# Day ticket rates vs Pass Prices



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2020)

Seems this discussion is migrating into several other threads currently.

Have at it here

What are your thoughts on the matter

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## drjeff (Jan 20, 2020)

Ultimately it gets down to do you feel happy with what the pass options give you resort wise, since the price point is very good verses do you like to jump around, at which point the trend in day ticket prices at many locations isn't as attractive over a decent number of days during a season...

Is one "better" than the other? Probably going to be as much of a factor of personal situation and feeling than anything else

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


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 20, 2020)

Thanks DHS AZ definitely need this thread
I in tough spot with pass make life much better because I don't have to buy lift ticket 
But it means this winter majority of my ski days are going to be at BellFlat Gore and hope Whiteface because of pass I not working currently. so huge help
I definitely miss not having to ski in Roxbury NY where 1 of best Indy hills is
I sure I ski few other hills 
I like �� variety of different hills
Maybe next season I get NY gold ski pass


----------



## Harvey (Jan 20, 2020)

Seems like you are doing OK this season Scotty.

I continue to ski on my season's passes. But lately it seems that everyone you ski with is redeeming something at the ticket window. My buddy and I got to Gore yesterday, way ahead of the now famous traffic jam and were ready to go well before the lifts were to spin.  We were first in line at the ticket window, to redeem his ticket and waited 40 minutes.  We snagged maybe the 10th gondola.

The pass redeeming, or day ticket purchase, kill it, for a first chair addict like me.  Love me my season's pass.

FWIW Gore was banging, over 7000 in the house. Lines were not hard to avoid.  Even at the bottom the moved quick.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 20, 2020)

I can see both sides, but I still think the day ticket window rate complaint is overblown as there are so many alternatives. Everyone always focuses on that, but people ignore the fact that pass prices have actually come DOWN in price in many cases. The "I have my pass so screw the casual skier" view I also feel is wrong. I don't think people like me are saying that at all. We're saying you need to be smart. Even back when I was a "casual" skier at the big resorts, I still looked around for deals and didn't just make a last minute decision the day of (and if I did, I realized I would have to pay a premium for that choice). Today planning in advance even just a few days can result in significant savings off the window rate. I have a bit of a hard time agreeing with people that seem to think they should be able to just show up on one powder day a year and get a cheap ticket.

Here's my questions for people that don't like the high day ticket rates:
1) Why shouldn't people that are loyal to a resort be rewarded more?
2) What would be a reasonable day ticket window rate? (I know people love to complain about anything over $100, but a place like Camelback in the Poconos is $78 for an adult weekend/holiday window ticket. Even Mountain Creek in NJ is $80 every day)
3) How do you rate the value of a day skiing vs other expensive entertainment options (NFL games, concerts with major mainstream artists, etc)?
4) Is the skiing day ticket pricing model really any different from other industries that also charge more if you don't plan in advance?


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 20, 2020)

cdskier said:


> I The "I have my pass so screw the casual skier" view I also feel is wrong. I don't think people like me are saying that at all.



Right, and from Orca's post in the SB thread: "Or we could title the thread "F*ck the casual skier, I've got mine", which is the prevalent attitude here."

WTF is that? Look, if I could do anything about it, I might, but I can't, I didn't get a vote when Altera or Vail made the current rules, anymore than I got a vote in the current Airline scheme of pricing. The only thing I can do is look at the reality of what is happening and make a decision on what is the most beneficial for my circumstances. As I said in the SB thread, if you don't like the current window rate and can't plan in advance, vote with your $$s and go ski one of the small indie mountains, and tell them that you're happy that they are still in business and one of the anti-mega-pass mountains. That's about all anyone can do except not ski where you pay for lifts.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 20, 2020)

I'll stick with my season passes, Killington and NYS 3 in 1.

The mega pass thing is going to crash under it's own weight. I would be very pissed if I owned property at an area that has been over run by crowds. I'm lucky I have held off on anything like that. I am very sorry for the walk up skier who has to pay these higher window rates but honestly part of the price does reflect a legitimate increase in costs. My real concern is for the ski areas that will be out of business when the shakeout comes.
​


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 20, 2020)

JimG. said:


> *The mega pass thing is going to crash under it's own weight. *



That will happen a few years after Rob Katz decides he, _"needs to move on to a new challenge"_ or _"a different chapter"_ in his life or decides to get into politics, or etc.

In my experience, these CEOs in transformative, but ultimately unsustainable efforts nearly always flee via such excuse before the train jumps off the rails, a point that they are privileged to foresee via insider knowledge, thereby maintaining plausible deniability & escaping blame, pinning-it rather upon their successor.   This destruction, however, will occur long after Katz is able to sell his remaining equity interest in Vail on the open market after his no-longer-an-employee lock-up period expires.

This is all a ways off though, there's still plenty of juice to squeeze in this lemon, and the frog hasnt even started to slowly boil yet via annual EPIC pass price increases (which are coming).


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 21, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> That will happen a few years after Rob Katz decides he, _"needs to move on to a new challenge"_ or _"a different chapter"_ in his life or decides to get into politics, or etc.
> 
> In my experience, these CEOs in transformative, but ultimately unsustainable efforts nearly always flee via such excuse before the train jumps off the rails, a point that they are privileged to foresee via insider knowledge, thereby maintaining plausible deniability & escaping blame, pinning-it rather upon their successor.   This destruction, however, will occur long after Katz is able to sell his remaining equity interest in Vail on the open market after his no-longer-an-employee lock-up period expires.
> 
> This is all a ways off though, there's still plenty of juice to squeeze in this lemon, and the frog hasnt even started to slowly boil yet via annual EPIC pass price increases (which are coming).



You are likely correct, and I know we'll see mega pass price increases, the hook has been set. I hope this is a boon for the indie mountains. My prediction for the consumer side, once the prices for the mega passes get's outta control and sales numbers start dropping there will likely be some adjustments in price, and other opportunities surfacing--maybe a return of the resort only pass or something along those lines, but who knows. Mountains gotta fill seats on chairs one way or the other.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

cdskier said:


> I can see both sides, but I still think the day ticket window rate complaint is overblown as there are so many alternatives. Everyone always focuses on that, but people ignore the fact that pass prices have actually come DOWN in price in many cases. The "I have my pass so screw the casual skier" view I also feel is wrong. I don't think people like me are saying that at all. We're saying you need to be smart. Even back when I was a "casual" skier at the big resorts, I still looked around for deals and didn't just make a last minute decision the day of (and if I did, I realized I would have to pay a premium for that choice). Today planning in advance even just a few days can result in significant savings off the window rate. I have a bit of a hard time agreeing with people that seem to think they should be able to just show up on one powder day a year and get a cheap ticket.



I agree with this generally because I'm not arguing for "cheap". I'm arguing against highway robbery prices. What percentage of skier visits does a mountain such as Stowe or Sugarbush or Killington get from last minute window walk ups? I'm curious about this demographic. For a little while this was me because I re-entered the sport after a 10-year hiatus in the late 2000's. I figured out how to get deals quickly enough, but I'm a resourceful person in that regard anyway. I think mainly this demographic represents new skiers and/or people new to the area.



cdskier said:


> Here's my questions for people that don't like the high day ticket rates:
> 1) Why shouldn't people that are loyal to a resort be rewarded more?



no argument, I'm arguing against penalizing those who don't and even first timers (even as a good business practice)



cdskier said:


> 2) What would be a reasonable day ticket window rate? (I know people love to complain about anything over $100, but a place like Camelback in the Poconos is $78 for an adult weekend/holiday window ticket. Even Mountain Creek in NJ is $80 every day)



Berkshire East is $45 tomorrow and I'm getting 50% off so $22.50.  So I guess that's where I start and we can work our way up if there's added value to the equation.

But really Sugarbush $89 weekdays, same with Stowe/Killington and whoever else is doing triple digits+. Weekends I don't ski so if they want to jack people on rates do it then I guess. I think it's a fair system along with having tiered/advance pricing. Sugarbush is good that if you pay for Mount Ellen you don't have to pay for Sugarbush South. It should also be vice versa. I've never skied both mountains in a day so it never benefited me to pay for both.



cdskier said:


> 3) How do you rate the value of a day skiing vs other expensive entertainment options (NFL games, concerts with major mainstream artists, etc)?



Can't give you an objective opinion, skiing is the best. But I'm a cheapskate on a lot of things and mainly in the entertainment arena. Summer activity to replace skiing is hiking and some mountain biking. I'm riding the same Specialized Enduro from 2007... my thing is usually get the high end stuff a few years later on the cheap. I tend to gravitate toward the $6.50 16oz 4 packs of Goose Island IPA. Not sure if this answers your question.



cdskier said:


> 4) Is the skiing day ticket pricing model really any different from other industries that also charge more if you don't plan in advance?



Kind of, because tiered/advance pricing was originally positioned as a discount mechanism, whereas it's become very quickly an excuse to raise window/ticket prices in order to claim something silly like "Saturday March 7 -- $118 -- 25% off! -- ONLY 4 TICKETS LEFT AT THIS PRICE"


----------



## chuckstah (Jan 21, 2020)

I happened to walk past a ticket window at Mt Snow today.  I had to look, it was $118, on a Tuesday, about 70 percent open, with equipment damaging thin cover on lots of natural terrain. They claim 83 percent snow making.  Crazy. I should have asked if they sold any tickets. Doubt it. 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Greg (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> I tend to gravitate toward the $6.50 16oz 4 packs of Goose Island IPA. Not sure if this answers your question.



I think we have our answer! :lol:  Kidding...not looking to argue. Different people measure value in different ways it seems.

I still contend, it is what it is. The industry as a whole is shifting with its pricing model/strategy and there is little we can do about it. I was excited about my Ikon pass purchase this summer and have been enjoying the flexibility and convenience of it. Not until I came back to AZ this season did I feel like a second class citizen for buying one.

As far as day tickets, I buy in advance. Generally I have to plan ski days a few days in advance anyway so I never concern myself with the window rate. If I don't feel I'll get value out of a $70, $80, or $90 ticket, I'll simply look elsewhere.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

There may have been one friend who tagged along as a last minute 3rd wheel. They learned their lesson!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

Greg said:


> The industry as a whole is shifting with its pricing model/strategy and there is little we can do about it. I was excited about my Ikon pass purchase this summer and have been enjoying the flexibility and convenience of it. Not until I came back to AZ this season did I feel like a second class citizen for buying one.



Well when I see numbers like a half million people reading some of these threads here, it's not super low traffic. Does leaving TripAdvisor and Yelp reviews affect business practices? If we have threads where the owner of a major high-ticket ski area is deciding to participate, can you really say it's on deaf ears?

For one I don't care what other people buy, how they ski, where they ski, and so forth. I have self-interests in this sport (and this is probably one of the most selfish sports thus validating the high price) but I think I'm not a one-off either.


----------



## Greg (Jan 21, 2020)

Recent anecdote that is appropriate here. My 17 year old daughter wanted to ski yesterday with her friends. Over the weekend, they collectively made the decision to night ski locally last night after looking into lift ticket prices at various places. If a group of highschoolers can figure it out on their own, I have little sympathy for grown ass adults being shocked by day-of window rates...

They had fun.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 21, 2020)

Greg said:


> Recent anecdote that is appropriate here. My 17 year old daughter wanted to ski yesterday with her friends. Over the weekend, they collectively made the decision to night ski locally last night after looking into lift ticket prices at various places. If a group of highschoolers can figure it out on their own, I have little sympathy for grown ass adults being shocked by day-of window rates...
> 
> They had fun.



Yup! +1


----------



## Greg (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Well when I see numbers like a half million people reading some of these threads here, it's not super low traffic. Does leaving TripAdvisor and Yelp reviews affect business practices? If we have threads where the owner of a major high-ticket ski area is deciding to participate, can you really say it's on deaf ears?



Uhm...well, I did have some pretty detailed insight into what this site's reach was at its peak and I can tell you even then that we probably wouldn't have had much of an impact with influencing any industry pricing models based on what's posted here. AZ has had some influence on the operations side at times, but probably not much beyond that.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

Greg said:


> Uhm...well, I did have some pretty detailed insight  into what this site's reach was at its peak and I can tell you even then  that we probably wouldn't have had much of an impact with influencing  any industry pricing models based on what's posted here. AZ has had some  influence on the operations side at times, but probably not much beyond  that.



I was just referring to raw page hits unless vBulletin gives fake numbers it's relatively impressive.

This season I'm rolling on:

Ride and Ski NE Card (mostly for 50% off at Berkshire East - $22.50 week days)
3 pack of Cannon tickets for $49/day
MyChamplainValley/Fox44 Ski Card x2 ("sharing" with my wife who isn't skiing very much)
4 pack of Ski Vermont Passes
Warren Miller movie promos (early/late season Sugarbush and Smuggs passes primarily)

You're preaching to the choir and I don't really have a bug up the arse over it. I just find $129/$139 excessive and prohibitive to a lot of people. We've outpaced inflation and this is mainly a Vermont probably IMO.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 21, 2020)

Greg said:


> Uhm...well, I did have some pretty detailed insight into what this site's reach was at its peak and I can tell you even then that we probably wouldn't have had much of an impact with influencing any industry pricing models based on what's posted here. AZ has had some influence on the operations side at times, but probably not much beyond that.



But word is that Belleayre is allowing some bumps to form so there is that anyway.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Berkshire East is $45 tomorrow and I'm getting 50% off so $22.50.  So I guess that's where I start and we can work our way up if there's added value to the equation.
> 
> But really Sugarbush $89 weekdays, same with Stowe/Killington and whoever else is doing triple digits+. Weekends I don't ski so if they want to jack people on rates do it then I guess. I think it's a fair system along with having tiered/advance pricing. Sugarbush is good that if you pay for Mount Ellen you don't have to pay for Sugarbush South. It should also be vice versa. I've never skied both mountains in a day so it never benefited me to pay for both.



Ok. Well you can easily get tickets even lower than those prices at Sugarbush with planning even just a mere 2 days in advance (this Thursday is $77 online and even Friday is $84). Plan a little bit further in advance and any mid-week day next week you can get anywhere between $71 and $77. I think those prices are pretty reasonable. If you want a single ticket that you can use anytime even last minute, grab an $88 voucher from REI (need to be an REI member, but that is a $20 one time fee for a lifetime membership). And of course if you plan to go 4 days, you grab a Quad pack in the fall and pay even less per ticket than any of the numbers I mentioned above.

Killington doesn't appear to ever be quite that cheap online no matter how far in advance you purchase. Next Tuesday/Wednesday right now online is $95 for K. Every remaining day this week is over $100 online for them.

To be completely transparent, I could probably count on 1 hand the number of times I've paid a window rate in my life. Even when window rates were relatively low, I was still utilizing deals.

I know window rates are easy to use for comparison over time, but they really don't tell the full picture at all. A far more interesting number (that almost none of us have access to or would be able to see) would be a comparison of the average day ticket price PAID over time. I know Win has mentioned in the SB thread that very few people today pay window rates. I wouldn't be surprised if years ago that wasn't the case as people had less incentive to look for deals. So years ago the average "paid" price was probably far closer to the window rate and today it is far lower than the window rate due to a much higher percentage of people using deals of some sort today vs 10-15 years ago. And today the information on what is available as far as discounts should be so much easier to find as well thanks to the Internet. I really have a hard time believing that even first timers do no research before showing up at a mountain. It is sort of like buying a car. No one pays the sticker price on a car. You do research and know what you should be able to talk the dealer down to that would be considered fair. I'd also argue that for first time skiers, chances are they aren't randomly deciding to try the sport completely on their own. SOMEONE (be it a friend or family member) is encouraging them to try it. At the very least that person should be aware of the various deals and tell the new skier about them.


----------



## Greg (Jan 21, 2020)

JimG. said:


> But word is that Belleayre is allowing some bumps to form so there is that anyway.



Sundown still does a bump event every year. Not quite the same regional draw as the bigger comps of the past, but a fun local event. It's just about the only time I go there these days. :lol:

_(Yes, I just snuck in a Sundown Moguls comment in this thread!)_


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

cdskier said:


> Ok. Well you can easily get tickets even lower than those prices at Sugarbush with planning even just a mere 2 days in advance (this Thursday is $77 online and even Friday is $84). Plan a little bit further in advance and any mid-week day next week you can get anywhere between $71 and $77.
> 
> Killington doesn't appear to ever be quite that cheap online no matter how far in advance you purchase. Next Tuesday/Wednesday right now online is $95 for K. Every remaining day this week is over $100 online for them.



Yeah that's good. I think I get 40% off Sugarbush on Ride and Ski card too, so it'd "do-able". But still kind of priced out. Killington is priced out too, 50% ain't what it used to be up there. And the online sales are very little incentive as you've also noticed. I used to do 4-5 days a season at Killington. So far zero. Plans for zero or maybe 1 late season.



cdskier said:


> To be completely transparent, I could probably count on 1 hand the number of times I've paid a window rate in my life.



I don't either, but it's often at the expense of my first choice and settling for a second choice for the day. So that's a lost sale.



cdskier said:


> I know Win has mentioned in the SB thread that very few people today pay window rates. I wouldn't be surprised if years ago that wasn't the case as people had less incentive to look for deals. So years ago the average "paid" price was probably far closer to the window rate and today it is far lower than the window rate due to a much higher percentage of people using deals of some sort today vs 10-15 years ago. And today the information on what is available as far as discounts should be so much easier to find as well thanks to the Internet. I really have a hard time believing that even first timers do no research before showing up at a mountain. ... I'd also argue that for first time skiers, chances are they aren't randomly deciding to try the sport completely on their own. SOMEONE (be it a friend or family member) is encouraging them to try it. At the very least that person should be aware of the various deals and tell the new skier about them.



Good points. However if such small % pays window rate, I think it's more a marketing decision than out of financial necessity. Therefore places like Sugarbush and Stowe are marketing themselves as elite ski resorts (even if people pay less). I'm not sure that's an image I'm attracted to either. But I am glad it makes room for Independent "feeder hills" to carve out a piece of the pie.

Also on the new skier thing, I probably said this before but I married a Puerto Rican and got to know some folks in that bunch who started skiing. And I did tell them about deals and take friends to the Boston Ski Show and things like that. But others I know are rolling up to Mt Snow paying full price or close to it. It takes a while to get into the groove of this. But at the same time maybe I should shut my mouth because the feeder hills are benefiting!


----------



## Greg (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> I was just referring to raw page hits unless vBulletin gives fake numbers it's relatively impressive.



Not really. Take the SB thread. 868k page views for an almost 15 year old thread is not that much


----------



## cdskier (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Yeah that's good. I think I get 40% off Sugarbush on Ride and Ski card too, so it'd "do-able". But still kind of priced out. Killington is priced out too, 50% ain't what it used to be up there. And the online sales are very little incentive as you've also noticed. I used to do 4-5 days a season at Killington. So far zero. Plans for zero or maybe 1 late season.



You were the one that set the bar at $89 as being fair for SB. I was just pointing out how they beat your bar! :lol: (I do think that was a decent price to expect to actually pay though)



> I don't either, but it's often at the expense of my first choice and settling for a second choice for the day. So that's a lost sale.



That's a little different than me. I pretty much chose where I wanted to ski and looked for the cheapest way to make it happen at that resort.

I really kind of wish I kept track of how much I spent on day tickets 10-15 years ago. I have a suspicion I spent more overall back then than I do today on a season pass. I also ski far more days now (another benefit of a pass as in my view it "encourages" you to ski more since there's no incremental cost each time you go).



> Good points. However if such small % pays window rate, I think it's more a marketing decision than out of financial necessity. Therefore places like Sugarbush and Stowe are marketing themselves as elite ski resorts (even if people pay less). I'm not sure that's an image I'm attracted to either. But I am glad it makes room for Independent "feeder hills" to carve out a piece of the pie.



Yes and no. It also does sort of "push" more people into buying season passes. So from a financial perspective the resort gets a more reliable and steady revenue stream. They also get a significant infusion of money in their bank account before the season starts which gives them a decent amount of money to put into the capital improvements everyone constantly demands.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

It's been > 100,000/yr in recent years (SB thread, several of the others in the hundreds of thousands are only a few years old). Take my YouTube channel where I dress up in a Kimono and sing Steve Winwood ukelele covers, I've been doing this for 8 years and still only 40 subscribers. So to me AlpineZone is pretty high impact.




cdskier said:


> I really kind of wish I kept track of how much I  spent on day tickets 10-15 years ago. I have a suspicion I spent more  overall back then than I do today on a season pass. I also ski far more  days now (another benefit of a pass as in my view it "encourages" you to  ski more since there's no incremental cost each time you go).



I was thinking of doing a Berkshire East seasons pass but for $449 vs $22.50/day I think I'll survive without committing.


----------



## Greg (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Take my YouTube channel where I dress up in a Kimono and sing Steve Winwood ukelele covers, I've been doing this for 8 years and still only 40 subscribers. So to me AlpineZone is pretty high impact.



:lol: Link please!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

Greg said:


> :lol: Link please!



You wish! I get enough of you pervs who don't appreciate Geisha culture and recognize "Arc of the Diver" as the greatest album ever! Anyway YouTube keeps giving me warnings.. find me at Bitchute *paid subscriptions will have exclusive/uncensored material*


----------



## cdskier (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> I was thinking of doing a Berkshire East seasons pass but for $449 vs $22.50/day I think I'll survive without committing.



See...at that day ticket price point a season pass doesn't make sense.

FWIW, my Sugarbush pass was $579. Really hard to complain about that price at a resort the size of Sugarbush.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 21, 2020)

cdskier said:


> See...at that day ticket price point a season pass doesn't make sense.
> 
> FWIW, my Sugarbush pass was $579. Really hard to complain about that price at a resort the size of Sugarbush.



I don't know if that's the regular price or whatnot, but if Sugarbush was nearby I'd take that deal.

I'm fine with variety. The thing that bugs me is resorts I've been skiing for 30+ years, suddenly I'm getting priced out and realizing they don't really want my business anymore (because according to their business model I'm not "loyal", even though I might go there a couple times each year regularly otherwise).


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 21, 2020)

Greg said:


> Recent anecdote that is appropriate here. My 17 year old daughter wanted to ski yesterday with her friends. Over the weekend, they collectively made the decision to night ski locally last night after looking into lift ticket prices at various places. If a group of highschoolers can figure it out on their own, I have little sympathy for grown ass adults being shocked by day-of window rates...
> 
> They had fun.



Yeah, put me in that camp.  Zero sympathy.  It's almost to the point where paying rack rate for skiing is akin to buying a suit for full price at Men's Warehouse.  There's plenty of easily available data to make informed economic decisions about virtually anything today.  

We have such a huge variety of skiing experiences at different price points in the Northeast, it's not too difficult to figure out something that works for you economically  assuming moderate incomes. That's true whether you are a season pass skier or want to play the field with day trips.  That's also still true with Epic/Icon controlling the market share they do now here. 







Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jan 21, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't know if that's the regular price or whatnot, but if Sugarbush was nearby I'd take that deal.



I'm sure things could change next year with the Alterra purchase, but SB had a lot of different pricing depending on your age the past 8-9 years. I was in the 30s range, so that was the price for their "For 30s" pass during the earliest purchase time-frame.


----------



## crazy (Jan 21, 2020)

Much more informative than the cost of walk-up day tickets is the cost to an average skier to ski for a day. To calculate this, you could take all of the revenue that a resort receives from all pass products over a season, and divide it by the total number of skier visits. I would be very interested to see how this statistic has changed over time. This is way more reflective of the true cost of skiing than the walk-up price, which I think we can all agree gets less and less relevant each day.

bdfreetuna, I would encourage you (if you haven't already) to listen to the episode of the Storm Skiing Journal podcast where Stuart Winchester interviews Evan Reece, the CEO and cofounder of Liftopia. Reece does an excellent job discussing why the pricing strategies that we are seeing of high walk-up rates paired with pass products and discounts from advance purchases make a lot of financial sense, both for the resorts and from consumers. Before founding Liftopia, Reece worked for Expedia or some other online travel website. The idea behind these websites is that you can get substantial discounts for booking airfare, hotels, car rentals, well in advance. This shifts risk away from producers in exchange for a better price for consumers. Reece took those ideas to the skiing world by starting Liftopia, which is not only a ticket marketplace but provides pricing strategy software to ski resorts. 

Reece does a better job explaining this than I can, but the gist is that by shifting the risk, ski resorts are able to maintain more steady cashflows year to year, enabling them to make more consistent capital expenditures and realize more revenue before the season starts. There are definitely downsides for consumers in this scenario, chiefly that as a consumer, you are required to make purchase decisions well in advance, but the big upside is that skiing is probably cheaper than it has been in decades for those willing to commit in advance to passes or day tickets. 

Just take a look at NELSAP if you're wondering what it looks like when a ski resort has a few bad seasons. The pricing strategies that we are discussing make resorts more resilient to bad weather, which for many (maybe most) resorts is the #1 reason why people decide whether or not to ski. If walk-up rates were cheap enough that passes or advance sales were less necessary, think about what could happen to a place like Magic or Tenney if they had a couple of bad seasons where very few people showed up to buy tickets. Contrast that with a system where Magic or Tenney is able to realize some percentage of their total ticket revenue days, weeks, or even months in advance of the specific days when people ski. Although I'm using indie resorts here to gain a little bit of sympathy in my argument, these same forces apply equally to larger resorts. At a more macro level, the brilliance of a Vail/Alterra is that they are able to spread risk across a geographically diverse portfolio of resorts: a bad season in one resort is hopefully offset to some extent by a good season at a resort elsewhere.

If you're angry that the walk-up ticket at _____ resort (ex. Sugarbush) is specifically so high, well, that's the point. The resort doesn't want you to buy a walk-up ticket, they want you to pay less money in order to get you to commit to skiing in advance. Presumably, they have done a pricing analysis (perhaps using Liftopia's platform, or if it's a major org like Vail or Alterra they surely have people whose job this is) to determine what the optimal walk-up rate is to maximize business objectives like total revenue, the realization of pass or ticket revenue in advance, and more. If the walk-up rate is too high, or too low, the pricing analysis will be updated and adjusted accordingly. Keep in mind too that prices are determined by supply and demand. The fact that ____ resort (ex. Berkshire East) is $$ doesn't necessarily have a whole lot of bearing on resort _____ (ex. Sugarbush) charging $$$$.

I don't want to see any more posts along the line of "nobody has given any reason/justification for walk-up prices being so high!" You may not like the reasons/justifications for the way that prices are working now, but these are the business reasons for resorts doing what they are doing. If anything, I think that skiing is going to shift even further towards an earlier-realization-of-revenue model. I don't see a return to the old system.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 21, 2020)

crazy said:


> Much more informative than the cost of walk-up day tickets is the cost to an average skier to ski for a day. To calculate this, you could take all of the revenue that a resort receives from all pass products over a season, and divide it by the total number of skier visits. I would be very interested to see how this statistic has changed over time. This is way more reflective of the true cost of skiing than the walk-up price, which I think we can all agree gets less and less relevant each day.
> 
> bdfreetuna, I would encourage you (if you haven't already) to listen to the episode of the Storm Skiing Journal podcast where Stuart Winchester interviews Evan Reece, the CEO and cofounder of Liftopia. Reece does an excellent job discussing why the pricing strategies that we are seeing of high walk-up rates paired with pass products and discounts from advance purchases make a lot of financial sense, both for the resorts and from consumers. Before founding Liftopia, Reece worked for Expedia or some other online travel website. The idea behind these websites is that you can get substantial discounts for booking airfare, hotels, car rentals, well in advance. This shifts risk away from producers in exchange for a better price for consumers. Reece took those ideas to the skiing world by starting Liftopia, which is not only a ticket marketplace but provides pricing strategy software to ski resorts.
> 
> ...



Great post crazy

Ultimately the ski (and tourism industry in general) is about a yearly strategy for maximizing asses on chairlifts and beach chairs.  

Even though the average Joe might only ski or go to the beach ten days a year, the resorts are trying to sell you and get you to commit those ten days to them 365 days a year.  Always selling and maintaining a consistent revenue stream. 

I bring up the beach because that's a comparatively similar industry as skiing in New England.  Roughly ten week season to make the year financially.  When the weather is good, people flock to the beach.   Ain't no deals to be had.  Are those beach business's ripping people off like apparently Sugarbush and Okemo are?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Orca (Jan 21, 2020)

crazy said:


> I don't want to see any more posts along the line of "nobody has given any reason/justification for walk-up prices being so high!" You may not like the reasons/justifications for the way that prices are working now, but these are the business reasons for resorts doing what they are doing. If anything, I think that skiing is going to shift even further towards an earlier-realization-of-revenue model. I don't see a return to the old system.



The reason has become pretty clear as to why the window rates have become so high: a forced shift of advanced purchase risk onto the consumer. Not sure if that is good for the consumer or not. It is because of reduced rate. It is not because some of the advance purchases will be forfeit for non-use. If you don't think the forfeiture is real, then you don't have the slightest understanding of why the ski areas are shifting the risk.


----------



## Orca (Jan 21, 2020)

It is worth noting that season passes of all types are marginally less expensive than they were 25 years ago in _unadjusted_ dollars. In adjusted dollars, passes are like only like 50% or less of their cost 25 years ago. Quite a deal, really.


----------



## machski (Jan 22, 2020)

Orca said:


> The reason has become pretty clear as to why the window rates have become so high: a forced shift of advanced purchase risk onto the consumer. Not sure if that is good for the consumer or not. It is because of reduced rate. It is not because some of the advance purchases will be forfeit for non-use. If you don't think the forfeiture is real, then you don't have the slightest understanding of why the ski areas are shifting the risk.


Forfeitures are a small piece of the pie and not why resorts are shifting their pricing models.  They want commitment ahead of time to provide more level revenues year over year.  You can't survive in a capital intensive industry like skiing as a business with huge Spike and trough revenue years.  Unless you can show consistent revenue, no financial institution will talk to you about financing the $$ we are talking about for lift replacements/upgrades, Snowmaking upgrades/replacements or even new groomers.  This model may not be as friendly to consumers looking to make last minute powder day decisions or to ski around last minute.  That is a downside.  The upside is with more level revenues and a bit of foresight and planning, your day costs should be the same or lower now and resorts are vastly more able to make investments and improve the customer experience.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

It's amusing how so many people here love their newfound "cheap" skiing so much that they're like corporate spokespeople for these new pass products. LOL  Completely unable to see any negatives at all. 

 Here are just some:

1)  It stinks for people who like variety to hit many different resorts in a season (not just EPIC or IKONic resorts).  That got WAY pricier.

2)  It stinks for people who are serious storm-chasers.  That got (or is getting)  pricier.

3)  It stinks for beginner skiers (I worked @ ski school for years, lots of completely "wrong" assumptions in this thread being expressed about new skier consumer behaviour).

4)  It stinks for locals whose mountains have become absolutely overrun (Deer Valley, Jackson Hole, to name a few, though even better examples may exist).

5) It stinks for those concerned for Mom & Pop indies (the heart of skiing) which are being harmed by frenetic consumer consolidation.

6) It stinks for those with no interest in a Season Pass, as these passes have & are causing significant single day lift ticket inflation


----------



## gregnye (Jan 22, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's amusing how so many people here love their newfound "cheap" skiing so much that they're like corporate spokespeople for these new pass products. LOL  Completely unable to see any negatives at all.
> 
> Here are just some:
> 
> ...




I agree with this. While I appreciate multi-resort passes, there needs to be a balance. Right now the industry is basically requiring everyone to have a season pass. And these people feel they aren't getting their money's worth unless they ski a certain number of times. So thats why you see more people on the slope at one mountain. 

It's like traffic nowadays. People try to use Waze to outsmart the traffic by taking backroads, but then end up realizing that the backroads are now filled with people that normally wouldn't be there. In other words, the average skier is likely skiing more days.

I have many friends and colleagues at work that want to ski with me--but the tickets are just so expensive that they either don't have money for it, or they don't think it's worth it. These people used to pull out their skis once every 2 seasons, but now they just have found other hobbies that are less expensive, like rock climbing. You know it's bad when rock climbing is less expensive then skiing


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 22, 2020)

crazy said:


> Just take a look at NELSAP if you're wondering what it looks like when a ski resort has a few bad seasons. The pricing strategies that we are discussing make resorts more resilient to bad weather, which for many (maybe most) resorts is the #1 reason why people decide whether or not to ski. If walk-up rates were cheap enough that passes or advance sales were less necessary, think about what could happen to a place like Magic or Tenney if they had a couple of bad seasons where very few people showed up to buy tickets.
> 
> If you're angry that the walk-up ticket at _____ resort (ex. Sugarbush) is specifically so high, well, that's the point. The resort doesn't want you to buy a walk-up ticket, they want you to pay less money in order to get you to commit to skiing in advance. Presumably, they have done a pricing analysis (perhaps using Liftopia's platform, or if it's a major org like Vail or Alterra they surely have people whose job this is) to determine what the optimal walk-up rate is to maximize business objectives like total revenue, the realization of pass or ticket revenue in advance, and more. If the walk-up rate is too high, or too low, the pricing analysis will be updated and adjusted accordingly. Keep in mind too that prices are determined by supply and demand. The fact that ____ resort (ex. Berkshire East) is $$ doesn't necessarily have a whole lot of bearing on resort _____ (ex. Sugarbush) charging $$$$.
> 
> I don't want to see any more posts along the line of "nobody has given any reason/justification for walk-up prices being so high!" You may not like the reasons/justifications for the way that prices are working now, but these are the business reasons for resorts doing what they are doing. If anything, I think that skiing is going to shift even further towards an earlier-realization-of-revenue model. I don't see a return to the old system.



Good point up top but we're not talking about Magic and Tenney... they are the pure antithesis of this discussion.

Also I'm completely not angry about the issue... as BenedictGomez stated well, "it stinks" for some skiers which fit my profile (powder chaser, likes variety, avoids crowds, partial to Indy resorts).

It is a somewhat interesting discussion though when you have a variety of views and some people also act like their favorite ski resort never had a drop of piss on the toilet seat.



crazy said:


> I don't want to see any more posts along the line of "nobody has given  any reason/justification for walk-up prices being so high!" You may not  like the reasons/justifications for the way that prices are working now,  but these are the business reasons for resorts doing what they are  doing. If anything, I think that skiing is going to shift even further  towards an earlier-realization-of-revenue model. I don't see a return to  the old system.



Surely there is a dollar figure / ticket price that you would even say it was completely unjustified?

This thread can die as far as I care, and we can pick it up again in the Sugarbush thread next year when they're at $149. Just popped in to answer CDskier's questions.


Paid $22.50 again at Berkshire East today... great conditions practically hero snow, everything skiable except the woods, blasting snow all over the mountain. Next year I'm recalibrating my ski season to devote 1/2 of my days to Berkshire East.

So they aren't exactly losing $$$ by selling me cheap day passes. By delivering a great product so cheap and so close they've practically stolen my business away from bigger Vermont resorts.


----------



## raisingarizona (Jan 22, 2020)

gregnye said:


> I agree with this. While I appreciate multi-resort passes, there needs to be a balance. Right now the industry is basically requiring everyone to have a season pass. And these people feel they aren't getting their money's worth unless they ski a certain number of times. So thats why you see more people on the slope at one mountain.
> 
> It's like traffic nowadays. People try to use Waze to outsmart the traffic by taking backroads, but then end up realizing that the backroads are now filled with people that normally wouldn't be there. In other words, the average skier is likely skiing more days.
> 
> I have many friends and colleagues at work that want to ski with me--but the tickets are just so expensive that they either don't have money for it, or they don't think it's worth it. These people used to pull out their skis once every 2 seasons, but now they just have found other hobbies that are less expensive, like rock climbing. You know it's bad when rock climbing is less expensive then skiing



If you’re top roping or climbing at a gym it’s a much more affordable activity than skiing.


----------



## Killingtime (Jan 22, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Good point up top but we're not talking about Magic and Tenney... they are the pure antithesis of this discussion.
> 
> Paid $22.50 again at Berkshire East today... great conditions practically hero snow, everything skiable except the woods, blasting snow all over the mountain. Next year I'm recalibrating my ski season to devote 1/2 of my days to Berkshire East.
> 
> So they aren't exactly losing $$$ by selling me cheap day passes. By delivering a great product so cheap and so close they've practically stolen my business away from bigger Vermont resorts.



Good to know about BE. Never been there but picked up the Indy Pass this year to check it out. Looking at some time in early Feb.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 22, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> 1)  It stinks for people who like variety to hit many different resorts in a season (not just EPIC or IKONic resorts).  That got WAY pricier.



Many businesses give special discounts to their loyal and repeat visitors. This isn't a ski-industry specific thing. You want to incentivize people to visit you more often than your competition. If I go to 15 different wineries and buy 3 bottles of wine at each one, I'm not going to get much of a discount. If I go to 4 wineries and buy a case at each one, I'm suddenly getting a rather substantial discount often times. They'll say "now you're in our case club. You get bigger discounts and free tastings next time you come back. All you have to do is just keep buying at least 12 bottles a year from us to keep your membership active." I can choose to favor those places now and get better discounts. Or I can go for variety and visit other wineries instead and pay more. It is a trade-off. You can't expect a business to cater to people that show up once in a while.



> 2)  It stinks for people who are serious storm-chasers.  That got (or is getting)  pricier.



I don't feel bad for this scenario. Sorry. If you want to cherry pick where you go on the days with the absolute best conditions, you should pay a premium. Or buy some pre-purchased "valid any day" tickets ahead of time (like Quad packs) to a few different areas to avoid those premiums. Now I'd also be in favor or a far more dynamic pricing scheme that lowers prices on crappy days to counter the premium for high demand days.



> 3)  It stinks for beginner skiers (I worked @ ski school for years, lots of completely "wrong" assumptions in this thread being expressed about new skier consumer behaviour).



This scenario I can agree is a negative if you're right about new skier behavior. But I also question how relevant your experience from 10-15 years ago or whatever it was is. There are ways for beginners to save money (substantial amounts in some cases). The information is out there. Part of me doesn't have a lot of sympathy for people that are too lazy to do any research ahead of time. Do these people also just go into car dealers and willingly pay window sticker prices? At the same time though, I'm also willing to concede that ski resorts don't always do a good enough job promoting and marketing the deals aimed at beginners.



> 4)  It stinks for locals whose mountains have become absolutely overrun (Deer Valley, Jackson Hole, to name a few, though even better examples may exist).



I still think we need a bit more data on this one as there are too many variables at play. But conversely, an empty mountain is also not a benefit to locals as it hurts the local economy. You need to find the right balance.



> 5) It stinks for those concerned for Mom & Pop indies (the heart of skiing) which are being harmed by frenetic consumer consolidation.



Realistically this should be a great opportunity for the indies to market themselves as good alternatives to the mega resorts at lower prices. With all these "anti-megapass/resort" people they should have a large potential market to target.



> 6) It stinks for those with no interest in a Season Pass, as these passes have & are causing significant single day lift ticket inflation



I still wish I had data to compare the actual average price PAID per day ticket over the years.  As I said earlier, I suspect years ago the average price paid was far closer to the window rate while now I suspect it is far different with people using more deals to avoid paying window rates. So I don't believe the actual price paid has truly been subject to the level of inflation that the "sticker price" has.




gregnye said:


> I agree with this. While I appreciate multi-resort passes, there needs to be a balance. Right now the industry is basically requiring everyone to have a season pass. And these people feel they aren't getting their money's worth unless they ski a certain number of times. So thats why you see more people on the slope at one mountain.



I think some people may fall in that category, but I think there's another side to it as well. In the scenario where you don't have a season pass, every day you ski is a "cost" decision. So let's say 10 years ago when I didn't have a pass my situation would have been "is it worth going skiing tomorrow and paying $40?". Every time I wanted to ski there was an incremental cost. Now with a pass I have no incremental cost. The pass is paid for already. So now the question simply becomes "do I want to ski tomorrow". The cost factor is removed from the equation. So there are actually far more "average" days that I'm willing to ski since there's no incremental cost to do so. Ultimately I am getting more value by doing this, but it isn't a desire to "get as much value as I can" that is driving my decision.



bdfreetuna said:


> Good point up top but we're not talking about Magic and Tenney... they are the pure antithesis of this discussion.



Magic isn't exactly cheap at $74 window rates. And if you think that is a fair rate, then I would question why you think a place like SB should be only $15 more than that when they have substantially more overhead and infrastructure.



> Also I'm completely not angry about the issue... as BenedictGomez stated well, "it stinks" for some skiers which fit my profile (powder chaser, likes variety, avoids crowds, partial to Indy resorts).
> 
> It is a somewhat interesting discussion though when you have a variety of views and some people also act like their favorite ski resort never had a drop of piss on the toilet seat.



Don't worry...I've certainly had times where I've complained about different things or decisions at SB over the years. I'm not going to sit here and pretend I think they're perfect.



> Paid $22.50 again at Berkshire East today... great conditions practically hero snow, everything skiable except the woods, blasting snow all over the mountain. Next year I'm recalibrating my ski season to devote 1/2 of my days to Berkshire East.
> 
> So they aren't exactly losing $$$ by selling me cheap day passes. By delivering a great product so cheap and so close they've practically stolen my business away from bigger Vermont resorts.



Excellent example in favor of my response to BG's point #5 above. Maybe I have a different perspective than some others here too. When I was younger, the "big VT resorts" were special treats. They were places I only went to 1 or 2 weekends a year. The rest of the time was hitting up the smaller "mom and pop"/"indy" places in the Poconos or Catskills. So I guess to me I just naturally expect the larger VT resorts to be more expensive than those places.

At any rate, I do believe there's a huge opportunity for those indy places if they price themselves appropriately to capture people like yourself that aren't satisfied with what is being offered by some of the larger resorts. An Indy that offers a good product should be able to do quite well in the current situation with mega passes and high day ticket prices at the larger resorts.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 22, 2020)

cdskier said:


> Magic isn't exactly cheap at $74 window rates. And if you think that is a fair rate, then I would question why you think a place like SB should be only $15 more than that when they have substantially more overhead and infrastructure.



$29 on Thursdays tho (which is essentially the same deal Sugarbush does for Mt Ellen so I can save you some typing on that point  )

but Magic would be stupid not to charge $74 when neighboring resorts are well into triple digits (and many people prefer Magic regardless)

There's only so much to be said about this. Maybe I will start a poll..


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> *Magic would be stupid not to charge $74 when neighboring resorts are well into triple digits*



This is part of what many posters here do not understand regarding the upward pressure causing significant single day lift ticket inflation.  It is NOT just at the EPIC & IKON resorts.  FYI, Magic took a 7.2% price increase last year.

When Vail & Alterra own all the mountains that surround you & jack the ticket price to eleventy-billion dollars per day, there is no longer any competitive reason for you to not significantly raise your ticket prices as well, just not to the level of theirs.  For those of us who pay attention, we already notice this has been happening in the EPIC & IKONic era.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 22, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's amusing how so many people here love their newfound "cheap" skiing so much that they're like corporate spokespeople for these new pass products. LOL  Completely unable to see any negatives at all.
> 
> Here are just some:
> 
> ...


Aren't about as conservative of a capitalist as they come?  Or is that only true when businesses cater to your particular preferences?

I definitely don't agree with your position regarding beginners.  I think any one who goes to learn to ski at a major resort paying $139 for a lift ticket and then lessons on top of that is an idiot.   There are plenty of CHEAP feeder hills to learn at.    Would a beginning golfer go to Pebble Beach to learn and pay $595 for a round of golf?  I frequently take my son to McIntyre out of convenience.  It's 35 minutes door to door and costs me $35 for a ticket from 9AM to 2PM.  That's window rate by the way.  He skis free.   That experience is just as fun for him as taking him to a bigger mountain.  It's better for me as I don't have to take a long ass drive to get him on snow and risk the occasional meltdown when he wants to call it a day after two hours.

Honestly at this point, more than others being corporate spokespeople for their preferred resorts, it's people like you and Tuna who look like a bunch of whiners, but try and mask it with some altruistic spin that you're arguments are really for the betterment of the industry.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 22, 2020)

i tried to post a slow clap gif but gifs are too large for the image attachment. so, ::slow clap::

its never been less expensive for an avid skier to get a full season of awesome variety.

meanwhile, vail's skier visit numbers are down, and vermont resorts large and small just had a historically successful holiday weekend

no sympathy for people who are too dumb or lazy to not realize there are other options beyond window rate.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 22, 2020)

So we have the "whiners" on one hand, and on the other hand we have a competition over who has the least sympathy for "idiots"

Just double checked because I thought I remembered you were the one who started this thread (??)

I don't pretend to be altruistic. I've stated rather plainly that I'm a cheapskate.


----------



## abc (Jan 22, 2020)

I don't have a lot of data point of how much it cost to learn to ski "back then". I learned as part of school program. 

What I can say is what I see these days as beginner deals. Many mountains offer all-in packages that includes lift/rental/lesson for say the first three days. Some (Pico used to) offer cheap season pass if you've done their learn-to-ski package. 

Basically, I'm not sure if it's all bad for learners. For unprepared learner, yes, paying for individual day tickets, add rental and then add lessons? Yeah, that's expensive! Especially if doing so in "mega-resorts". But millennials, for example, are particularly good at fishing out deals online. My former co-worker, who's an occasional skier, managed to find lots of deals I didn't know about!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 22, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> So we have the "whiners" on one hand, and on the other hand we have a competition over who has the least sympathy for "idiots"
> 
> Just double checked because I thought I remembered you were the one who started this thread (??)
> 
> I don't pretend to be altruistic. I've stated rather plainly that I'm a cheapskate.


started the thread out of a request for an independent thread on the topic vs derailment of others.

Personally, I care very little on the subject.  I've been a pass holder and a free agent over the years.  I support the large corporations and also the small indy's where I pay full walk up rate when I go to places like Black, Lonesome Pine, Big Rock etc.   I don't think it's difficult to find affordable skiing.   I also never complained about Stowes high window rate when it's my former home and one of my favorite places to ski.  I just didn't pay it and took my business elsewhere. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## jimk (Jan 22, 2020)

Sorry, didn't read whole thread.  A question came to mind, what does the rise of mega-passes and extreme reciprocity passes (e.g., buy a season pass to Monarch and get 3 free days each at 30-40 other ski areas) do for the sales of single area passes?  What does it do for real estate and home sales around individual resorts?  Is owning a 2nd home at and being dedicated primarily to a single area becoming passé?  Or is there room in the well to do skier's budget to ski ten weekends at their home mtn and also go on a one week ski trip using a megapass or reciprocal pass to cover both options?


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 22, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is part of what many posters here do not understand regarding the upward pressure causing significant single day lift ticket inflation.  It is NOT just at the EPIC & IKON resorts.  FYI, *Magic took a 7.2% price increase last year.*
> 
> When Vail & Alterra own all the mountains that surround you & jack the ticket price to eleventy-billion dollars per day, there is no longer any competitive reason for you to not significantly raise your ticket prices as well, just not to the level of theirs.  For those of us who pay attention, we already notice this has been happening in the EPIC & IKONic era.



To pay for new infrastructure; a couple of new lifts and snow making. Magic been in and out of business so many times these past few decades, it's about time someone with some business sense ran the place. That increase hopefully will keep them alive.   

The indies understand the mega pass model and know full well that the exorbitant window rates at the megas are to drive people to the mega passes, they can't compete with that and would be silly to do so. Skiing has always been expensive and it has always increased year over year. Killington is $125 and they are not owned by Altera or Vail. I realize IKON is good there for 5 or 7 days, but that has nothing to do with Killington's window ticket prices, they have their own passe price structure and season passes, and even though POWDR owns other mountains, your Killignton season pass is not good at those other areas, so they're not playing the same game as Altera or Vail--right now anyway.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Aren't about as conservative of a capitalist as they come?  Or is that only true when businesses cater to your particular preferences?



Huh?  What does this discussion have to do with Capitalism?  Not to mention, ironic to your comments, I believe I am the only one here who has laid out a fairly in-depth thesis for why I believe Rob Katz & Vail will eventually fail with this business model.



deadheadskier said:


> *I definitely don't agree with your position regarding beginners.  **I think any one who goes to learn to ski at a major resort paying $139 for a lift ticket and then lessons on top of that is an idiot.*   There are plenty of CHEAP feeder hills to learn at.    Would a beginning golfer go to Pebble Beach to learn and pay $595 for a round of golf?  I frequently take my son to McIntyre out of convenience.  It's 35 minutes door to door and costs me $35 for a ticket from 9AM to 2PM.  That's window rate by the way.  He skis free.   That experience is just as fun for him as taking him to a bigger mountain.  It's better for me as I don't have to take a long ass drive to get him on snow and risk the occasional meltdown when he wants to call it a day after two hours.



Well that would be a combination of you being wrong, combined with you conflating the issue of children beginners with adult beginners.  Nobody (at least not me, and from what I can tell nobody else on AZ) is commenting on the concern of children's programs, which have nothing to do with single day ticket prices.  In terms of your "wrong" part, you have no clue just how many adults show up to a ski resort & buy a lift ticket & ski rental.  Thousands.  Hoards.  Every week.  Yes, at "big" places too, not just at Cochran.  And I'm surprised that you have not heard of this concern, because it's not like I'm on an island with this belief, as people in the industry have commented & written about this fear as well.  I believe it will not insignificantly impair the adult learner segment, which if we're correct should show up in the numbers eventually.



deadheadskier said:


> Honestly at this point, more than others being corporate spokespeople for their preferred resorts, it's *people like you and Tuna who look like a bunch of whiners*, but try and mask it with some altruistic spin that you're arguments are really for the betterment of the industry.



I don't think caring about the ski industry, Mom & Pop hills, and/or genuinely disliking the direction the industry is precipitously going based on my personal prognostication is "whining" in the least.  If that's the case,there's a lot more "whiners" than just Tuna & I regarding all the various issues EPIC & IKON are causing.  Perhaps branch out beyond AZ.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 22, 2020)

Get a grip BG

We get it. The mega pass model doesn't work for you.

But, I'm sure you are infinitely smarter than Katz regarding ski area management.  Hell your business prowess is so we'll advertised, I'm kinda shocked you don't own your own ski area by now.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 22, 2020)

on the subject of adult beginners, a few years ago my ex paid sugarbush something like $170. that got her three days of rentals, lessons, and progressive lift tix (carpet>lower mountain>full). when she finished her lessons, she presented a form signed by her instructors and was handed a free sugarbush season pass for the rest of the season. i've heard of other mountains doing similar deals but rewarding the newbie with a set of skis and boots and poles after they take the lessons. i am not sure if this is still a thing at sugarbush, but as recently as ~3 seasons ago, this sort of program was available and brought the entry costs down massively. i would suspect other places do similar things, especially in january learn to ski month.

the adults who show up and pay full freight are dummies. if they took a little bit of time to research, at the minimum they can find single day bundled lift/lesson/rental deals on liftopia.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

jimk said:


> *What does it do for real estate* and home sales around individual resorts? * Is owning a 2nd home at and being dedicated primarily to a single area becoming passé?*



That's a fascinating point, I hadn't thought of that.  On the margins, I imagine it will make owning a dedicated ski home or condo less attractive from a demand perspective.  Yes, there will still be people who want that base, but that number of people will surely be smaller going forward.  How could it not if you can ski for "free" driving distance to numerous places.   I'd have a difficult time arguing otherwise.



Scruffy said:


> .
> * Killington is $125 and they are not owned by Altera or Vail.*



Yes, all 7 days, thank you, that's 100% consistent with one of the points I'm making.  They were $95 last year except on weekend.  A 32% price increase in one year.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 22, 2020)

the skivermont take3 is most definitely still a thing. the vail resorts have bowed out, but the ikon places are still in it: https://skivermont.com/take-3?gclid...Ih_gRnUcXVtmaA-kShTryMy7lo27MP4RoC_-gQAvD_BwE

the fine print references sugarbush's, k's, and bolton's own inexpensive beginner programs, so those still exist too


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> But, I'm sure you are infinitely smarter than Katz regarding ski area management.  Hell your business prowess is so we'll advertised, I'm kinda shocked you don't own your own ski area by now.



Seven years from now when Vail fails, the stock takes a dive, & Rob Katz is gone I'll say I told you so. 

 Sort of like when I told you Jay Peak's financials & EB-5 use were likely an illegal scam several years ahead of the authorities catching-on, and you had some similar sarcastic words for me.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 22, 2020)

^^
Yup I used to ski Killington more than anywhere. They basically lost me as a customer, even though I use discount cards, it's still a 32% increase over what I was paying before. And their online advance discounts are suddenly weak as well. No more 2-for-1 email blasts, etc.

Mount Snow at least I was getting tickets around $40-$50 a day or two in advance earlier in the season. So I went there 3 times instead of Killington 3 times.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 22, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Seven years from now when Vail fails, the stock takes a dive, & Rob Katz is gone I'll say I told you so.
> 
> Sort of like when I told you Jay Peak's financials & EB-5 use were likely an illegal scam several years ahead of the authorities catching-on, and you had some similar sarcastic words for me.


Seven years?

Why not five?  or nine?   Be specific.  You have to know right?


And yes, if Vail does fail, Lord knows you will take a serious victory lap, drink Milk and flaunt your Hood sponsorship

Ain't know one who loves to say, "I told you so! I was right!" quite like you do BG.  But, if that's what your fragile ego needs, go for it.  It makes for solid entertainment. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Jan 22, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Seven years?
> 
> Why not five?  or nine?   Be specific.  You have to know right?
> 
> ...



Lol, indeed. BG is a Very Good Predictor of things and will inform you that he did predict correctly. Everyone got that?


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 22, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, all 7 days, thank you, that's 100% consistent with one of the points I'm making.  They were $95 last year *except on weekend*.  A 32% price increase in one year.



Wow, your reading comp and arguments skills are slipping, BG. That $125 is the weekend price. Last year it was $119, that's 5% increase, not 32%. And an IKON partner resort is not the same as an Altera owned resort, not in the least.


----------



## fiddleski (Jan 22, 2020)

It's not just walk-up prices that have become much more expensive - my experience is that even advance purchase discounts have essentially disappeared, at least at Vail-owned. Two years ago it was possible to ski at Okemo during fringe season weekdays for $60 purchasing a few days in advance. Even mid-season weekdays were only a bit more. This year, same time (December weekday, half open at best) it was $106 even with advance purchase. I assume that the former Peak resorts will follow suit next year. More casual skiers tend to assume that skiing at big resorts is expensive, per se, and would often be surprised at how affordable it was on weekdays in NE. I sent a few friends to Okemo myself over the years on that basis, but it's no longer the case. My $.02 is that Epic/Ikon contributes to the "outside" impression that skiing is only for the wealthy.

I also wonder how well the new model is going to work in weekend-centric NE as opposed to out West, which I have always perceived as based more on longer "ski vacations". It will take a few years for all the effects to shake out.

On the positive side, I discovered Berkshire East this year, and will be recommending them to folks here in the "south". If you can find a place to stay, that is...


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 22, 2020)

fiddleski said:


> On the positive side, I discovered Berkshire East this year, and will be recommending them to folks here in the "south". If you can find a place to stay, that is...



Great discovery, but do you drive from Maryland to ski Berkshire East? I'm pretty sure 95% of their skiers are within a 45 minute radius.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

Scruffy said:


> *Wow,* *your reading comp and arguments skills are slipping, BG. That $125 is the weekend price. *Last year it was $119, that's 5% increase, not 32%. And an IKON partner resort is not the same as an Altera owned resort, not in the least.



Read the sentence again.


----------



## fiddleski (Jan 22, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> Great discovery, but do you drive from Maryland to ski Berkshire East? I'm pretty sure 95% of their skiers are within a 45 minute radius.



We have friends nearby. But it's still better than anything in southern PA, and the ticket was, as many have pointed out, $23.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2020)

fiddleski said:


> *It's not just walk-up prices that have become much more expensive - my experience is that even advance purchase discounts have essentially disappeared*, at least at Vail-owned



The "real" discounts in general, have disappeared at all Vail & Alterra owned properties, at least the good ones.  That's part of the business model in addition to the artificially high single day rates, you get rid of all discounts & that too helps "force" people to buy a megapass. 

BOGOs are much rarer than before, eliminated at most (almost all?) megapass areas. Ski Club days are becoming fewer & fewer (if not eliminated altogether). The Skiing On The Cheap thread dwindles with each passing year.


----------



## fiddleski (Jan 22, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> The "real" discounts in general, have disappeared at all Vail & Alterra owned properties, at least the good ones.  That's part of the business model in addition to the artificially high single day rates, you get rid of all discounts & that too helps "force" people to buy a megapass.
> 
> BOGOs are much rarer than before, eliminated at most (almost all?) megapass areas. Ski Club days are becoming fewer & fewer (if not eliminated altogether). The Skiing On The Cheap thread dwindles with each passing year.



Yes, they have done away with demand-based pricing, which is how I used to shop for skiing, as it were. I guess by definition I was a low-profit customer and therefore of marginal value, but I still question the wisdom of the model and whether it is sustainable, especially in the NE market.


----------



## abc (Jan 22, 2020)

The Skiing on the Cheap also suffers from lack of interest too. 

People who got season passes has less need for ”cheap” deals.

Yes, I too noticed the deals dwindling. But so do the number of people hunting for deals. Hence dwindling post in deal thread.


----------



## Orca (Jan 23, 2020)

Hypothesized unintended consequence of ridiculous window rate: Guy is thinking about skiing, looks into advanced tickets online, but he's not quite sure and gets distracted. Doesn't buy right then. Couple days pass, and he decides it'd be good to get out. Online rates up, window price ridiculous. He says f* it, I'll save the drive and go to the local climbing gym instead. Ski industry revenue = $0. Willing customer effectively turned away.


----------



## mbedle (Jan 23, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Huh?  What does this discussion have to do with Capitalism?  Not to mention, ironic to your comments, I believe I am the only one here who has laid out a fairly in-depth thesis for why I believe Rob Katz & Vail will eventually fail with this business model.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you point me to your thesis that specifically lays out in detail how the Vail and Alterra business models are going to fail?


----------



## machski (Jan 23, 2020)

Orca said:


> Hypothesized unintended consequence of ridiculous window rate: Guy is thinking about skiing, looks into advanced tickets online, but he's not quite sure and gets distracted. Doesn't buy right then. Couple days pass, and he decides it'd be good to get out. Online rates up, window price ridiculous. He says f* it, I'll save the drive and go to the local climbing gym instead. Ski industry revenue = $0. Willing customer effectively turned away.


So we can say the same for the guy looking to go sit on the beach by the Ocean in the Caribbean.  Looks online at airfare 2 weeks out and not bad but gets distracted with work.  Forgets and looks two days before, ticket prices are way up now.  So perspective beach goer says F it and goes to the Y and sits by the pool instead?

Look, this new model does cut down on last minute powder chasing (sort of, if you have an Epic or Ikon it covers quite a lot of areas over a HUGE amount of locations.  Powder chasing made easy) to some extent.  But the problem for the industry is that the lift infrastructure is aging.  I'm not saying replace a Fixed Grip with a Detach, but the old fixed grips are at or beyond reasonable expected lifespans and need to be replaced.  Even a Fixed Grip chair straight up runs into the $Millions.  How do resorts or areas try to replace without either: 1. Ramping up window ticket prices or 2. Selling a ton of season passes for cheaper in comparison to high window prices?  If you are going to finance said lift, remember the finance company will expect to see level revenue projections out for much of the life of said finance period to get the $$.

So to BG and Tuna, are you two specifically going up and buying tickets during poor weather stretches/months?  Because if you only go when you can chase powder or conditions are good, hate to say it but you aren't the customer that is helping to advance their business.  We are skiers/riders are are passionate about our sport.  But for the owner/Operator, they may be passionate too about the sport but at the end of the day, they have to keep the business afloat.  And the reality is relying on day ticket sales at cheap day ticket pricing doesn't hold up long term for a resort to stay in business.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2020)

mbedle said:


> Can you point me to your thesis that specifically lays out in detail how the Vail and Alterra business models are going to fail?



Long posts done two (three?) times over the last few years.  Use search function.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2020)

machski said:


> * the problem for the industry is that the lift infrastructure is aging. * I'm not saying replace a Fixed Grip with a Detach, but the old fixed grips are at or beyond reasonable expected lifespans and need to be replaced.



I've never not gone to a resort specifically because they have fixed-grip chairs, and I think I'm probably in the majority.  Some of my favorite places like Plattekill & Smuggler's Notch have old fixed-grip chairs.  Granted, I'd love for Smuggs to replace the Madonna double with a quad (it wouldnt lead to too many people on the slopes, that's BS), but it's not like I'd ever boycott the place because they dont have one of these silly bubble 6 packs, or worse, heated chairs for the uber wimpy of society. In short, as long as it aint broke (literally), dont change it. I find old lifts charming.




machski said:


> * the reality is relying on day ticket sales at cheap day ticket pricing doesn't hold up long term for a resort to stay in business.*



The day ticket prices were never "cheap", they were financially rational from the given resort's FP&A perspective, and it allowed the resorts to "stay in business" just fine for 45, 55, years etc. This new megapass strategy of stratospheric single day lift ticket prices has nothing to do with financial reasonableness, and everything to do with forcing you to buy their pass.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 23, 2020)

Orca said:


> Hypothesized unintended consequence of ridiculous window rate: Guy is thinking about skiing, looks into advanced tickets online, but he's not quite sure and gets distracted. Doesn't buy right then. Couple days pass, and he decides it'd be good to get out. Online rates up, window price ridiculous. He says f* it, I'll save the drive and go to the local climbing gym instead. Ski industry revenue = $0. Willing customer effectively turned away.


Yes, but the driver for any business is maximizing yield, not serving every potential customer.  You just can't please all of the people all of the time and still make a buck.
​


BenedictGomez said:


> The day ticket prices were never "cheap", they were financially rational from the given resort's FP&A perspective, and it allowed the resorts to "stay in business" just fine for 45, 55, years etc. This new megapass strategy of stratospheric single day lift ticket prices has nothing to do with financial reasonableness, and everything to do with forcing you to buy their pass.


Let's go with "incentivizing" you to buy their pass if you want to ski any of their properties.  Perhpas we should think of Mega Pass muntains as cruise ships - cheap, packaged bundles for the vacation traveler.  There will always be the alternative of straying outside the packaged plan.  Under priced passes do result in more crowding and a search for revenue elsewhere, ie parking, food, rentals.  

Wait.... maybe the two really are similar, maybe in the future we wil see

*Vail:* Casino, water park, lounge acts and oh, skiing too.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Perhpas we should think of Mega Pass mountains as cruise ships



That's a sad thought.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 23, 2020)

I guess I am in the minority but the IKON now at Sugarbush will probably be one of the best things yet.  My perspective:
 - my pass has gone down by $100.
 - I now get to ski all over the west for no cost at most of my favorite resorts that long time friends have moved to.  So...Free skiing and lodging
 - I have a ski in ski out place so parking is no issue.
 - I am a frequent skier at Sugarbush so I know how to avoid the line and crowds.
 - I seldom eat in the lodge and go to mother stuffers, chez Henri or pack a lunch, so no crowds to deal with there.
 - I now have a new owner with more capital that has a history of doing upgrades so the future looks good.

Absolutely no down side for me.  I guess I am lucky.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

^^
I don't think anybody has argued that it's not a good deal if you want to stay within the Vail / Alterra ecosystems.

So that's a great option for some. But Vail board members aren't concerned if their business model puts more independent mountains out of business; whether that is a direct or indirect goal I couldn't tell you.


----------



## abc (Jan 23, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Perhpas we should think of Mega Pass muntains as cruise ships - cheap, packaged bundles for the vacation traveler.





bdfreetuna said:


> That's a sad thought.


Said, but true. 



> Wait.... maybe the two really are similar, maybe in the future we wil see
> 
> *Vail:* Casino, water park, lounge acts and oh, skiing too.


The future is already here. 

That's the impression I got when I look at the Vail Resort's web site (and that of many "mega resorts"). I got the distinct impression they're focusing on selling me lodging and a "holiday" packages which happen to include some skiing! 

Mountains like Whistler and Vail have good skiing. That hasn't changed. Skiers are still going there for the snow and the skiing. But I can't help to shake the feeling we're the minority in a land of vacationers. You have better luck in finding a spa treatment than finding a boot fitter!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

Indy Pass is pretty sweet for using some days out West too.

I mean if I can't have a good time at places like Castle Mountain, Red Lodge, Apex, Mission Ridge, Silver Mountain, White Pass etc. , it's on me. All my prior "West trips" have been to the major / famous mountains, and while I enjoyed most of them, I'm more interested now in exploring "medium" size West resorts that are more low key (still bigger than most mountains here).

It's fun to travel for some skiing and have it not be a crowded shit show when you arrive too.


So here's a related question: How do mountains profit off being on a multi pass like Indy Pass where you can do 2x days at each mountain but the pass itself is only around $200? Even fully understanding that most people might only use it at 4 or 6 of these resorts, that's still 8 or 12 days going into $200. NOT complaining, just curious


----------



## machski (Jan 23, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> I've never not gone to a resort specifically because they have fixed-grip chairs, and I think I'm probably in the majority.  Some of my favorite places like Plattekill & Smuggler's Notch have old fixed-grip chairs.  Granted, I'd love for Smuggs to replace the Madonna double with a quad (it wouldnt lead to too many people on the slopes, that's BS), but it's not like I'd ever boycott the place because they dont have one of these silly bubble 6 packs, or worse, heated chairs for the uber wimpy of society. In short, as long as it aint broke (literally), dont change it. I find old lifts charming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BG, you are missing my point a bit here.  I am not advocating resorts should replace fixed grips with HSS or even HSQ's.  What I was saying is all mechanical machinery has a finite usable life.  Many have thought a decade ago we would have seen resorts replacing lifts just due to age, not necessarily to fancy new detach/heated/bubbles.  That didn't happen but many fixed grips are coming up on 40 years old or more.  Metal fatigues and at some point your quaint old lifts need to be either replaced or completely remanufactured (a la MRG's Single Chair).

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## mister moose (Jan 23, 2020)

machski said:


> What I was saying is all mechanical machinery has a finite usable life.  Many have thought a decade ago we would have seen resorts replacing lifts just due to age, not necessarily to fancy new detach/heated/bubbles.  That didn't happen but many fixed grips are coming up on 40 years old or more.  Metal fatigues and at some point your quaint old lifts need to be either replaced or completely remanufactured (a la MRG's Single Chair).


What was the average life of a car engine in 1970?
What was the average life of a car engine in 2000?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

mister moose said:


> What was the average life of a car engine in 1970?
> What was the average life of a car engine in 2000?



Not a straightforward answer at all.

The peak of reliability for gasoline auto engines was with fuel injected low output engines produced in the 90s and 2000s.

Carbureated engines could be reliable as well with extra maintenance, and generally cast iron is a sturdier block than aluminum.

Direct Injection engines from the mid 2010s will probably have trouble achieving the same longevity, and added tech like variable compression introduces new possible mechanisms of failure. For example I have a Toyota 2nd vehicle with 2GR-FE 3.5L V6. The engine will run 300,000 miles with little problems, however I replaced the Variable Valve Timing oil pressure hose early on because it was a known failure point.

I don't know if you were trying to lead an answer one way or the other 

But the answer is the one you maintain the best that isn't built like crap in the first place.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 23, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't know if you were trying to lead an answer one way or the other
> 
> But the answer is the one you maintain the best that isn't built like crap in the first place.


Probably, but the quality you start with is a factor.

My point was that machined tolerances have vastly improved, along with metallurgy and design.  Wear is reduced.  Vibration is reduced.  Car engines routinely last far longer now than in the 60s and 70s.  Can you imagine running 0-20W oil in a 1965 V8?  

My 2002 German built Ford V6 went 190,000 miles and ran perfectly before I sold it.  My Dad's 1979 Ford V8 went about 70,000 miles before it had a catastrophic oil pressure failure.  In 1948, the year Mad River Glen opened, I bet the average car engine went less than 50,000 miles before a major repair was needed.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

mister moose said:


> Probably, but the quality you start with is a factor.
> 
> My point was that machined tolerances have vastly improved, along with metallurgy and design.  Wear is reduced.  Vibration is reduced.  Car engines routinely last far longer now than in the 60s and 70s.  Can you imagine running 0-20W oil in a 1965 V8?
> 
> My 2002 German built Ford V6 went 190,000 miles and ran perfectly before I sold it.  My Dad's 1979 Ford V8 went about 70,000 miles before it had a catastrophic oil pressure failure.  In 1948, the year Mad River Glen opened, I bet the average car engine went less than 50,000 miles before a major repair was needed.



0-20w oil is what the Euros like to use because you get 1 mile per gallon more and their requirements over there are strict. I would never abuse an engine with less than 5w-30, at least until we have the new oil specs coming out soon which *might* make a difference, but probably not enough since we're talking about oil shearing. Your 5w-20 is more like 8w-10 by the time you change your oil. I change my Motul (best oil) 5w-30 every 3000 miles because I don't even want it getting down to 20. 155k miles on a Subaru block with arguably too high tolerances and tuned/modded to 349whp (from stock ~235), you realize oil and proper tune/engine management are the key factors in the life of the engine. Also stuff like changing your PCV once in a while.

Advancements in reliability were: Electronic fuel injection and computer engine management.
Cost saving reductions that worsened it: Tighter tolerances, higher compression, VVT/VTEK type mechanisms, switching to aluminum which can crack more easily

DOHC or even SOCH has higher performance at high RPM than push rod but it's more complicated and more things to eventually limit lifespan.

I enjoyed this opportunity to derail the thread though, since everyone is bitching about that lately whilst doing it themselves as well


----------



## mister moose (Jan 23, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> 0-20w oil is what the Euros like to use because you get 1 mile per gallon more and their requirements over there are strict. I would never abuse an engine with less than 5w-30, at least until we have the new oil specs coming out soon which *might* make a difference, but probably not enough since we're talking about oil shearing.


I was thinking the ability to run thinner oil also required closer clearances, otherwise the oil pressure would never come up to spec and possibly oil starve the last item on the pressure food chain.  (The 0-20W we drive is a flat opposed Subaru)

One area I do have significant experience is high use per day vs occasional use.  The difference in longevity was at least 50% higher, maybe more.  On newer vs older engines, my gut still tells me finer tolerances means less wear, which lasts longer.  Sure, casting issues, heat management, and compression ratios are a factor, but NA V6 fuel injected iron block keeping apples to apples except year built, you still think the reliability hasn't dramatically increased?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 23, 2020)

mister moose said:


> I was thinking the ability to run thinner oil also required closer clearances, otherwise the oil pressure would never come up to spec and possibly oil starve the last item on the pressure food chain.  (The 0-20W we drive is a flat opposed Subaru)
> 
> One area I do have significant experience is high use per day vs occasional use.  The difference in longevity was at least 50% higher, maybe more.  On newer vs older engines, my gut still tells me finer tolerances means less wear, which lasts longer.  Sure, casting issues, heat management, and compression ratios are a factor, but NA V6 fuel injected iron block keeping apples to apples except year built, you still think the reliability hasn't dramatically increased?



I think reliability peaked in the 90s with Toyota & Honda engines in terms of "consumer gasoline vehicles". Honda learned a lesson with their 3.7L V6 put in Acuras (TL-SH AWD and MDX), it was a much higher output engine and wasn't redesigned properly to handle what turned into an excessive oil blow-by situation.

Anyway this is kind of a major side-track so pardon me for not responding to every point in order to see if we can wrap up the side-track... but if you're running a 2.5L Subaru EJ25 that's too thin. The turbo 255/257 can handle 5w-40 in the summer. 5w-30 Motul or Redline changed every 3k miles is what these engines need to go 200k+ ... The criticism with Subarus was that the tolerances in terms of compression, cylinder rings, and peripheral components dependent on quality oil were slightly under-spec'd. Although not in the old 2.2L SOHC which ran forever without oil changes, that engine wasn't intended to push any kind of power limits and it could handle knock/detonation all day long if you floored the pedal, it just wouldn't respond lol

If its a newer 2.4L or 2.0L direct injection my understanding is that it's a very similar design except with direct injection. So in that case you'll want to also get your valves walnut blasted every 50,000 miles if you want to avoid massive carbon buildup that will kill your engine early.

I've had 6 Subarus though, all different engines but similar in some ways. They ain't build like they used to be but if you change the oil religiously they last. On non-turbos you also want to replace headgaskets whenever is convenient from a maintenance perspective, save yourself some big trouble (been there done that).

Edit: on the high vs low use per day totally agree. If I'm doing short trips I try and use the Toyota. I try not and fire up the Subaru unless I know it's going to get fully warmed up and back. I don't mind taking it for long drives on the highway at all (actually it's a sweet ride for that and back roads).


----------



## Orca (Jan 23, 2020)

Outside Magazine article published today:

The Battle Against Crowded Ski Hills
Who can we blame for all those lift lines and traffic jams?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2020)

Orca said:


> Outside Magazine article published today:



It's refreshing to read an article which doesn't interview a bunch of EPIC & IKON resort CEOs, and thus correctly blames EPIC & IKON for much of the recent intense crowding.   

Slight deduction for also blaming population growth, which, while true, didn't spontaneously happen in the last two years.  Homo sapiens are not amoeba.


----------



## abc (Jan 24, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Slight deduction for also blaming population growth, which, while true, didn't spontaneously happen in the last two years.


Won't you 'blame' Henry Ford for the traffic jam on our highways? 

If he hadn't make cars affordable to the masses, we wouldn't have had so many of them on the road! 

Yes, Epic/Ikon is "to blame" for the crowding. The demand had always been there. Pent up demands in a ballooning population. Epic/Ikon are the enablers.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2020)

abc said:


> Won't you 'blame' Henry Ford for the traffic jam on our highways?
> 
> If he hadn't make cars affordable to the masses, we wouldn't have had so many of them on the road!
> 
> Yes, Epic/Ikon is "to blame" for the crowding. *The demand had always been there. Pent up demands in a ballooning population. Epic/Ikon are the enablers.*



You have this entirely wrong.  

There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.   

We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years.  So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 24, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.
> 
> We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years.  So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.



While I agree that EPIC & IKON do shift skiers to certain resorts, and do not create additional skiers, there should be a slight increase in skier visits. The EPIC & IKON passholders that _wouldn't have previously bought a season pass, but do so for the trip out west_ gain the access to eastern resorts now.  That skier views a few more days near home as "free" and will ski an extra few days off that pass that he otherwise wouldn't have.

In otherwords, the _number of skiers that are passholders is increasing_.  They then tack on a few extra days.  Extremely few buy a pass and then ski fewer days than before.
​​


----------



## abc (Jan 24, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You have this entirely wrong.
> 
> There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.
> 
> We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years.  So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.


Who's having it entirely wrong?  

Nationwide is one thing. The region that have the worst crowding also happens to be the region with the most population growth. 

Further more, with better forecast and information, skiers are staying home during bad snow days. So they're more concentrated during good snow days. Do you see traffic back up on Stowe access roads when the mountain was a skating ring? 

Some "business expert" viewpoint!


----------



## drjeff (Jan 24, 2020)

mister moose said:


> While I agree that EPIC & IKON do shift skiers to certain resorts, and do not create additional skiers, there should be a slight increase in skier visits. The EPIC & IKON passholders that _wouldn't have previously bought a season pass, but do so for the trip out west_ gain the access to eastern resorts now.  That skier views a few more days near home as "free" and will ski an extra few days off that pass that he otherwise wouldn't have.
> 
> In otherwords, the _number of skiers that are passholders is increasing_.  They then tack on a few extra days.  Extremely few buy a pass and then ski fewer days than before.
> ​​


Pure anecdotal observation here from my heavily skewed, mainly weekends, Mount Snow perspective....

To my eyes at least, it appears that my home hill has had an increase in the number of folks with passes, and no fall off in people with with lift tickets on their ski wear.

I realize this may not be the same across the rest of the region....

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


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2020)

mister moose said:


> While I agree that* EPIC & IKON do shift skiers to certain resorts, and do not create additional skiers, there should be a slight increase in skier visits*.



Yes, but we agree there is not a material increase in either new skier demand or the masses now skiing as ABC stated.  There may be a slight (and I do mean slight) increase in volume as we both noted, but that's about it. 



abc said:


> *Who's having it entirely wrong?*



You.  As the NSAA data clearly shows.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 24, 2020)

drjeff said:


> Pure anecdotal observation here from my heavily skewed, mainly weekends, Mount Snow perspective....
> 
> To my eyes at least, it appears that my home hill has had an increase in the number of folks with passes, and no fall off in people with with lift tickets on their ski wear.



Mount Snow got 3 visits from my cheap ass early season because they were doing tickets 1 or 2 days in advance for like $40-$45. It was a great way to start the season and they've outcompeted Killington on both snowmaking, top-to-bottom runs, and price for a few years in a row.

Even now (too lazy to open a new tab) I'm pretty sure their online sliding scale prices are within "acceptable" price range for someone who has no other option but do that. Personally if I end up going to Mount Snow again (unlikely but never know) it would be $69 which is the flat rate offered with Ride and Ski Card. A little rich for my blood (last year was $54, which was sweet), but again it's doable for a last minute decision.

And BTW if you buy advance ticket with a discount, you're still wearing a lift ticket on the hill.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 24, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You have this entirely wrong.
> 
> There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.
> 
> We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years.  So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.



Correct, but at least since 1979, we can say the demand is been fairy consistent, not the doom and gloom "skiing is a dying sport. Last year was 4th highest in USA history-since 1979 anyway. Where ever I'm skiing I'm seeing plenty on young people, even midweek non holiday, so it's not all Baby Boomers.

 China is going big into skiing so worldwide is another matter going forward.

http://www.nsaa.org/media/303945/visits.pdf

http://www.nsaa.org/media/367755/ski_areas_per_season_1819.pdf

Your best bet if you're against the mega passes is to frequent the indies. Keep them alive. 
https://www.skimag.com/news/ski-independent-monarch-mountain
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/Focus-on-Ski-Mountain-Travel-Indy-slopes

Meanwhile, I'm off to use my IKON in WY.


----------



## abc (Jan 24, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You.  As the NSAA data clearly shows.


Clearly? About as clear as mud! 

There's no day-to-day data. So you can't tell the effect except people are concentrating their visit on the good condition days, or mountains with better snow making due to climate change. 

But if you want to believe it, be my guest. You're about as blind as the Vail/IKON CEO you rail against.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 24, 2020)

abc said:


> There's no day-to-day data. So you can't tell the effect except people are concentrating their visit on the good condition days, or mountains with better snow making due to climate change.



Just a couple easy going quesitons...

1) didn't we always do that?
2) if not (or if so), when do you think climate change really kicked in? late 90's, 2000's?
3) if you're concerned about CO2 and believe it's related to temps, do you support the plan to plant "one trillion trees" as a (I would say) common-sense and widely agreeable way to "sequester carbon" and generally improve the ecosystem?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trump-pledges-to-help-plant-1-trillion-trees


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2020)

abc said:


> So *you can't tell the effect except people are concentrating their visit on the good condition days, or mountains with better snow making due to climate change.*



Make up your mind.  

 Is it much larger increased skier demand from the "masses" now skiing (remember: Henry Ford & all that) from most glorious EPIC & IKON passes, or is it people only skiing when the conditions are great?  Either way, both your arguments are flawed. The first is easily empirically proven wrong via NSAA data, and the second I think just silly.  As if people didn't know what the weather was going to be like tomorrow in the ancient times of 2011.

And I'll charitably ignore the uber-silliness of blaming Global Warming.  That's a doozy.


----------



## Orca (Jan 24, 2020)

mister moose said:


> In otherwords, the _number of skiers that are passholders is increasing_.  They then tack on a few extra days.  Extremely few buy a pass and then ski fewer days than before.



All those pass holders are increasing revenue. But also increasing skier volume by skiing more days. The question becomes is the mountain capacity there? Indications are that some areas are showing stress: parking, long lift lines.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 25, 2020)

Orca said:


> All those pass holders are increasing revenue. But also increasing skier volume by skiing more days. The question becomes is the mountain capacity there? Indications are that some areas are showing stress: parking, long lift lines.



Not so sure it increase revenue per ski area but for the company overall yes. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 25, 2020)

https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2020/01/25/washington-ski-resort/


----------



## machski (Jan 25, 2020)

Orca said:


> All those pass holders are increasing revenue. But also increasing skier volume by skiing more days. The question becomes is the mountain capacity there? Indications are that some areas are showing stress: parking, long lift lines.


Increasing volume I would argue when conditions are primo only.  I think that was spelled out well at Crystal.  They had no issues with traffic or parking until they started getting nuked on.  Then everyone and everything came out of the woodwork.  I would tend to argue a regular non holiday period ski day absent recent big snows would not draw the same levels of stress, Ikon/Epic areas or not.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 25, 2020)

machski said:


> Increasing volume I would argue when conditions are primo only.  I think that was spelled out well at Crystal.  They had no issues with traffic or parking until they started getting nuked on.  Then everyone and everything came out of the woodwork.  I would tend to argue a regular non holiday period ski day absent recent big snows would not draw the same levels of stress, Ikon/Epic areas or not.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app



We've ALWAYS had periods of time when it snows a lot and crowding was never an issue of this magnitude.  What is the only thing that has changed in two years?  Four letters--  I-K-O-N.


----------



## machski (Jan 25, 2020)

Sorry, I just do not buy that argument for LCC.  It has added so.e, but that canyon for years before Ikon has been nuts on big powder days and especially big powder weekend days.  Now BCC, that was always quieter pre Ikon.  Since, that Canyon has gone insane (which should be expected with Unlimited days up there).

Since Ikon is limited to 5 or 7 days TOTAL up LCC, I would be very interested to know how many Bird/Alta season passes are sold each year.  To me, that would have a far GREATER pact to the traffic and parking up LCC than Ikon.  Just doing the math here....

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 25, 2020)

machski said:


> Since Ikon is limited to 5 or 7 days TOTAL up LCC,* I would be very interested to know how many Bird/Alta season passes are sold each year.  To me, that would have a far GREATER pact to the traffic and parking up LCC than Ikon. * Just doing the math here....



You act as if 7 days per person isnt a big deal, it's HUGE when you're talking about a ski area sitting on top of a 1.3M population. 

 I'd speculate many of those people were greatly spread out among ski areas in the past, now it's an absolute no-brainer to buy IKON if you live within an hour or so of there.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 25, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd speculate many of those people were greatly spread out among ski areas in the past, now it's an absolute no-brainer to buy IKON if you live within an hour or so of there.



Probably. I'm thinking the combo cards, "Indy Passes" and discount deals might improve on the non-conglomerated resorts in the near future. They are going to see losses and provide some deep incentives to win back customers.

Good for me, we'll see. Bad for a lot of mountains I like, probably.


----------



## abc (Jan 26, 2020)

bdfreetuna said:


> 3) if you're concerned about CO2 and believe it's related to temps, do you support the plan to plant "one trillion trees" as a (I would say) common-sense and widely agreeable way to "sequester carbon" and generally improve the ecosystem?


Ask your carbon emission question to whom you want to piss!

I’ve never even use the word “carbon” in any of my AZ post for the last year!


----------



## Orca (Jan 29, 2020)

NYT article titled For Some Resorts, Multi-Mountain Passes Mean Crowded Slopes and Longer Lift Lines

Behind paywall. Might be able to read it with proxy server.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Jan 29, 2020)

^you can generally get around that by opening in a private/incognito browser.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 29, 2020)

KustyTheKlown said:


> ^you can generally get around that by opening in a private/incognito browser.



Sadly I've seen a lot of websites where that used to work that now have caught on and say "we noticed you're browsing in private mode, please turn off private mode to continue" and won't display the page until you return to normal mode (in which case then you hit the paywall/article limit).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 29, 2020)

Orca said:


> NYT article titled For Some Resorts, Multi-Mountain Passes Mean Crowded Slopes and Longer Lift Lines




Hmmmm.....



> *The popularity of IKON and Epic passes have ski resorts cutting off weekend sales at the windows and warning crowds on social media to stay home.*



*SKI AREA MANAGEMENT: * _Alert!   There is a turd in the punchbowl!  REPEAT.  There is a turd in the punchbowl!  Do not fall out-of-line.  Stay on message & keep repeating that IKON & EPIC do not lead to huge crowding.  State instead that it is the amazing ski conditions that can be found coast to coast.  Over._


----------



## Orca (Jan 30, 2020)

From NYT article:

"In some resort communities new to the Ikon Pass, local gripes last winter grew sharp. Frustrations were so vocal in Jackson and Big Sky, Mont., that resort executives published open letters to their communities, pledging to do better in handling the crowds."

And there are lots more cited instances of crowding: A-Basin, Deer Valley, Eldora, as well as the Crystal Mountain example cited.

" “It’s a very imperfect science, pairing demand with snow and terrain,” said Rusty Gregory, chief executive of Denver-based Alterra Mountain Co., which owns Crystal. “Each resort has to do what’s right for its conditions and its skiers.” "

Alterra is aware of this.


----------



## Orca (Jan 30, 2020)

Another NYT article: Multi-Mountain Passes Upended the American Ski Trip. Here Are 9 Rules


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2020)

machski said:


> Sorry, I just do not buy that argument for LCC.  It has added so.e, but that canyon for years before Ikon has been nuts on big powder days and especially big powder weekend days.  Now BCC, that was always quieter pre Ikon.  Since, that Canyon has gone insane (which should be expected with Unlimited days up there).



I'm not talking about just powder days.  And I see it every weekend.  



> Since Ikon is limited to 5 or 7 days TOTAL up LCC, I would be very interested to know how many Bird/Alta season passes are sold each year.  To me, that would have a far GREATER pact to the traffic and parking up LCC than Ikon.  Just doing the math here....
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app



Here is the math you forgot:  1.2 million or so in the greater SLC area.  Give those skiers those days and it makes a difference.  And as to Alta/Bird passes, I spoke to a Snowbird employee last weekend who confirmed that Snowbird season pass sales are indeed *down*.  Why pay $1,000 for ONE ski area when you pay $1,000 for your choice of FIVE in SLC and more beyond?

And from that NY Time article:



> Resorts that are within driving distance of major metropolitan areas, in particular, are coping with powder day throngs not seen before.



So I guess the NYT is wrong as well in its reporting according to you?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> You act as if 7 days per person isnt a big deal, it's HUGE when you're talking about a ski area sitting on top of a 1.3M population.
> 
> I'd speculate many of those people were greatly spread out among ski areas in the past, now it's an absolute no-brainer to buy IKON if you live within an hour or so of there.



Exactly.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2020)

Orca said:


> All those pass holders are increasing revenue. But also increasing skier volume by skiing more days. The question becomes is the mountain capacity there? Indications are that some areas are showing stress: parking, long lift lines.



We've seen this movie before with ASC.  That only ended when ASC liquidated and went out of business.  Here?  No.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2020)

Orca said:


> NYT article titled For Some Resorts, Multi-Mountain Passes Mean Crowded Slopes and Longer Lift Lines
> 
> Behind paywall. Might be able to read it with proxy server.



An interesting tidbit, although I think that the number is well above 250,000 passes sold last year:



> As single lift ticket prices at many resorts now approach $200, passes continue to grow more popular. Vail announced in December it had sold more than 1.2 million passes for this winter, an increase of 22 percent. Alterra doesn’t make its numbers public, but the company said it sold more than 250,000 passes for last winter, and sales for this season, Mr. Gregory says, “were up markedly.”



Another source last month said that 2019-2020 sales were up 66% this year.  So that would mean at least 415,000 passes this year.  

And all of the cited resorts in that article, except for A-Basin, are part of which pass product?  Begins with an "I."


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2020)

deadheadskier said:


> Seven years?
> 
> Why not five?  or nine?   Be specific.  You have to know right?
> 
> ...



I think that his bigger point is that Vail's revenue growth is due to acquisitions and that at some point they are going to run out of marketshare to buy or things to acquire.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2020)

Hawk said:


> I guess I am in the minority but the IKON now at Sugarbush will probably be one of the best things yet.  My perspective:
> - my pass has gone down by $100.
> - I now get to ski all over the west for no cost at most of my favorite resorts that long time friends have moved to.  So...Free skiing and lodging
> - I have a ski in ski out place so parking is no issue.
> ...



Bingo.  Why own a pass that limits you to one ski area when for the same price you now have something like 32 or so?

And someone recently said that they heard that Deer Valley had 11,000 skiers recently on a day.  Not sure where that was or who said it, but I'm curious as to where that information came from because Deer Valley advertises it limits to 8,000 and, mysteriously, the last year they have started having "parking issues" when that NEVER happened before.  Now they are restricting one lot to carpool only.  So glad that all that snow mysteriously brings out more people than before.  :roll:


----------



## 1dog (Jan 30, 2020)

BenedictGomez said:


> Hmmmm.....
> 
> 
> 
> *SKI AREA MANAGEMENT: * _Alert!   There is a turd in the punchbowl!  REPEAT.  There is a turd in the punchbowl!  Do not fall out-of-line.  Stay on message & keep repeating that IKON & EPIC do not lead to huge crowding.  State instead that it is the amazing ski conditions that can be found coast to coast.  Over._



You  sure you don't work for CNN? 




thetrailboss said:


> An interesting tidbit, although I think that the number is well above 250,000 passes sold last year:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And none of this newfound growth could possibly be related to a better economy and more confidence the future growth?

Its a problem almost every business would kill for - too many customers buying more than they have in years ( or ever).

All this in a rather meager snow year so far . . . . that incremental purchase ahead of time saves a lot of angst about the weather and fiscal planning. As long as they  reinvest it shoud benefit all eventually. Growing pains - 1st time in years for a stagnant industry. . . . . good problem unless you're in line. 

With less traditional work schedules and more flexibilty to work from - oh say a chairlift or lodge - ski days can be spread out a bit. We have ski customers who wouldn't think of skiing weekends - but one of the very best days? Sundays. Everyone either leaves early, parties too hard on Sat night, or isn't in shape to ski two full days.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 30, 2020)

1dog said:


> And none of this newfound growth could possibly be related to a better economy and more confidence the future growth?
> 
> Its a problem almost every business would kill for - too many customers buying more than they have in years ( or ever).
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what your point is.  IKON has only existed for two years.  And FWIW the Rockies are doing pretty well so far snow-wise.


----------

