Epic Pass just got more Epic

crazy said:

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

Click to expand...

And it has always been that way.

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

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

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

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

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

deadheadskier said:

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

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

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

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Click to expand...

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

skitheeast45 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

cdskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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

cdskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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

cdskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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

skitheeast45 said:

Climate change has resulted in less snowfall.

Click to expand...

No; it hasnt.

BenedictGomez said:

No; it hasnt.

Click to expand...

^^^^ correct.

ss20 said:

^^^^ correct.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

:roll:

Domeskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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


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

thetrailboss said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

thetrailboss said:

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

:roll:

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

BenedictGomez said:

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

Click to expand...

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

BenedictGomez said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Domeskier said:

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

Click to expand...

Does it?

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

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

BenedictGomez said:

Does it?

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

Click to expand...

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

Domeskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

cdskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

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.