Good question.  

Skier days is what they have always used, but perhaps in this day in age it may not be the right measurement.


----------



## Smellytele (May 2, 2019)

mister moose said:


> I took the time to put this graph together 9 years ago.  You can see the number of skier visits to VT has been bouncing around 4 million per year.   I haven't done an update, but news flash, the number of skier visits for the 17-18 season was...
> 
> View attachment 25238
> 
> ...



More visits per pass holder means less money per visit. The optimal scenario is season pass holders not visiting often at all and selling more day tickets. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## skiur (May 2, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> More visits per pass holder means less money per visit. The optimal scenario is season pass holders not visiting often at all and selling more day tickets.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Season pass holders still spend money when they go to the hill, why wouldnt you want them there?  I would say the optimal scenario is more day tickets and more season pass holders.  They can have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## abc (May 2, 2019)

“A bird in hand is...”

Season pass is worth a lot more than their numerical value because it’s upfront. 

You can also use that money to pay for stuff. While day tickets don’t come in till the day the skier shows up... or not show up at all (in which case you don’t get the money at all)


----------



## Hawk (May 7, 2019)

slatham said:


> Flash report from NSAA is over 59 million, up 11% YOY.
> 
> Given all the noise about EPIC and Ikon-ic crowding this year I would have expected higher. Massive snow year out West, good to very good year in the East, strong economy, etc.


That is 11% my friend.  They went from around 52 Million visits to 59 Million.  That is a huge increase as far as skier visits go.  I wish all my investments did 11%.


----------



## EPB (May 7, 2019)

abc said:


> “A bird in hand is...”
> 
> Season pass is worth a lot more than their numerical value because it’s upfront.
> 
> You can also use that money to pay for stuff. While day tickets don’t come in till the day the skier shows up... or not show up at all (in which case you don’t get the money at all)


People also buy their passes before they know if it will be a good winter. This locks in a minimum amount of revenue that the operator receives and puts a floor on how bad lean winters get.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (May 7, 2019)

4th best season on record as well.  Not too shabby

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (May 7, 2019)

eastern powder baby said:


> People also buy their passes before they know if it will be a good winter. This locks in a minimum amount of revenue that the operator receives and puts a floor on how bad lean winters get.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app



This has nothing to do with skier visits and your making my point.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## cdskier (May 7, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> This has nothing to do with skier visits and your making my point.



Even season pass-holder skier visits can substantially vary though depending on the weather. In a good year, season pass-holder skier visits can be significantly up (as is the case this year according to many resorts). In a bad year, you get a mix of results from pass-holders. Some will visit anyway "because I already paid and want to use it" while others may only use it enough to break even. You can argue that "well the pass is paid for so who cares whether they ski 1 day or 100 days", but it still does matter. Many pass-holders do spend additional money on the mountain on days they are there. Or if the season is really good they may contribute to other people visiting (i.e. maybe they go to work and talk to co-workers or call up friends saying "conditions are amazing. You should get out there and go skiing".) So you need to consider indirect benefits of season pass-holder visits being up as well.

Today thanks to technology many/most resorts can get an accurate picture of pass-holder skier visits. Years ago when these annual skier visit numbers were generated, they would be pretty much just making an estimated guess on how many skier visits a season pass should count as. Today any resort with RFID or scanning can get a pretty accurate count.

Skier visits, while certainly not a perfect metric, are still one of the key metrics to compare year over year performance in a pretty consistent manner. NSAA does produce some other interesting metrics too and someone that really wants to understand the full picture of industry performance would be reading the detailed report once it is released (and if they manage a resort would surely be studying their own internal numbers too).

I honestly can't think of a single "better" metric to use to compare performance from one season to another. The next closest is probably the number of people participating in the sport (unique visitors). If that number goes down year after year, then you could have a major problem. But conversely it also doesn't help if that number goes up but skier visits as a whole goes down. Of course age is another key factor too from a long term growth perspective. But now we're again getting away from a "single" simple number to use for quick comparison and making things more complicated with multiple metrics that need to be looked at together.


----------



## Smellytele (May 8, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Even season pass-holder skier visits can substantially vary though depending on the weather. In a good year, season pass-holder skier visits can be significantly up (as is the case this year according to many resorts). In a bad year, you get a mix of results from pass-holders. Some will visit anyway "because I already paid and want to use it" while others may only use it enough to break even. You can argue that "well the pass is paid for so who cares whether they ski 1 day or 100 days", but it still does matter. Many pass-holders do spend additional money on the mountain on days they are there. Or if the season is really good they may contribute to other people visiting (i.e. maybe they go to work and talk to co-workers or call up friends saying "conditions are amazing. You should get out there and go skiing".) So you need to consider indirect benefits of season pass-holder visits being up as well.
> 
> Today thanks to technology many/most resorts can get an accurate picture of pass-holder skier visits. Years ago when these annual skier visit numbers were generated, they would be pretty much just making an estimated guess on how many skier visits a season pass should count as. Today any resort with RFID or scanning can get a pretty accurate count.
> 
> ...



How about how most companies/corporations measure success - revenue, gross and net profit, etc?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## cdskier (May 8, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> How about how most companies/corporations measure success - revenue, gross and net profit, etc?



There are many privately owned ski areas that would never release such info. So you would only have partial information at best for the industry. Not sure how valuable it really is to judge the status of the ski industry with just the financial info for the publicly owned resorts.


----------



## abc (May 8, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Even season pass-holder skier visits can substantially vary though depending on the weather.
> ...
> if the season is really good they may contribute to other people visiting (i.e. maybe they go to work and talk to co-workers or call up friends saying "conditions are amazing. You should get out there and go skiing".) So you need to consider indirect benefits of season pass-holder visits being up as well.


I found it interesting that everyone treats season pass holders as "expense" as soon as they paid up for their pass!

In my early day of career, I worked in a market research firm. I learned there, "customer loyalty" are assigned $$ values, because they're considered "influencers" in bringing in new customers. They're considered "advertising resources". 

My casual observation of ski industry confirms that view. A season pass holder typically don't want to pay to ski in other mountains. Make sense, right? So what happens if they have family/friends/visitors who don't already have lift tickets? They go the mountain of their host have a pass!

Treat the brown-bagging pass holders as scums the rest of the season, you remove their enthusiasm in inviting others to come visit the mountain. 

In the marketing world, it's established it cost many times more to bring in new customers than retaining the existing one. It may not be a big deal for Sun Valley which has no nearby competition. But in the crowded world of the northeast, the mountains will pay for their arrogance.


----------



## mbedle (May 8, 2019)

Does anyone have a rough idea of what the average number of ski visits for pass holders?


----------



## slatham (May 8, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> How about how most companies/corporations measure success - revenue, gross and net profit, etc?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Top line revenue would be a good metric, but as noted, not available.


----------



## cdskier (May 8, 2019)

mbedle said:


> Does anyone have a rough idea of what the average number of ski visits for pass holders?



It varies quite a bit by region. This is one of the additional metrics NSAA does release in one of their yearly reports. For the 16-17 season it was 13.7 in the northeast, 10.9 southeast, 10.1 midwest, 9.1 rocky mountains, 9.7 pacific southwest, and 10.6 pacific northwest.



slatham said:


> Top line revenue would be a good metric, but as noted, not available.



And the more I think about it, the more I don't think it accurately would reflect skiing itself anyway. Resorts have various revenue streams even during the non-ski season. For example some do a lot of summer activities or wedding events during the off-season. While those are great to help the resorts pull in more revenue, at the same time it would prevent you from seeing a true picture of how "skiing" itself is performing year over year. Overall revenue going up doesn't mean the ski industry itself is healthy if they are now starting to pull in more off-season revenue to compensate for a loss of skiers and ski revenue (not saying that is actually the case, just a hypothetical on why those numbers by themselves may not be a good indicator).


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 8, 2019)

cdskier said:


> This is one of the additional metrics NSAA does release in one of their yearly reports. For the 16-17 season it was 13.7 in the northeast, 10.9 southeast, 10.1 midwest, 9.1 rocky mountains, 9.7 pacific southwest, and 10.6 pacific northwest.



Surprises me it's that low given the average skier is at 6 days per year.  I'd have thought a pass holder average would be much higher.

Makes me wonder if IKON/EPIC are bringing that number down?  More people buying a pass primarily for 1 week in Colorado or Utah, etc...


----------



## cdskier (May 8, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Surprises me it's that low given the average skier is at 6 days per year.  I'd have thought a pass holder average would be much higher.
> 
> Makes me wonder if IKON/EPIC are bringing that number down?  More people buying a pass primarily for 1 week in Colorado or Utah, etc...



I agree...I would have expected it to be higher as well. But then again there are a lot of people that only use them a handful of days for whatever reason. For example while I used my season pass 40 days, my dad only used his 10 days this year. And I overheard a guy in the parking lot at Sugarbush this weekend saying he only used his Sugarbush pass 6 days (but he's also a MRG pass holder and only buys the SB one as "insurance" in case of a bad year for MRG. He was quite "happy" to have not had to use his SB pass much in this case).

Perhaps overall cheaper pass prices also could contribute a bit to lower average ski days per pass (i.e. the break even point is lower so more people are buying them and simply not using them to their full potential). That sort of goes along with your point of people buying Epic/Ikon just to use for 1 week of vacation somewhere.


----------



## EPB (May 8, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> This has nothing to do with skier visits and your making my point.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


I didn't realize I was addressing anything you'd said, but I don't think what you suggested about the optimal mix makes any sense in practice. 

Passholders that don't show up would be a major risk to not renew the following season. While the $/skier day is higher for day tickets (assuming passholders show up often enough to drive it down), it's awfully hard do drive day ticket skier visits up without attracting a massive amount of new individuals/families. This would almost certainly involve a heavy marketing and infrastructure budget to keep your place front of mind. People who can't get enough of the same place would graduate into passholders because they visit frequently enough to justify it. It's not a long term strategy to assume you can get people to just buy day tickets.

For one season, what you say makes sense, but you're seriously short changing the value of repeat business. Getting passholders to show up enough times to feel like they got good value, but not too many times (as you suggest), is the key. 

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (May 8, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Perhaps *overall cheaper pass prices also could contribute a bit to lower average ski days per pass (i.e. the break even point is lower *so more people are buying them and simply not using them to their full potential). That sort of goes along with your point of people buying Epic/Ikon just to use for 1 week of vacation somewhere.


I have a strong suspicion that's THE main factor on the average pass holder visit number. 

In the northeast, season pass used to be high compare to day ticket, until Epic/Ikon came along. I've never bought a single mountain pass in the northeast, because the math just doesn't work out.

But I did in the west. There, the pass are so much cheaper I come out ahead in 2 trips (break even in 1 week, but that's pointless unless I have realistic expectation to do more than that). I was a pass holder for one Colorado mountain or another for many years until MCP came along. I went that way, then MAX, then Ikon. Now I have unlimited access to a few mountains in the northeast as part of my multi-mountain pass. So now, I only need to break even in 1 single western trip. All my northeast skiing will be "free"!

Until Ikon/Max/MCP, I bet I was one of the "statistics" of pass holder who only use the pass 9.1 days! (with a bunch of additional day tickets in the northeast). I'm curious how they "divide" the pass holders in this day of multi-mountain passes?


----------



## mister moose (May 8, 2019)

abc said:


> So now, I only need to break even in 1 single western trip. All my northeast skiing will be "free"!


You say this in half jest, but yet you do say it, as do thousands of other people.  Imagine training your customers to think that by jacking your walk up day rate to stratospheric levels, you can "break even" by buying a pass for about the same as 5-6 day tickets.  That's quite an accomplishment for mega pass marketing.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 8, 2019)

mister moose said:


> You say this in half jest, but yet you do say it, as do thousands of other people. * Imagine training your customers to think that by jacking your walk up day rate to stratospheric levels, you can "break even" by buying a pass for about the same as 5-6 day tickets.  That's quite an accomplishment for mega pass marketing.*



And don't forget the intentional elimination of virtually all S.O.T.C. deals & BOGOs as well, which is part of the "strategy".  Make it hurt so bad to buy a lift ticket, that you buy their pass instead.   

My prediction is that while this is great for short-term business, it's bad for long-term business


----------



## abc (May 8, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> My prediction is that while this is great for short-term business, it's bad for long-term business


I agree, but only to a degree. 

But let’s look at the pass price. How much did 1 week a year skiers pay for their lift tickets BEFORE (right before) Vail bought its first northeast mountain? How did that compare with the price of Epic/Ikon pass?

Customers had been “trained” by the existing day ticket rate, what WAS that?


----------



## Smellytele (May 8, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> And don't forget the intentional elimination of virtually all S.O.T.C. deals & BOGOs as well, which is part of the "strategy".  Make it hurt so bad to buy a lift ticket, that you buy their pass instead.
> 
> My prediction is that while this is great for short-term business, it's bad for long-term business



Price to enter the sport is getting cost prohibitive as well so they are cutting out the stream of new skiers in order to keep their aging customer base. New skiers are not going to just jump at a season pass that will save them money after X number of days as they have no idea if they even want to continue in the sport. Will they even pay $160 to ski 1 day plus rentals and other costs?


----------



## cdskier (May 8, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> Price to enter the sport is getting cost prohibitive as well so they are cutting out the stream of new skiers in order to keep their aging customer base. New skiers are not going to just jump at a season pass that will save them money after X number of days as they have no idea if they even want to continue in the sport. Will they even pay $160 to ski 1 day plus rentals and other costs?



In principle I agree that the price to enter seems cost prohibitive and I've complained about the rising cost of day tickets being an issue for growth in the past. However, I'm curious historically speaking where did most "new" skiers come from? Was it from people being introduced to the sport when they were already older? Or were they introduced by parents at a young age? When I look at the ski school programs at resorts I visit, they seem to be doing very well with a rather large amount of young kids in the programs. (I have no comparison point for what this was like in the past though as I didn't start skiing until HS). As long as those kids continue in the sport when they grow older, then you have a good stream of new skiers. Are enough of these kids continuing when they get older though? That I don't know.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 9, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> *Price to enter the sport is getting cost prohibitive as well so they are cutting out the stream of new skiers*



That is precisely what I meant when I said EPIC/IKON are bad for long-term business.

But that wont show up in the data for roughly a decade.  Until then, EPIC/IKON will appear to be a great success.

In fact, my prediction is that soon you're going to start seeing even cheaper, "learn to ski" packages as a result.  I also predict that wont work appreciably enough to cover the damage.


----------



## EPB (May 10, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> That is precisely what I meant when I said EPIC/IKON are bad for long-term business.
> 
> But that wont show up in the data for roughly a decade.  Until then, EPIC/IKON will appear to be a great success.
> 
> In fact, my prediction is that soon you're going to start seeing even cheaper, "learn to ski" packages as a result.  I also predict that wont work appreciably enough to cover the damage.


I also wonder if the super passes will squeeze smaller feeder hills out of business by driving more of the established skiers through a smaller number of resorts. It's tough for independent hills to compete with low cost passes and "free" days at Vail or Alterra resorts on the margin after customers have bought their passes. These smaller hills seem to be the most budget friendly for beginners in most cases. Their potential demise could hurt the pipeline of new skiers.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## AdironRider (May 10, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> Price to enter the sport is getting cost prohibitive as well so they are cutting out the stream of new skiers in order to keep their aging customer base. New skiers are not going to just jump at a season pass that will save them money after X number of days as they have no idea if they even want to continue in the sport. Will they even pay $160 to ski 1 day plus rentals and other costs?




This is really not that true. The vast majority of skiers learn while they are young/ in college, at least the basics and enough to decide if they like it or not. The sport is still affordable for the young. 

Kids passes are still super cheap even in Jackson, kids (even up to teenagers) season rentals for ski gear are also super cheap. I can get my kid covered for an entire season for a pass and ski gear for 350 bucks, at one of the most expensive ski areas in the country. 239 for a junior pass and season long rental for 99. That number increases to 450 when my kid reaches college. That is cheaper than the local soccer program believe it or not. 

Typically, their parents ski and get it, but I learned by my parents taking me to the hill to ski then they just hung out in the lodge or went and did their own thing, so it is not a requirement the parents even participate and is pretty much what any parent does at any other sport for their kids. It is not like Dad is out there playing t-ball with 5 year olds, or dunking on the kids hoops, so to say it requires a large expense for them isn't true. 

Now, lets look at even never-ever adults trying skiing for the first time, which is already a significant minority of folks trying the sport for the first time. Of this tiny minority, a vast majority aren't getting up at 5am, driving 3 hours in the car to save money on hotels, dirt-bagging it and buying that one day ticket (BOGO, which there is a reason Groupon tanked as 1/2 off is a shitty way to do business) that one time. They are more likely taking a weekend or week long holiday with their significant other or family that skis, and at that point paying 350 bucks for an Epic Local makes sense. 

I'm not saying it won't scare the occasional person away from the sport, but we need to also be real here and skiing is never going to be free. No sport really is once you reach adulthood. Even a decent pair of hightop sneakers and a basketball costs the better part of 200 bucks these days. You seen the price of a mountain bike recently? They make ski passes look like a steal.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 10, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> This is really not that true. The vast majority of skiers learn while they are young/ in college, at least the basics and enough to decide if they like it or not. The sport is still affordable for the young.
> 
> Kids passes are still super cheap even in Jackson, kids (even up to teenagers) season rentals for ski gear are also super cheap. I can get my kid covered for an entire season for a pass and ski gear for 350 bucks, at one of the most expensive ski areas in the country. 239 for a junior pass and season long rental for 99. That number increases to 450 when my kid reaches college. That is cheaper than the local soccer program believe it or not.
> 
> ...



Parents who want to get their kids into skiing and don't ski themselves are not going to "know" or want to buy a season pass for their kids.  Most folks don't think that way.  They are only going to look at things on a day-by-day basis until the kid is hooked and can get the value out of more investment.  ST has a legitimate point.  Here's another good example.  My local professional soccer team offers season tickets that are a "good value" I imagine, but I am not into soccer and only go to one or two games a year and pay for a game ticket.  If single game ticket prices go too high, I won't go.


----------



## AdironRider (May 10, 2019)

I 100% disagree on kids sports. There aren't just random organized soccer games for a kid to hop in on, you sign them up for a season program commitment. Same with basketball or swimming, or most other sports. They all require gear purchases, and time commitments. (Heck, growing up my school district REQUIRED participation in one of these programs at least 2 out of 3 seasons) Most of them probably won't stick, and like I said, the local soccer program here costs over 400. A decent set of high tops and a basketball is well over 100 bucks, and that's before they step foot on a court. Like I mentioned before, I can get a season long ski/boot rental for 99, and every kid has snow pants and a warm jacket/gloves if they are even contemplating going skiing.  

But if you want to talk single day tickets, a beginner lift ticket costs a whopping 27 bucks at Jackson peak season. I know of many resorts where it is a nominal cost for anyone under 5 or 6. Outside of gym class, you are paying for your kid to play. You can't even take a kid to a baseball game for that price. 

The cost is really only unapproachable for an adult never ever, which would be a direct comparison to your soccer ticket analogy. This is a small component of the overall skier customer base, especially since the take rate for brand new 30+ year old skiers is miniscule even from that group.

And this isn't 1995 where the internet didn't exist. Anyone can go to a ski areas website and see the pricing right there. This isn't some new fangled idea either, you can find all you need to know about costs and options with 30 seconds of effort online, which people have been trained to do for basically everything these days. Let alone I know of no parent who isn't talking with other parents about this type of thing. They aren't out there like an ostrich with their head in the sand. Even in 1995, which was when my parents were setting me up with season long rentals and dropping me off at McIntyre, they figured it out on a blue collar 1 income household, and neither of them have skied a day in their life. 

I'm just saying if you do the math, for most kids skiing really isn't all that unaffordable compared to other sports. It is actually cheaper than many others (like my soccer example). Hockey is way more expensive. So is gymnastics. Baseball is once you get them kitted out (and you can't rent cleats). Lets not even go to golf and equestrian sports. 

At the very least you have seen this price creep across all sports and kids activities. It isn't exclusive to skiing.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 10, 2019)

thetrailboss said:


> *Parents who want to get their kids into skiing and don't ski themselves are not going to "know" or want to buy a season pass for their kids.  Most folks don't think that way.  They are only going to look at things on a day-by-day basis* until the kid is hooked and can get the value out of more investment..



From my ski school experience, it's my belief that the above is spot-on for most.  

Sure, there are exceptions to every rule & sure there are plenty of people who research-the-hell-out-of-everything first (I am like that), but most people are not like that or dont want to commit that time & effort to bother.  They just "one-day it" and see how it goes.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 10, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> growing up *my school district REQUIRED participation in one of these programs at least 2 out of 3 seasons*



I feel like I must be misunderstanding this, or are you saying they made parents pay 2 years at once?


----------



## cdskier (May 10, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> I feel like I must be misunderstanding this, or are you saying they made parents pay 2 years at once?



I believe he's referring to the different seasons of the school year (i.e. Fall, Winter, Spring) and that they required them to play a sport 2 of those 3 seasons (first time I ever heard of that being required anywhere).


----------



## deadheadskier (May 10, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> From my ski school experience, it's my belief that the above is spot-on for most.
> 
> Sure, there are exceptions to every rule & sure there are plenty of people who research-the-hell-out-of-everything first (I am like that), but most people are not like that or dont want to commit that time & effort to bother.  They just "one-day it" and see how it goes.


My skiing "upbringing" is definitely an exception.  There were zero skiers in my family before me.  I was an 8 year old little boy who LOVED snow.  My dad saw an advertisement in the local paper for a seasonal Saturday skiing program for kids at Ward Hill.  He decided to enroll me.  Worked out well.  He'd drop me off at the hill mid morning and go do his hardware store and grocery store run, then scoop me up around 1 in the afternoon to bring me home.  

After about the fourth week and noticing how excited I was about it, instead of dropping me off and going to the hardware store, he'd go back home and bring my mother to Ward Hill.  They'd sit in the parking lot and watch me joyfully skiing.

The following winter they enrolled me again in the same Saturday program.  Throughout that winter my father realized a number of his banking customers skied and learning the sport would be a good way to network like he did on the golf course.  Late that season he decided to start skiing and requested my mom learn too.  They were 39 & 40 at the time.  

My third season we left Ward Hill behind and day tripped somewhere in NH&vt every weekend.  They fell in love with the sport quickly. 

By around my fifth year skiing when I was in middle school my folks had become so into skiing that they bought a modest camp about five miles from Okemo. All family vacations after buying that camp were centered around skiing in the winter and enjoying lake rescue in the summer.

So, me being entered in the local, cheap skiing program went on change the leisure direction of my entire family.  

Pretty cool



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (May 11, 2019)

No one skied in my family either. I started at 14 when a friend invited me to go with his high school on a day trip to the original Crotched. I had a job and my parents said if I wanted to go I had to pay for it myself, which I did. My sister found an old pair of skis for me in a garage where she worked and my buddy lent me a paid of boots. Skied with friends a few more times throughout high school and college around NH and a few trips to Killington and Sugarbush all on my own dime. If it had been a high schooler’s/ college kid’s part time weeks pay check or more I wouldn’t have gone.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## machski (May 11, 2019)

Before my brother and I we're around, my dad had actually been on ski patrol at the original Crotched (The East side area which has never reopened).  He gave that up and DH skiing when he met and married my mom (should would not DH ski and never has).  We discovered dad's old gear in the basement and when I was 12, we finally convinced my parents to have dad take us and teach us.  We got hooked, dad kept skiing for another decade or so with us and then gave it up again.

My wife and I don't have kids but my brother does and his kids learned at 2 each.  They loved it and still skin bit but very occasionally as each are involved in year round team sports (Niece is in field hockey and lacrosse, Nephew Hockey and Lacrosse).  Kind of crappy how those two sports suck up all their free time year round.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## drjeff (May 11, 2019)

If you're talking getting non ski before kids, with non skiing parents into the sport, the reality is the easiest way is if the kids school has an after school weekly ski program. It covers all the bases (access to a hill with lessons and rentals and transportation(, it's usually at a reasonable price point, and there's the social component that often can make or break the learning experience for a kid (a "bad" lesson with friends there is easier to want to come back for another one than a "bad" lesson where the kid doesn't know anybody in the group for the majority of kids these days).  The social component, which is also an aspect the ski industry is trying to focus on as they target millennials who either have never skied or maybe have done so a handful of times before.

Like it or not, being able to post a selfie to one's instagram page while on the hill with friends is an important thing to a sizable market of young potential skiers/riders these days


----------



## cdskier (May 11, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> So, me being entered in the local, cheap skiing program went on change the leisure direction of my entire family.
> 
> Pretty cool



That was a pretty damn cool story!




machski said:


> Before my brother and I we're around, my dad had actually been on ski patrol at the original Crotched (The East side area which has never reopened).  He gave that up and DH skiing when he met and married my mom (should would not DH ski and never has).  We discovered dad's old gear in the basement and when I was 12, we finally convinced my parents to have dad take us and teach us.  We got hooked, dad kept skiing for another decade or so with us and then gave it up again.



Nice...a bit similar to me, although my dad was never on ski patrol anywhere. He did ski up until he met and married my mom. When I was about 14 or so my parents bought a vacation house in the Poconos near a small ski area. Myself, my brother, and my sister all started taking lessons and skiing there and my dad got back into it too at that point. He still skis with me although not as much as 5-10 years ago and his Dr makes him stick to groomers now.


----------



## dlague (May 11, 2019)

This conversation is now off the OP but....

I also was the first in my family at 16 with Jay Peak as my feeder hill - even made snow there for a year at 19.  I got my two younger brothers into it years later when they were 8 and 13ish.  My two sisters did not start unll they were in their thirties after seeing our family ski week after week. My ex wife skied about 5 times and never did it again while my now wife did not start skiing until 32 and now skies with me 50 + days per season.  As a family we started going maybe 10 days per season while our boys were little.  Eventually we got in 30 days per season and for the past 5 seasons have consistently got 50 days or more.  Note that 3 of our boys have been on their own for that time.  Spring sports always got in the way and none of our boys played winter sports.  So it was all acheiveable to hit 30 but 50 days is now easier.  Our kids now in their twenties except for our youngest still ski or snowboard but they are the average 6-10 days if they feel like it sometimes less.

One of my sisters has kids who are in baseball year round and their skiing has died and the other sister well her kids have grown up and they have stopped.  One of my brothers no longer skis and the other brother still gets out there with is daughter but his wife gave it up.

That is the likely story for the industry.  It is a roller coaster of a business.  While some fade away others jump on.  Then there are those who are consistent.

We were bargin hunters and did not buy season passes until three of our boys were on there own.  Season passes ultimately got us skiing more.  Buying season passes for 6 is not cheap.  Spreading $'s through a season was easier.

Social media has be pivitol in getting people to try different things.  Seeing friends and family skiing on Facebook  has probably helped the sport at least for trying it.



Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 12, 2019)

drjeff said:


> If you're talking *getting non ski before kids, with non skiing parents into the sport, the reality is** the easiest way is if the kids school has an after school weekly ski program.*



That's how I started as someone without a skier in my family.  My friends joined ski club, and it sounded like fun, so I asked my Mom if I could do it and the rest is history.  Those public school ski club deals were an unreal bargain.  I cant recall the precise sum, but I do recall a beginner lift ticket, boot/ski rentals, and 1.5 hour lesson each week was crazy cheap.  This was at a little Pocono hill.



drjeff said:


> Like it or not, *being able to post a selfie to one's instagram page while on the hill with friends is an important thing to a sizable market of young potential skiers/riders *these days



I really hope the, _"I am the most important thing on this planet"_ mentality swiftly dies after that generation.  
I'm optimistic that it will.


----------



## AdironRider (May 13, 2019)

It seems the affordable skiing dream has been and continues to be a way lots of folks learn to ski, including plenty here. 



BenedictGomez said:


> I really hope the, _"I am the most important thing on this planet"_ mentality swiftly dies after that generation.
> I'm optimistic that it will.



Doubtful. 

On an instinctual level, literally every lifeform is going to look out for itself. Good luck eliminating human nature. 

Besides this is nothing new. Gen X was full of woe is me kids. The boomers always have and will continue to consider themselves the best thing since sliced bread. The generation before that literally called themselves "the greatest". If that isn't self centered, I don't know what is.


----------



## Scruffy (May 13, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Besides this is nothing new. Gen X was full of woe is me kids. The boomers always have and will continue to consider themselves the best thing since sliced bread. *The generation before that literally called themselves "the greatest". If that isn't self centered, I don't know what is*.



Bullshit. That generation lived through the great depression and then quietly went to war and ended WWII. When they
came home they quietly went back to work and literally built the middle class. If they had suffered what is now 
known as PTSD , they suffered that quietly and without making a stink about it. Sure, holding stuff inside may have
resulted in other issues relating to self destructive behaviors, and perhaps their families paid a price for their 
stoical pride, but they never touted their own horn. The term "Greatest Generation" was only recently coined by Tom Brokaw, the 
title of his book about that generation; they never called themselves that.


----------



## AdironRider (May 13, 2019)

Scruffy said:


> Bullshit. That generation lived through the great depression and then quietly went to war and ended WWII. When they
> came home they quietly went back to work and literally built the middle class. If they had suffered what is now
> known as PTSD , they suffered that quietly and without making a stink about it. Sure, holding stuff inside may have
> resulted in other issues relating to self destructive behaviors, and perhaps their families paid a price for their
> ...



A lot of them also ignored their boomer kids,  who naturally overcompensated and gave every millennial a trophy.

The point is this is the same old story. Old guy thinks kids today are soft. 

I’m pretty sure some caveman was like well whatever kid, that wheel is just you being lazy but I invented fire.


----------



## Hawk (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> A lot of them also ignored their boomer kids,  who naturally overcompensated and gave every millennial a trophy.
> 
> The point is this is the same old story. Old guy thinks kids today are soft.
> 
> I’m pretty sure some caveman was like well whatever kid, that wheel is just you being lazy but I invented fire.



I'm with scruffy.  Being 52 and a Gen Xer and looking at all the different generations, there is no question that my Father's generation, and his father judging by the stories, was without question much stronger and more giving than any following generation.  The public norms, etiquettes, work ethics and selfless giving to friends and family has all but gone from our culture for the most part.  Anybody that thinks otherwise is basically ignoring what is transpiring right in front of them.  Actually, anybody that is 30 or under may not have experienced those people and only have their parents to go by.  I firmly put the blame on where the cultural shift went and the poisoning of the current young generation on parents my age.  With 22 nieces and nephews to go by plus double that in cousins, I can firmly say that what is perceived by people under 30 for being acceptable behavior for work ethic and what is owed to them has certainly changed dramatically.  I was taught by my father that NOTHING is owed to me and you had to work really hard with long hours to get ahead.  Also you always helped people in need weather you donate or pitch in a hand.  That is certainly not the norm today.  Fact.


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2019)

Hawk said:


> I'm with scruffy.  Being 52 and a Gen Xer and looking at all the different generations, there is no question that my Father's generation, and his father judging by the stories, was without question much stronger and more giving than any following generation.  The public norms, etiquettes, work ethics and selfless giving to friends and family has all but gone from our culture for the most part.  Anybody that thinks otherwise is basically ignoring what is transpiring right in front of them.  Actually, anybody that is 30 or under may not have experienced those people and only have their parents to go by.  I firmly put the blame on where the cultural shift went and the poisoning of the current young generation on parents my age.  With 22 nieces and nephews to go by plus double that in cousins, I can firmly say that what is perceived by people under 30 for being acceptable behavior for work ethic and what is owed to them has certainly changed dramatically.  I was taught by my father that NOTHING is owed to me and you had to work really hard with long hours to get ahead.  Also you always helped people in need weather you donate or pitch in a hand.  That is certainly not the norm today.  Fact.



So you think kids are lazy these days? Thanks for illustrating my point.


----------



## Hawk (May 14, 2019)

Look I don't know what you do or where you come from.  But In a general sense I don't think, I know.  I hire and manage tons of them.  Yes it is a generalization but the percentages of "lazy" or as they call it now, unmotivated young workers is on the rise.   This is discussed in most upper level discussion groups or management seminars.  Also no one today wants to work 40 hours a week or god forbid Saturdays.  It was common 20 years ago that most people worked at least 50 and a large percentage worked more.  It was expected.  This whole Quality of life balance thing only took place over the last 10 years or so.   So I guess my generalization is more accurate than yours lets say.


----------



## abc (May 14, 2019)

Time has changed (and has always been changing all along)

Calling the youngsters "lazy" is itself a sign of entitlement. 

I grew up in a 3rd world country. The hardship people endure over there would be unthinkable for even your grandfather! Does that mean YOU and your father are lazy? Noooo! 

Why do I say that? Because this country is so rich ONLY PARTLY because your father and grandfather work hard. A really BIG part of the success was they work SMART! 

I'm not just talking about technology here. But also systems and environment they work in that allows innovation to flourish. 

Yeah, right, all the safety protection had made us "soft". But you want to go back to the "hard old days"? Be my guest. How many straight skis do you still have?


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> *So you think kids are lazy these days? Thanks for illustrating my point*.



Why do you assume mutual exclusivity rather than a real chronological decline in maturity & ambition over time?

In Colonial America, 18 & 19 year olds commanded entire regiments, planning & leading some of the most decisive battle charges in history.  Others that age commonly owned & ran successful businesses.

In modern America, 18 & 19 year olds live in their parents' basement.

https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences-81471

So it doesn't appear obvious to me that each generation complaining about the last, doesn't perhaps have a legitimate point.


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why do you assume mutual exclusivity rather than a real chronological decline in maturity & ambition over time?
> 
> In Colonial America, 18 & 19 year olds commanded entire regiments, planning & leading some of the most decisive battle charges in history.  Others that age commonly owned & ran successful businesses.
> 
> ...



Because it just isn't true. 

In colonial America the average lifespan was 36 and you had barely had a 60% chance to even make it to 18 or 19. You are going to become a leader by default due to attrition at that age back then. Nevermind slavery was a thing, women couldn't vote, healthcare consisted of a bottle of whiskey and a knife, I could go on. 

Each successive generation improved upon that, and it wasn't just due to the theory of evolution. Different circumstances sure, but if kids these days really were like you said they are (millennials are the largest generation ever in terms of population here in America, and make up the largest percentage of the workforce currently) we wouldn't have the strongest economy, with the highest levels of productivity and diversity ever seen in history.  

Kids living at home through early adulthood is much more a product of the student loan crisis where kids graduate with a mortgage payment level of student loan debt than a lack of character like you surmise. You also clearly don't know anything about the military if you think guys at 18 & 19 aren't being leaders. You realize almost 5 years of millennials can't even join now because they are too old right? 

Now let's look at 5 of the most successful companies out there today. Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon were all founded by people under the age of 30. Thats no different than the young bucks like Ford back in the day. If what you said was true, that wouldn't have happened. Hell, if you really believe ambition has decreased over time we would probably all still be hunter gatherers. But pretty much all of history proves otherwise.

We can all complain how kids go about things differently and laugh about it in jest, but since you seem to seriously believe millennials are some completely flawed generation you really just sound like an old guy yelling at clouds. Doing something different doesn't mean there isn't work ethic or ambition, it just means those ambitions are different than yours.


----------



## Hawk (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Well in colonial America the average lifespan was 36 and you had barely had a 60% chance to even make it to 18 or 19. You are going to become a leader by default due to attrition at that age back then. Nevermind slavery was a thing, women couldn't vote, healthcare consisted of a bottle of whiskey and a knife, I could go on.
> 
> Each successive generation improved upon that, and it wasn't just due to the theory of evolution. Different circumstances sure, but if kids these days really were like you said they are (millennials are the largest generation ever in terms of population here in America, and make up the largest percentage of the workforce currently) we wouldn't have the strongest economy with the highest levels of productivity ever seen in history.
> 
> ...


Every generation has their leaders and their innovators.  This is not about them.  This is about your run on the mill, blue and white collar workers.  The general people that go to work.  I will agree with your statement that every generation says that about the following generation.  But I will add that it is true.


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2019)

Productivity levels prove you wrong. 



https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity


----------



## cdskier (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Productivity levels prove you wrong.
> 
> View attachment 25257
> 
> https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity



I'm young (relatively speaking at mid-upper 30s), but I'm still not quite sure I understand how increasing productivity levels prove anything about laziness. Shouldn't productivity levels naturally increase thanks to technology advancements?


----------



## Scruffy (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Now let's look at 5 of the most successful companies out there today. *Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon were all founded by people under the age*. Thats no different than the young bucks like Ford back in the day. If what you said was true, that wouldn't have happened. Hell, if you really believe ambition has decreased over time we would probably all still be hunter gatherers. But pretty much all of history proves otherwise.
> .



Point of fact: Three of those companies were founded by Baby Boomers, one by a Gen Xer, and only one by a millennial. All of them primarily used technology invented by those that came before them, some the "Greatest Generation" and the generation before them, and some of it invented by other fellow Baby Boomers; not that there's anything wrong with that, that's the way progress is made; however, so often humans forget that we all stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. It's human nature for each generation to think that they have it all together and that those that came before them messed it up.


----------



## Scruffy (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> Productivity levels prove you wrong.
> 
> View attachment 25257
> 
> https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity



You can't use those productivity numbers to prove anything other than machinery and automation amplify the amount of work a company can produce with less workers.


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2019)

Scruffy said:


> Point of fact: Three of those companies were founded by Baby Boomers, one by a Gen Xer, and only one by a millennial. All of them primarily used technology invented by those that came before them, some the "Greatest Generation" and the generation before them, and some of it invented by other fellow Baby Boomers; not that there's anything wrong with that, that's the way progress is made; however, so often humans forget that we all stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. It's human nature for each generation to think that they have it all together and that those that came before them messed it up.





Scruffy said:


> You can't use those productivity numbers to prove anything other than machinery and automation amplify the amount of work a company can produce with less workers.




1) My references to companies was to Benedict's contention that kids are becoming more lazy and don't start businesses. I used those examples to show that over time, successful businesses are started by the young all the time. If Benedict and your point was true, that wouldn't be the case. History has, and the future will continue to show otherwise.

2) If we still were a manufacturing dominant economy maybe, but that isn't the case, although we are starting to make strides there. Productivity is productivity at the end of the day and with millennials being the largest part of the workforce, you can't have it both ways and say they are regressing, when the economy proves otherwise. Again, just because they are making something differently than they did back in the day doesn't mean they aren't trying or have no ambition. Work smarter not harder. 

But keep on keeping on with the kids these days just aren't the same. We've all heard it before and millennials and Gen Z will do the same. Everyone thinks they are the best, it is literally instinct.


----------



## Scruffy (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> 1) My references to companies was to Benedict's contention that kids are becoming more lazy. I used those examples to show that over time, successful businesses are started by the young all the time. If Benedict and *your point* was true, that wouldn't be the case.
> 
> 2) If we still were a manufacturing dominant economy maybe, but that isn't the case, although we are starting to make strides there. Productivity is productivity at the end of the day and with millennials being the largest part of the workforce, you can't have it both ways and say they are regressing, when the economy proves otherwise. Again, just because they are making something differently than they did back in the day doesn't mean they aren't trying or have no ambition. Work smarter not harder.
> 
> But keep on keeping on with the kids these days just aren't the same. We've all heard it before and millennials and Gen Z will do the same. Everyone thinks they are the best, it is literally instinct.



1) My point? What exactly is my point from what I've posted in this thread? I've only corrected some assumptions made. I've made no claims. 

2) Those charts you posted are non-farm based productivity, that includes everything else, not just manufacturing.


----------



## abc (May 14, 2019)

Scruffy said:


> *It's human nature* for each generation to think that they have it all together and that those that came before them messed it up...
> ... _*and the generation after them aren't as worthy*._


Fix it for ya!


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2019)

Your first three words in what I quoted literally say "point of fact". 

My whole point is that every generation thinks they are the best. Whether that is expressed as "kids these days are lazy", or the inverse like you claim. I suppose we aren't really saying things much differently and this is a more glass half full or empty type debate between me and you. 

But, machinery and automation do not explain a 500%+ increase in productivity over the span of 50 years exclusively. You claimed otherwise.


----------



## Scruffy (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> My whole point is that every generation thinks they are the best. Whether that is expressed as "kids these days are lazy", or the inverse like you claim. I suppose we aren't really saying things much differently and this is a more glass half full or empty type debate between me and you.



True. The generational gap cuts both ways. 



AdironRider said:


> But, machinery and automation do not explain a 500%+ increase in productivity over the span of 50 years exclusively. You claimed otherwise.



When I say automation I include the information economy, not just robotic manufacturing. I think that may be the disconnect. That 500%+ increase includes things like financials - think of the wealth boom in the market due to information technology over the old telephone call and paper way of trading stock. Think of the high paying jobs in IT. Think of the fact that I can put a seventy year old grandmother ( exaggeration, I know ) on a robotics assembly line and that one person can produce 200 times what one 20yo male could in 1920.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 14, 2019)

Hawk said:


> *Every generation has their leaders and their innovators.  This is not about them.  This is about your run on the mill, blue and white collar workers.  The general people that go to work. * I will agree with your statement that every generation says that about the following generation.  But I will add that it is true.



Right, you got what I was saying.

My sense from history is, if you plucked the mean worker from that age cohort out of 1919 versus 2019, the 20'something from 2019 wouldn't fare comparatively well in work ethic & fortitude.

Simply stated, I believe we're getting soft(er).


----------



## mister moose (May 14, 2019)

Consider all the labor law changes in the last 100 or so years.

Look at this photo:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/AddieCard05282vLewisHine.jpg
"Addie Card, 12 years. Spinner in North Pormal [i.e., Pownal] Cotton Mill. Vt." by ​Lewis Hine, 1912 - 1913

​Sure, times were different then, and child labor laws are a change we wouldn't want to reverse.  But don't think for a minute it's all the same now as then growing up, or getting and holding a job.  My grandmother only got an 8th grade education and went to work.  My father went to war.  My uncle was on Utah beach in Normandy on D-day, and in his teens faced something all of us have never had to face.  Are kids today "softer" than the 12 year old in the above photo?  It speaks for itself.

** And last years Vermont skier's visits were released on May 9th, we should see that number fairly soon.


----------



## machski (May 14, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Right, you got what I was saying.
> 
> My sense from history is, if you plucked the mean worker from that age cohort out of 1919 versus 2019, the 20'something from 2019 wouldn't fare comparatively well in work ethic & fortitude.
> 
> Simply stated, I believe we're getting soft(er).


I have to agree.  What I am seeing from the younger pilots coming into our company are pilots who don't want to fly too much, as soon as the jet is on the ground and owners are off, they are inside on their phones/tablets rather than turning the jet to be ready for the next flight right away.  Simply stated, they do not like the long days and lots of flying.  Many are doing it now that company incentivized ($$) flight hours, but I feel that will only last so long before we're right back to a certain group dragging feet.  I will grent that there are some long tenured pilots who are not millenial and do the same, but I severly doubt even they would pull the crap the younger ones seem to in their first year or 2 of employment.

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2019)

And I bet you all walked to school barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways. 

You guys are conflating hardship with work ethic, and they are two entirely different things.


----------



## Edd (May 14, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> You guys are conflating hardship with work ethic, and they are two entirely different things.



Yep, agreed. The same 12 year old girl in that photo posted above that was born in 2007 would likely suck it up and work every day. People generally do what the situation demands. Older people unfailingly say younger folks are soft and on and on it goes...I don’t think much has changed with the human condition.


----------



## Not Sure (May 14, 2019)

Edd said:


> Yep, agreed. The same 12 year old girl in that photo posted above that was born in 2007 would likely suck it up and work every day.



Maybe......... if she is not infected with the "Entitlement plague" . I have some younger relatives who work but have taken much longer to mature than had they not been given all the luxuries . Why work ? when you're handed stuff. Not that they don't work , they complain about student loans ." It's not fair" Government should pay " ...... Why should anyone else pay for your damn college ? Some poor warehouse guy has it tough enough now you want him to pay for your tuition? WTF

Rant over


----------



## Edd (May 14, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Maybe......... if she is not infected with the "Entitlement plague" . I have some younger relatives who work but have taken much longer to mature than had they not been given all the luxuries . Why work ? when you're handed stuff. Not that they don't work , they complain about student loans ." It's not fair" Government should pay " ...... Why should anyone else pay for your damn college ? Some poor warehouse guy has it tough enough now you want him to pay for your tuition? WTF
> 
> Rant over



Leads into a different conversation. Government funded education makes sense to me, vocationally or academically. 

My anecdotal experience is at the large corporation I work at and I’ve encountered plenty of hard working mid twenties people. The recent cultural sentiment about better work-life balance isn’t something to be held against that generation, IMO. Gen X on down is involved in that and I think it’s good. 

I’m Gen X and I certainly do not hold my generation or the Boomers in higher esteem in any way than the younger gens. You’re born into the world you’re born into.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2019)

Generational discussions comparing the financial hardships of college expenses are dumb.

My father went to Boston College in the mid 60s.  Tuition was $1500 a year.  Room and Board $1000.  He stayed off campus instead renting a room in someone's home for $500 a year and that family fed him. 

He was able to put himself through school bagging groceries at $1.25/hr and graduate in 3.5 years with zero debt. He received $0 in scholarship money.  Paid full price.

Full boat pricing at BC is $68k per year today.  Anyone want to argue a student today without scholarships can pay their way through school at an elite college bagging groceries and graduate with zero debt? 



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (May 14, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> Generational discussions comparing the financial hardships of college expenses are dumb.
> 
> My father went to Boston College in the mid 60s.  Tuition was $1500 a year.  Room and Board $1000.  He stayed off campus instead renting a room in someone's home for $500 a year and that family fed him.
> 
> ...



I honestly don't understand how kids today can do it. I didn't exactly graduate THAT long ago and yet the difference between when I was there and now is insane. My school (which was considered a top value) was $18K/year for tuition ($25K/year including room/board, etc) back in the early 2000s when I was there. Today it is 45K/year for tuition alone (and 61.5K/year including room/board). It just boggles my mind. That rate of increase is just not sustainable at all. And I don't think "free" college is the answer either as that just masks the problem of insane rising costs. I'd like to understand what is really driving those drastic cost increases. I doubt they're paying professors that much more than when I was there... Something doesn't quite add up to me.

But I digress...we're getting way off topic now.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2019)

To expand a bit further on my dad's early life experience.  Shortly after graduating BC, he got married, my brother was born and he got drafted. Spent 13 months in Korea at 21-22 years old.  

He came back stateside and carved out a nice career in finance after. He got a job as a bank teller when he first got home and was able to achieve an MBA from BC in night school on that salary while paying a mortgage, having a young child to support and my mom's starting teaching salary to contribute.  

Anyone want to argue a bank teller today supporting a child and mortgage can get pay as they go for an MBA from an elite college while also living in one of the most expensive markets in the country?

I know I'm bending the conversation away from work ethic towards the cost of survival, but my dad repeatedly tells me how much harder I have it financially compared to what he went through.  The cost I paid to educate myself, the cost of my home, the fact that my daycare expense for two children matches my mortgage...those realities are well beyond any monetary stresses he had to deal with.

So, I say after describing this reality: before older folks crap on the youth today for wanting the world handed to them for less work; respect the fact that the financial hardships of young people today is FAR more challenging than what the Boomers delt with.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Hawk (May 15, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> And I bet you all walked to school barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways.
> 
> You guys are conflating hardship with work ethic, and they are two entirely different things.


No I am certainly not.  Just like Machski,  I am comparing what I and my peers considered a strong work ethic with what people that we are hiring now think a strong work ethic is.  Look I am not pulling my data from the internet.  I am talking about conversations and situations I encounter in my job over the last 20 years.  People my age did not complain and fight having to stay late.  We just did and it and it was expected.  If a Saturday was needed to get the job done, it was worked.  Not questions.  We did not drop what we were doing to answer a text or look at facebook.  Hell my boss used to get on me about personal calls if it was not at lunch.  I work as a construction manager and have projects going day and night and also on weekends.  It is the job and we were always made to understand the rules.  The kids we are hiring now do not like the hours, always want to leave early and expect that they will get raises and bonuses.  As a manager I find it really hard to reward the ones that complain.  I have no Idea what you do for a living but if this is normal where you work then it does not cut it where I come from.


----------



## machski (May 15, 2019)

Hawk said:


> No I am certainly not.  Just like Machski,  I am comparing what I and my peers considered a strong work ethic with what people that we are hiring now think a strong work ethic is.  Look I am not pulling my data from the internet.  I am talking about conversations and situations I encounter in my job over the last 20 years.  People my age did not complain and fight having to stay late.  We just did and it and it was expected.  If a Saturday was needed to get the job done, it was worked.  Not questions.  We did not drop what we were doing to answer a text or look at facebook.  Hell my boss used to get on me about personal calls if it was not at lunch.  I work as a construction manager and have projects going day and night and also on weekends.  It is the job and we were always made to understand the rules.  The kids we are hiring now do not like the hours, always want to leave early and expect that they will get raises and bonuses.  As a manager I find it really hard to reward the ones that complain.  I have no Idea what you do for a living but if this is normal where you work then it does not cut it where I come from.


^^^This.  Then add on top of it the financial difficulties DHS noted for today's college students and one would think if they put themselves through that stress at those costs, they would come out fully driven to excel and do what the jobs required.  Instead, you see pushback to yield the type of job/work condition they would want, not necessarily jiving with the one they were offered and accepted employment with.  

As to the college costs, I would not argue they are out of control and unrealistic.  My wife and I chose to not have kids, but my financial planning factors in helping our sibblings with our nieces and nephews college expenses.  Its just gotten too high to expect a family to be able to put their own kids through and still save good early for their retirements.  IDK, maybe its just me, but all the financial stressors drive me to work harder and excel.

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (May 15, 2019)

Hawk said:


> It is the job and we were always made to understand the rules.  The kids we are hiring now do not like the hours, always want to leave early and expect that they will get raises and bonuses.


In my job, the "kids" fight to get assigned late night and weekend works!  Of course, the 1 and half time pay has a lot to do with that!  

But that's only for the junior level employees. Once you're a "professional", the 1 and half pay stops. You can be exploited to work as many hours as your boss see fit. Typically, the bosses who plan works well (and resist unrealistic project plans from above) don't need a lot of overtime. The one's expecting a lot of overtime tend to have projects running chronically behind schedule! So if you're an employee with no say in the project planning, you have the option to work a lot of extra hours for an inapt manager, or not.  

I don't get paid 1 and 1/2 time pay. But my manager doesn't ask for a lot of overtime either. More significantly, I have a say in project planning so if I end up needing to work significant overtime, it would partly be my own fault (in "managing my manager").  

What I'm trying to say is, the standard work week is 40 hours, give or take. To work occasionally extra is one thing. _*To do >>40hr regularly, it's only reasonable the employee would also expect extra compensation. *_

That "extra compensation" may come in the form of bonus or promotion (or "rich" if you're working at a startup). But it typically only comes if your boss is in good standing with the manager above. Typically, projects that are chronically behind schedule wouldn't cut it. So why work hard when you KNOW you won't get recognized because your manager is inapt?


----------



## Hawk (May 15, 2019)

abc said:


> In my job, the "kids" fight to get assigned late night and weekend works!  Of course, the 1 and half time pay has a lot to do with that!
> 
> But that's only for the junior level employees. Once you're a "professional", the 1 and half pay stops. You can be exploited to work as many hours as your boss see fit. Typically, the bosses who plan works well (and resist unrealistic project plans from above) don't need a lot of overtime. The one's expecting a lot of overtime tend to have projects running chronically behind schedule! So if you're an employee with no say in the project planning, you have the option to work a lot of extra hours for an inapt manager, or not.
> 
> ...


I work for an extremely large Architectural/Engineering/Construction company.  We are all salary based employees with no pay for overtime.  Most of us have long standing clients that we work with.   The schedules are what they are and are provided by the owners/clients.  They keep coming to us because we get creative and make the schedule no matter what.  That is what we do and why we get repeat business.  This is what is explained to the younger workers but they don't get it.  It is my understanding and my ethic that there is no such thing as a 40 hour work week.  No one works 40 hours and if that is the expectation then your ethic is weak.  This is the ethic across the entire construction business community.  But it's not all that bad.  I get out and ride my bike at least 5 days a week and ski 60 days a year.  If I can do that in my 50's then anybody can.


----------



## abc (May 15, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> You guys are conflating hardship with work ethic, and they are two entirely different things.


More than that, some also only conflate "work ethic" with long hours. 

In this day and age, it's important to work smart, not just work hard. Get more done in the same amount of time/effort, rather than just staying late.


----------



## abc (May 15, 2019)

Hawk said:


> I work for an extremely large Architectural/Engineering/Construction company.  We are all salary based employees with no pay for overtime.  Most of us have long standing clients that we work with.   The schedules are what they are and are provided by the owners/clients.  They keep coming to us because we get creative and make the schedule no matter what.  That is what we do and why we get repeat business.  This is what is explained to the younger workers but they don't get it.  It is my understanding and my ethic that there is no such thing as a 40 hour work week.  No one works 40 hours and if that is the expectation then your ethic is weak.  This is the ethic across the entire construction business community.  But it's not all that bad.  I get out and ride my bike at least 5 days a week and ski 60 days a year.  If I can do that in my 50's then anybody can.


Your younger workers "not getting it" could be one of many reasons:

1) they can get the same salary without the overtime elsewhere 

2) they don't get to share the profit of the increased work (which the senior employees get?)

3) they don't see any potential for promotion or a long term future in the firm

Base on my own experience, the last reason is probably the biggest probability. It's my personal opinion a professional just starting out will be much better off working in a small outfit. That's all. (And it maybe you're not getting the most self-motivated of the graduates in a big firm?)


----------



## Hawk (May 15, 2019)

No,  I started out in a small company and worked my way up by working hard, never saying no and working long hours.  I know the gig and have done it all. You are making my point.  My experiences are that the younger guys come in, inexperienced and think they can do it better and should get paid as much as the more experienced guys which is never true.  In construction you need the experience.  They cannot go elsewhere and get the same salary and work less.  Profit sharing is voluntary and is given when deserved.  Work hard and you will get a bonus on my jobs.  Act like you are entitled and get nothing.  Also the hard workers get the promotions and work their way up the ladder.  That's what I did.  Again, NO ONE is entitled to nothing until they earn it.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 15, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Maybe......... if she is not infected with the "Entitlement plague" . I have some younger relatives who work but have taken much longer to mature than had they not been given all the luxuries . Why work ? when you're handed stuff. Not that they don't work , they complain about student loans ." It's not fair" Government should pay " ...... Why should anyone else pay for your damn college ? Some poor warehouse guy has it tough enough now you want him to pay for your tuition? WTF
> 
> Rant over



I definitely see this becoming a thing.  Unrealistic expectations too.  

I find the people out of college at my company seem frustrated starting out low, or at the very least, seem to have this unrealistically high measure or opinion of their worth to the company even though they literally have no experience, and just a college background.  When I was 22, I knew I knew nothing and had a lot to learn, but some of these folks (not all obviously) seem to think they should start in management.


----------



## Hawk (May 15, 2019)

abc said:


> More than that, some also only conflate "work ethic" with long hours.
> 
> In this day and age, it's important to work smart, not just work hard. Get more done in the same amount of time/effort, rather than just staying late.


No your wrong.  This is a millennia construct.  If you bang stuff out fast and leave early the perception is that you don't have enough to do.  And if you take the initiative to work longer hours, people notice and will reward you.  Also, if you do bang stuff out fast and use your extra time to text, cruse the internet, shoot the shit with your colleagues, take long lunches, etc.  Then that is even worse.  I hate to say it but as an employer, everything you are saying make me and most of the management team cringe.  I am not at a software company where hours are flex, there is a quiet room to take a nap if you need and long lunches and team building take priority.  This is real blue collar work where things are serious and only the hard working people survive.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 15, 2019)

cdskier said:


> *I'd like to understand what is really driving those drastic cost increases.* I doubt they're paying professors that much more than when I was there... Something doesn't quite add up to me.



Government.   As with many problems.

College tuition is an unsustainable (as you mentioned) bubble driven by access to easy money in the form of ever increasing Federal loans for education.  Economics 101.  When you flood a given area with cash, it leads to inflation; in this case, tuition inflation, and the expansion of government federal-aid for college has skyrocketed over the last few decades.    

And salaries for professors have generally risen.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 15, 2019)

Oh, one other serious problem?     

When "money is easy", it leads to increased demand to grab that cash.  I would argue that if you looked at the value and rigor of a college diploma handed out in 2019 it would be less than 2009, which would be less than 1999, etc....   We have entire BS colleges today cranking out sub-par educations.  

I read a phenomenal article about a year ago that noted that plenty of colleges today wouldn't consider hiring their own "PhD" graduates to become professors!  

Simply put, college is getting "easier" and the degree/product "less valuable".


----------



## abc (May 15, 2019)

Hawk said:


> No,  I started out in a small company and worked my way up by working hard, never saying no and working long hours.  I know the gig and have done it all. You are making my point.  My experiences are that the younger guys come in, inexperienced and think they can do it better and should get paid as much as the more experienced guys which is never true.  In construction you need the experience.  They cannot go elsewhere and get the same salary and work less.  Profit sharing is voluntary and is given when deserved.  Work hard and you will get a bonus on my jobs.  Act like you are entitled and get nothing.  Also the hard workers get the promotions and work their way up the ladder.  That's what I did.  Again, NO ONE is entitled to nothing until they earn it.


We're both making the same point. 

Young professional can learn a lot more working in a smaller outfit where they're more directly related to the outcome of their work. They also learn a lot more in the process. 

Working in a large firm, they don't see the impact of their work. It's a weeding out process. Those who are self-motivated got "motivated" to smaller firms. Only the "lazy" stay at big firms where, their promotion path are often blocked by long time employees, and there's a lot more politics of "appearing" to work hard without achieving real output. 

[EDIT] Probably "lazy" is the wrong word. They're just not the self-motivated kind. They maybe the kind who got the job done, and do no more.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 15, 2019)

One other thing about the "college boom" - Much of this has been promulgated by the lie that,_ "everyone should have a college education"_, a dopey statement happily spouted by politicians from both of our major parties. 

 Not EVERYONE is college material, and we are doing a huge disservice to kids by psychologically making them feel they are "lesser" persons if they dont have a college degree.  I find this sentiment as vomitously elitist as I do both false & destructive.  

 When you shoehorn someone who would be happier and more successful as a plumber or a mechanic into a college education not suited to him/her, you simply saddle them with a largely useless scrap of paper and loads of debt.   And for what?  Plumbers in this country now make 6-figure salaries.  [/rant over]


----------



## cdskier (May 15, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> I definitely see this becoming a thing.  Unrealistic expectations too.
> 
> I find the people out of college at my company seem frustrated starting out low, or at the very least, seem to have this unrealistically high measure or opinion of their worth to the company even though they literally have no experience, and just a college background.  When I was 22, I knew I knew nothing and had a lot to learn, but some of these folks (not all obviously) seem to think they should start in management.



I blame a lot of that on colleges. So many routinely tell their students (and prospective students), "with a xyz degree from our prestigious university you'll start out earning <insert crazy high salary number here> when you graduate". So they leave college and expect just that... While that does happen sometimes, it is more the exception of someone that got lucky and stepping in shit rather than the rule.


----------



## cdskier (May 15, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> One other thing about the "college boom" - Much of this has been promulgated by the lie that,_ "everyone should have a college education"_, a dopey statement happily spouted by politicians from both of our major parties.
> 
> Not EVERYONE is college material, and we are doing a huge disservice to kids by psychologically making them feel they are "lesser" persons if they dont have a college degree.  I find this sentiment as vomitously elitist as I do both false & destructive.
> 
> When you shoehorn someone who would be happier and more successful as a plumber or a mechanic into a college education not suited to him/her, you simply saddle them with a largely useless scrap of paper and loads of debt.   And for what?  Plumbers in this country now make 6-figure salaries.  [/rant over]



I could not agree more with this. The whole pushing everyone to go to college thing is nonsense. Personally I think even for people that do belong going to college, we still as a society go "too early" before many people truly know what they want to do for a career.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 15, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> *I read a phenomenal article about a year ago that noted that plenty of colleges today wouldn't consider hiring their own "PhD" graduates to become professors!  *
> 
> Simply put, college is getting "easier" and the degree/product "less valuable".



Turns out it was an except from a book, not an article.  I recall I agreed with it so much that I screenshotted it and emailed it to my brother, so I still had it.


----------



## JimG. (May 15, 2019)

As has been noted, our federal government drove college tuition up into the stratosphere when it got into the college loan business. Don't blame the colleges, they did only what any capitalistic entity does, they raised tuition when demand grew. And helped stoke that demand. Caveat Emptor...let the buyer beware.

Yes, many folks would be better served in life by not going to college. I know plenty of younger workers in the trades that are doing quite well for themselves because they thought for themselves and realized were better off going to work as an apprentice plumber or carpenter after high school. And it makes no sense to take out huge loans to pay for tuition unless you are getting a useful degree, i.e. high paying. And it certainly makes no sense to take out huge loans and then never finish your degree. Because you still owe that money.

Which brings me to free tuition and loan forgiveness. Cause a generational issue and then "fix" it by making taxpayers who have nothing to do with creating the issue pay for it. Punishment of the innocent. And a self-sustaining cycle of bailouts and dependence.

So before we vilify people or whole generations of being entitled or lazy let's look first at the financial/governmental environment they are working in.


----------



## Scruffy (May 20, 2019)

*When the going gets tough, the tough get going*. Yes the financial environment is tougher now than 30 or 50 years ago when our fathers made a living, but some of the young are making it just fine, so why are there so many not? Is it something in the water? the air? No, we are raising, for the most part, children ill equipped to "dig in", and with too much expectation of instant gratification. Now, having said that, of course the world has changed and we do not need as many workers to "feed" the world as we once did: think "automation" in the larger sense ( I'm using feed as a metaphor here ). But that problem is only going to get worse as we continue to automate everything. So, we need the next generation to dig in and solve the problems facing them, and not shy away because they were coddled with the "everyone gets a star, helicopter mom" era of raising kids, which does not seem to be mitigating. 

There are a lot of good comments in the above posts ^ in this thread. Are there gross generalizations, and personal experiences that don't translate to all, of course, but you don't get a stereotype without a kernel of truth. I know a lot of business owners who say, "you can't get good help these days". I have known several business owners that have closed up shop because they cannot get the kids to work as they are expected and needed to to fill the positions needed to run the business. In my business (building super computers), I have seen both; a very few of the younger engineers are super stars with good work ethics, most, not so much, and don't dig in to make themselves a star. We all have heard the oft quoted phrase that the young "US American" kids won't work the farm fields, so we need the, often illegal, immigrants to do the jobs nobody else want's to do. There is a kernel of truth to that, but there is also a glimmer of hope in the fact that there is a new generation of young farmers taking up the charge to create the next generation of sustainable farmers, at least in some parts of this country.  

So it's a mixed bag. But in general, we, as a society, need to raise kids that are tough, resilient, flexible, and can take rejection without going ape shit. We need to stop coddling our kids and teach then responsibility and respect for themselves and others. We need to get our heads out of the media and stop the vicious cycle of "keeping up with the Joneses/Kardashians"  We need our kids to think for ourselves, and make their own life, and not compare themselves to others and get depressed because we don't have that life. 

/rant


----------



## mister moose (May 20, 2019)

Scruffy said:


> We need to stop coddling our kids and teach the[m] responsibility...



^ Short version.

I see way too many parents sitting at the end of their driveways with the engine idling and their precious young thing in the car waiting for the school bus.  And not just 1st graders, young teens.  What does this teach a child?  What does this keep a child/young adult from learning?  How big is the risk realistically of some evil doer swooping down on your child before they can run to your door vs what happens when they are alone on the bus or in the schoolyard or at the mall?


----------



## Griswold (May 21, 2019)

mister moose said:


> ^ Short version.
> 
> I see way too many parents sitting at the end of their driveways with the engine idling and their precious young thing in the car waiting for the school bus.  And not just 1st graders, young teens.  What does this teach a child?  What does this keep a child/young adult from learning?  How big is the risk realistically of some evil doer swooping down on your child before they can run to your door vs what happens when they are alone on the bus or in the schoolyard or at the mall?



Just curious, do you have kids?  Assuming no with the way you use “precious young thing”.  Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point but in my opinion if you don’t have kids it’s not really one you are qualified to make.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## slatham (May 22, 2019)

Utah sets record. Up 12% from previous record, up 24% from previous year - that is a HUGE increase.


----------



## tumbler (May 22, 2019)

slatham said:


> Utah sets record. Up 12% from previous record, up 24% from previous year - that is a HUGE increase.



And waiting for thw spin that it was all season pass holders and not Ikon...yeah, ok.


----------



## slatham (May 22, 2019)

tumbler said:


> And waiting for thw spin that it was all season pass holders and not Ikon...yeah, ok.



SAM article focused on the snow, though did mention "We also gained new visitors through expanded season pass options". IMHO snow was main driver, but on those busy days the EPIC/Ikon pass situation probably sent things off the ledge......

Every resort had above average snow. One resort saw 111 out of 151 days with measurable snow. Never had a stretch longer than 7 days without snow. 

And this was through April 15th. Lots of winter weather after that, including now!


----------



## thetrailboss (May 22, 2019)

slatham said:


> Utah sets record. Up 12% from previous record, up 24% from previous year - that is a HUGE increase.



Yep.  Over 5 million skier/rider days and still counting with Snowbird. 

https://www.ksl.com/article/46556872/ski-tourism-in-utah-hit-an-all-time-high-this-season

The spin: it was the snow.  There is some truth to that.  I also agree with what someone else has said here as to other factors--the economy is good and a certain pass product debuted this year.  If you watch the clip, you hear Nathan admit that "if you had a season pass in your pocket you were going to use it", so that is at least an indirect reference.  

And one inch of snow = $2.8 million in business to the state.


----------



## abc (May 22, 2019)

tumbler said:


> And waiting for thw spin that it was all season pass holders and not Ikon...yeah, ok.


That's actually quite easy!

Look across both side of the road between Park City and Deer Valley. The increase in PC will be entirely due to good snow. The increase in DV will be snow+Ikon


----------



## slatham (May 22, 2019)

abc said:


> That's actually quite easy!
> 
> Look across both side of the road between Park City and Deer Valley. The increase in PC will be entirely due to good snow. The increase in DV will be snow+Ikon



Disagree. I think there has been more take-up of the Epic pass the last couple years due to 1) better awareness and 2) the addition of 3 popular East Coast areas that have clientele likely to hit PC.

Though I agree the impact of Ikon to DV is greater than the new Epic pass-holders to PC.


----------



## abc (May 22, 2019)

On your first point, the Epic pass awareness does not spike, unlike Ikon. 

To your 2nd point regarding the addition of east coast resorts, Ikon also has several east coast mountains. So perhaps it washes out between the two. If so, we’re left with the western Ikon impact of DV. Still easy to work out what that is. 

To your last point, that’s a “conclusion” that data to support or refute, instead of guesses and speculations. I would like to be proven right. But I were proven wrong, I'd still prefer to know it rather than not knowing.


----------



## Smellytele (May 26, 2019)

How do ski areas that don't scan tickets/passes guess how many days a season pass holder skis?


----------



## Edd (May 28, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> How do ski areas that don't scan tickets/passes guess how many days a season pass holder skis?



There were a few years during which Boyne didn’t appear to scan at all. I found it puzzling.


----------



## machski (May 28, 2019)

Edd said:


> There were a few years during which Boyne didn’t appear to scan at all. I found it puzzling.


Loon still scan quite a bit and SL may but SR gave up on scanning years ago.  No idea how they get an accurate Passholder skier day count.  Has to be an educated guess.  As a side note, they need to do something different next season at SR with Ikon and day skiers.  The ticket lines the first weekend of April were absolutely ridiculous and many in line were Ikon passholders.  Can't imagine the lines were much better any other weekend/peak day.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## crystalmountainskier (May 28, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> How do ski areas that don't scan tickets/passes guess how many days a season pass holder skis?


By counting cars.


----------



## Smellytele (May 28, 2019)

crystalmountainskier said:


> By counting cars.


So they take an average of skiers per car? that's accurate? It's all a scam and a useless made up number pulled out of some ones ass.


----------



## cdskier (May 28, 2019)

Smellytele said:


> So they take an average of skiers per car? that's accurate? It's all a scam and a useless made up number pulled out of some ones ass.



I agree. That method doesn't make a lot of sense. Also wouldn't account for people that live slopeside and can ski to the lifts or people that take some sort of shuttle.

I've often questioned the accuracy of our "historical" skier visit data very much due to the inability to accurately count season pass-holders and it being mostly just a guesstimate in the past. At least today we have technology that "should" allow resorts to accurately report numbers. I can understand smaller resorts perhaps not investing in scanning or RFID, but for any major resort there really is no good excuse to not be able to do that.


----------



## chuckstah (May 28, 2019)

I remember Killington doing this a number of years ago. We were tailgating in the lot when they came along counting.  In addition, they were recording what state each car was from for marketing purposes. Seems so archaic in this day and age, but I guess that was all they had to work with at the time. Times have certainly changed. 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Newpylong (May 29, 2019)

If there is no concrete scanning policy (manual or RFID) then the number is just an educated guess, and one area's metrics differs from the next.

At Whaleback we took the # of tickets sold per day, an educated guess on # of passholders per day, # of school group children per day, # of racers per day, etc to comprise annual skier visits.


----------



## abc (May 29, 2019)

For statistical analysis, you don't need to get the exact number to have meaningful results. In fact, small fluctuation ARE ignored to see the trend. 

"Educated guess". You'll be surprised at how accurate those guesses could be. It does depend on how "educated" the guesser is though.


----------



## slatham (Jun 6, 2019)

Vt reported 4,178,533 skier visits.

The article says "I'm happy to report we cracked the 4 million skiers visits number this season". I guess this is a record? 

https://vtskiandride.com/a-record-ski-season-for-vermont/


----------

