Epic Pass just got more Epic

Domeskier · Mar 4, 2019

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

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

cdskier · Mar 4, 2019

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

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

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

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

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

skitheeast45 · Mar 4, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPB · Mar 4, 2019

skitheeast45 said:
I didn't mean to spark a debate on climate change, as I really just assumed a group of skiers on the internet would be as easy to convince as me that climate change is a crisis because it threatens my ability to ski.

Fixed the quote for you.

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

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

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

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

thetrailboss · Mar 4, 2019

So back to that Epic Pass...

Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

skitheeast45 · Mar 5, 2019

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

eastern powder baby said:
Fixed the quote for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eastern powder baby said:
Remember, this propensity toward buying into climate change is emotional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

eastern powder baby said:
If they were so sure that climate change is as bad as they say, there would be no need to shout down "non believers" (ironic religious parallel?) because it would be so obvious that they are wrong.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

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

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

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

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

Edd · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

EPB · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

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

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

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

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

boston_e · Mar 5, 2019

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

Here's the quote from that article:

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

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

A little more info on this earlier discussion:

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

From that article:

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

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

skiur · Mar 5, 2019

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

EPB · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

LItoCOtoMA · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BenedictGomez · Mar 5, 2019

skitheeast45 said:
I didn't mean to spark a debate on climate change, as I really can't believe a group of people who rely on snow for the sport(s) they love are denying basic science.

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

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

BenedictGomez · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

thetrailboss · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

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

deadheadskier · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

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

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

slatham · Mar 5, 2019

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

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

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

farlep99 · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

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

KustyTheKlown · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jimmywilson69 · Mar 5, 2019

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

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

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

Epic Pass just got more Epic

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Moderator

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads