New England Ticket Prices

[VTKilarney]

This article claims that ticket prices have risen too much and for no reason:
http://www.skinoboundaries.com/#!Li...an-they-should/c1edd/5661b26a0cf203d325ea0bb6

It seems to be a pretty poor analysis to me. It fails to account whatsoever that fewer and fewer tickets are being sold at face value. The article argues that the average ticket price in New England should be $59. I'd be surprised if the actual price people are paying is much different than that.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Clearly this is an article aimed at driving business to its product.

If you’re sick and tired of prices rising as fast as they have, keep your eye on No Boundaries this winter and subscribe to our email list. We may not be able to change the industry trends overnight, but we’ll certainly help save you some money this season.

 

[drjeff]

Nice ad in disguise is how I read that article when I saw it yesterday on Unofficial Networks FB page yesterday

 

[mbedle]

Same take as you guys. Poor analyses (used very small area prices to drive down average costs in 2001) and written to drive traffic to their product.

 

[VTKilarney]

Wow. I just noticed that their "deals" require you to purchase tickets through their site. This is definitely an article designed to drive traffic. Ironically, the article is so poorly written that I didn't even bother to read anything else on their site until just now. It was more of a turn off for me than anything else.

Have these guys never heard of Liftopia?

 

[BenedictGomez]

I did a lift ticket vs. inflation post on AZ a few years ago, & my findings were not as bad as his 27.1% over inflation result.


Here's a few examples I just quickly worked up*, and I'm including Stowe & Whiteface since I think they SHOULD be the worst.

Smuggler's Notch ticket = $48 in 2001 = $65 today. Smuggs 2015 = $72 = 10.8% increase over inflation

Stowe ticket = $58 in 2001 = $78.50 today. Stowe 2015 = $92 reality or $115 dumb people = 17.2% & 46.5% increase over inflation

Bromley ticket = $49 in 2001 = $66.30 today. Bromley 2015 = $73 = 10.1% increase over inflation

Whiteface ticket = $46 in 2001 = $62.30 today. Whiteface 2015 = $92 = 47.7% increase over inflation

Loon ticket = $49 in 2001 = $66.30 today. Loon 2015 = $85 = 28.2% increase over inflation.

Sugarloaf ticket = $51 in 2001 = $69 today. Sugarloaf 2015 = $86 = 24.6% increase over inflation.

Jay Peak ticket = $49 = $66.30 today. Jay Peak 2015 = $79 = 19.1% increase over inflation.


So just from the handful I did today, I'm skeptical an average of all resorts is 27%, but more importantly, this is based on the flawed logic that people are actually paying full-price walk-up rates, when relatively few do.


*Because I love crap like this

 

[ScottySkis]

Not everyone knows how to save really I know several people who don't know and really don't go out to the hill because if their thinking window price is the price their not on fourms and they only want to go a few times a year so the hear adversting price and go way to much for ne.

 

[VTKilarney]

The other flawed premise of the report is that no meaningful capital improvements have been made to the resorts. I beg to differ with this assumption.

 

[ss20]

The other flawed premise of the report is that no meaningful capital improvements have been made to the resorts. I beg to differ with this assumption.

Off-hill, yes. On-hill, no.

 

[SkiFanE]

60 days on my $999 SR pass is the best deal. But I'm not big on online buying. I don't ski other places often - but usually it's spring at K and I'll just pay walk-up with discount to other pass holders. The risk of buying ahead and then weather sucks or something screws up my plans is not worth the savings. Just checked SR on Loftopia. Walk up is same as on site now - and for Xmas week it's 17% cheaper, but only 18 tickets. So you can buy now and hope conditions are worth $77, or pay $12 extra on day of with the option to not go at all for $0. If it was greater savings, would be worth it, but not as it is now. From what I've seen - big savings weekdays (when I work) and not so great on weekends.

 

[mbedle]

Off-hill, yes. On-hill, no.

Really, going to have to disagree with you on that. Don't have a number but resorts have put a ton of money into on-hill improvements.

 

[deadheadskier]

Really, going to have to disagree with you on that. Don't have a number but resorts have but a ton on money into on-hill improvements.

Yes, take Stowe. 5 brand new chairs during that time (3 being HSQ), a refurbished gondola, massive snowmaking improvements, new base lodge.

They may charge the most, but have certainly put a ton of money back into the place.

 

[steamboat1]

Off-hill, yes. On-hill, no.

I can think of 4 VT. areas with new lifts this year & last. A lot more if you go back several more years. Don't even want to mention the number of low-e snow guns purchased last year (couple of thousand maybe).
What happened off hill?

 

[cdskier]

So just from the handful I did today, I'm skeptical an average of all resorts is 27%, but more importantly, this is based on the flawed logic that people are actually paying full-price walk-up rates, when relatively few do.

Not everyone knows how to save really I know several people who don't know and really don't go out to the hill because if their thinking window price is the price their not on fourms and they only want to go a few times a year so the hear adversting price and go way to much for ne.

So if relatively few actually pay walk up rates...why charge prices that high in the first place? I suppose on the one hand it makes various "deals" look good when in reality they might be simply in line with what the prices should be. On the other hand though Scotty raises a valid point. High advertised walk-up rates scare some people away because they do not know better. The thought of high posted walk up rates potentially scaring even a few people away bothers me as in the long run I think that could hurt the future of the sport.

 

[Scruffy]

So if relatively few actually pay walk up rates...why charge prices that high in the first place? I suppose on the one hand it makes various "deals" look good when in reality they might be simply in line with what the prices should be. On the other hand though Scotty raises a valid point. High advertised walk-up rates scare some people away because they do not know better. The thought of high posted walk up rates potentially scaring even a few people away bothers me as in the long run I think that could hurt the future of the sport.

It hasn't hurt Vail one bit. The walk up rate is targeted to those who have more money than average, and ski less than average- not die hard skiers. A quick decision to take the fam-damly skiing during prime season because it recently snowed and everyone is feeling all warm and fuzzy about the season, and a little cabin fever is setting in, and who cares what it costs. For those folks, saving 10-20 bucks per lift ticket is not a thing they want to waste any time or brain power on. It's chump change.

 

[Tin]

A great compilation by NewEnglandSkiIndustry.com

Just goes to show what a gem Pico and how Stowe is pushing for passes imo.

 

[cdskier]

It hasn't hurt Vail one bit. The walk up rate is targeted to those who have more money than average, and ski less than average- not die hard skiers. A quick decision to take the fam-damly skiing during prime season because it recently snowed and everyone is feeling all warm and fuzzy about the season, and a little cabin fever is setting in, and who cares what it costs. For those folks, saving 10-20 bucks per lift ticket is not a thing they want to waste any time or brain power on. It's chump change.

Not sure I would equate what happens at Vail to the rest of the industry. In the east $115 walk up rates might work for Stowe, but I don't know that they would be as "accepted" at K for example. I really think a key demographic that you need to get skiing to help the long term viability of the industry is the casual skier that doesn't have more money than average where $10-20 could make the difference between saying "let's go skiing" and saying "too rich for my blood". High walk up rates could easily scare those people away. Today the impact might not be that visible, but down the line the impact could easily multiply.

 

[mbedle]

A great compilation by NewEnglandSkiIndustry.com

Just goes to show what a gem Pico and how Stowe is pushing for passes imo.

Not sure its Stowe pushing for passes, more that Stowe is pushing for people to use bypass. If you buy a ticket at the window, they basically tell you to go online and signup for bypass for the rest of your trip. unless you are really in the dark, I can't see anybody paying the window price more than once a season. Hell, the Evolution Card says right on the front to Reload online and the webpage lands with how to signup for bypass.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Not that I'd pay any of these prices, but Stowe @ $115 is far more "reasonable" than Killington, Mount Snow, and Sugarbush @~$95.

 

[Scruffy]

Not sure I would equate what happens at Vail to the rest of the industry. In the east $115 walk up rates might work for Stowe, but I don't know that they would be as "accepted" at K for example. I really think a key demographic that you need to get skiing to help the long term viability of the industry is the casual skier that doesn't have more money than average where $10-20 could make the difference between saying "let's go skiing" and saying "too rich for my blood". High walk up rates could easily scare those people away. Today the impact might not be that visible, but down the line the impact could easily multiply.

Why not? It was not all that long ago, on this very discussion forum, that we were all outraged that Vail had the audacity to charge well north of $100 ( I think it was $130, but don't really remember ), for walk up rates; however, you could get day tickets cheaper through other venues, and BTW, a season pass was a much, much cheaper option.
And, we all speculated on which resort in the east, would be the first to go >$100, and we all had no doubt it would be Stowe. So, perhaps, in this case, as Vail/Stowe goes, so does the industry- for now anyway.

Now, on the second point you made, that I also bolded, I totally agree with you. The fact that I pointed out a reason why these places are charging so much for walk-up rates, and getting away with it, does in no way infer I agree with their policies. Having said that though, skiing will be priced at what the market will bear, and right now, for certain ski resorts, the market is voting that they are OK with the price - as long as Mother Nature provides a good winter, and there are no other calamitious events causing people to reassess their leisure price point value systems, those prices will hold. I can see where smaller hills may need to reduce prices to attract new customers, as the number of new skiers dwindles. Eventually, the current price point model may play itself out and the Vails and Stowes of the skiing world may need to reduce price to stay viable? Who knows? I personally, would like to see skiing become less expensive, so that new customers can be grown, esp as the older skiers age out.