The 2006 AlpineZone Ski Area Challenge: SUGARBUSH Owner and Operator WIN SMITH!

[Tin Woodsman]

I don't think that the "skiing has always been expensive" argument flies though or offers a justification for having one of the highest adult season pass rates in New England when the overall trend is a decrease in price. In fact, skiing was for a long period of time an affordable form of recreation in the 1930's, 40's, 50's and even 60's.

In 2004-5, Sugarbush, Bretton Woods, Okemo/Sunapee, and Stowe were the only resorts that I observed that had an increase in the pass rate and that were way out of the price range of the market, which was falling. This was the first season of the "All For One." Jay Peak offered a full adult pass, with no black outs and reciprocity at many resorts, for under $500. Skibum cites Smuggs, a competitor, and Bolton, another competitor, also has dropped their prices as well. Even Stratton offers a Sunday pass that is under $300. Even worse, most pass programs are going to reciprocity with other resorts and other "added benefits" while SB pass, at $1000 or so, is still just an SB pass.

I think that SB is between a rock and a hard place. The place is too small to be Killington but too big to market as Bolton Valley. It is independent. I think that they can get more people "from their backyard" though by having more aggressive pass programs. Bretton Woods learned their lesson and their $499 Bode pass was a success from what I hear. I think simply defaulting to the, "it's an expensive sport...don't complain" line dodges the real issue at hand.

I would agree that the SB pass is a little expensive. As I've said many times here and on SkiMRV, at $900, it really doesn't make sense for most NYC area skiers. Maybe it's more convenient for Bostonians who can get there in 3 or 3.5 hours. If the pass were as little as $100 less, I'd buy it in an instant. None of us have access to the numbers that would help illuminate the tradeoff between lower revenue per pass vs. increased pass sales plus increased ancillary sales (F&B, lessons, etc...) that you'd get if you lowered the cost of the pass.

I do take strong issue, however, with the ridiculous notion that skiing has EVER been an affordable sport. First of all, the $5.50 lift ticket price SB charged in 1955 is worth about $41 in today's dollars. And if we were living in an era without snowmaking, decent grooming, and high speed lifts, I'd darn well expect the lift tickets to be around that price. But we aren't, and those amentities (especially snowmaking) cost a LOT of money, thereby leading to the need for a more expensive lift ticket. This in part helps to explain the difference in lift ticket pricing between SB and, say, MRG.

When you factor in the cost of skiing equipment, gas to/from the mountain, lodging, and lessons or rentals, skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport. There is no way around it. I will keep pressuring SB to lower their pass price, but let's not trot out tired and inaccurate arguments about a halcyon past which simply never existed in the first place.

 

[thetrailboss]

I do take strong issue, however, with the ridiculous notion that skiing has EVER been an affordable sport. First of all, the $5.50 lift ticket price SB charged in 1955 is worth about $41 in today's dollars. And if we were living in an era without snowmaking, decent grooming, and high speed lifts, I'd darn well expect the lift tickets to be around that price. But we aren't, and those amentities (especially snowmaking) cost a LOT of money, thereby leading to the need for a more expensive lift ticket. This in part helps to explain the difference in lift ticket pricing between SB and, say, MRG.

When you factor in the cost of skiing equipment, gas to/from the mountain, lodging, and lessons or rentals, skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport. There is no way around it. I will keep pressuring SB to lower their pass price, but let's not trot out tired and inaccurate arguments about a halcyon past which simply never existed in the first place.

I think there is plenty of evidence for this so-called "ridiculous" notion that skiing at one time was accessable to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Exhibit One: New England Ski Museum. Look at Exhibits of people hiking and skiing. Cost: equipment.

Exhibit Two: The hundreds of community run and Mom and Pop Ski Hills that once dotted the hillsides. Skiing was accessible to many people regardless of income.

Exhibit Three: One such community organization that is "affordable" to many families.

I get :angry: when I hear one lament, "skiing has always been expensive," because the next logical leap is, "this is a sport of the rich" or "not everyone has a right to ski." That is not the point. The point is that at one time skiing was more widespread than it is now for people and to simply say, "it has always been expensive" only sidesteps the issue at hand: the expense of SB passes and how they are out-of-step with other competitors in the market.

 

[tekweezle]

i want skiing to be affordable but I also don;t want the resorts to go out of business. I also want the slopes to not be too crowded and hope there will be lots of places for me to ski. I hope what I want and what the resorts want are not mutually exclusive.

I make decent money but to go skiing I make sacrifices. With gas prices the way they are and inflation, it cuts into my discretionairy spending. I make due with less going out to eat, less broadway shows, movies, ect...I managed only 16 days this season. 9 out west and 7 in the east mostly because of the bad east coast snow year.

I guess the question is what can SB do to attract more skiers like me? I was thinking if they teamed up with a southern VT or NH mountain on a season pass, it might boost their visability a bit.

or do the economics make the "labor of love" running of a ski resort in the NE a losing proposition?

 

[skibum1321]

The mountains don't make a ton of money on the season passholder buying a pass. Where they make the money on the passholder is the lodging, the cafeteria food and any of the other high-markup items bought at the mountain. There is also the hope that these passholders will bring friends who need lift tix.

For example, Smuggs now gives St. Mike's students free passes (yeah, I know the school pays them - but not that much). They hope to make their money by having students at the mountain and buying stuff. They also hope that these students will bring friends, who will in turn buy lift tickets. It also helps to get students "hooked" on the mountain, in hopes of them returning for years to come.

The resorts obviously love the weekend trip family who comes up and buys lift tickets and lodging and food, as they will make the most money off of them - not a passholder.

We're getting kind of off-topic here...

 

[thetrailboss]

Yes we are getting off topic, and I think that this thread will be closed for submissions later today to allow for the selected questions to be sent to Win.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Your evidence is nothing of the sort.

I think there is plenty of evidence for this so-called "ridiculous" notion that skiing at one time was accessable to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Exhibit One: New England Ski Museum. Look at Exhibits of people hiking and skiing. Cost: equipment.

If you wish to use your personal low speed quads, this is clearly still an option. while some ski areas may forbid it, most allow you to hike up before or after operating hours/days. And then there are the lierally thousands of acres of backcountry. It's still free, but how is that germane to the price of a lift ticket?

Exhibit Two: The hundreds of community run and Mom and Pop Ski Hills that once dotted the hillsides. Skiing was accessible to many people regardless of income.

Two issues here. First, most of those Mom and Pop ski hills that remain open (Cochran's, Blue hills, etc..) due indeed have dramatically lower day ticket and pass prices than large resorts like SB. It's always been that way and will always be that way. To this day, those ski areas remain quite accessible to skiers of almost any socioeconomic level, just like before. Remember that no one holds a gun to your head forcing you to ski at a large, expensive resort.

Second, the vast majority of these local hills are closed anyway. As with many industries, the growth in fixed costs like energy/water for snowmaking, insurance, and lifts has put operations lacking scale out of business. In other cases, smaller mountains were just outcompeted by their newer, bigger brethren. Most of the time, you can still ski at those places for free, as long as you hike up yourself.

The high end resorts like Sugarbush, Stowe, and Stratton have never been priced for "the common man", but since they have survived while the Mom and Pops have faltered, they represent a much larger % of ski areas and skier visits than back in the day.

Exhibit Three: One such community organization that is "affordable" to many families.

Let's look at that link a little closer. The Lyndon Outing Club is staffed by volunteers, so it's labor costs are diminimus. It doesn't appear to have much, if any, snowmaking, so it's water and electric costs are dramatically lower than your avg ski area. The website indicates it was closed on Jannuary 28 this year and that they were waiting for more snow so that they could re-open. How you could possibly compare this to a place like Sugarbush that uses paid hundreds of paid employees, has snowmaking on hundreds of acres, and has been open continuously since early November, is entirely beyond me. It's comparing apples and elephants. Why it is that you think these two dramaticlly different products and experiences should be priced in a similar manner is beyond me.

I get :angry: when I hear one lament, "skiing has always been expensive," because the next logical leap is, "this is a sport of the rich" or "not everyone has a right to ski." That is not the point.

This is a slippery slope argument that simply isn't supported either by what I've said, or the facts. Everyone has a right to ski.....at a price determined by the ski area they are patronizing, or for free if they want to hike/skin.

The point is that at one time skiing was more widespread than it is now for people and to simply say, "it has always been expensive" only sidesteps the issue at hand: the expense of SB passes and how they are out-of-step with other competitors in the market.

Seeing as how the ski industry has set records for skier visits in the last 10 years, it's hard for me to understand how skiing was more widespread back then. And is SB really that far out of step? In all likelihood, it sees its main competitor at Stowe, who has an early purchase option of $1245, some $345 more than Sugarbush. Then there is K-Mart, where the Gold all-for-one pass starts at $619. That's $10 less than an unlimited season pass at Wachusett will cost you. Looks to me like ASC is underpricing it's product. Okemo checks in at $979 for its cheapest unlimited pass while Stratton is at $800. So when you compare it to other premium resorts in VT, it's really not out of line at all. The resorts in NH have done a commendable job of holding prices down to the $500 range, but the competition for the Boston weekend market is fierce. It's simply a different equation for most VT resorts.

Again, personally, I'd love to see SB lower their early-bird rate by about $100 to really hit my sweet spot. But you've presented absolutely zero evidence that they are either out of step with their competition (in this case, VT destination resorts) or are at the forefront of an industry wide trend to deny affordable access to skiing for the have-nots in this world.

 

[PowderDeprived]

....speed that up and spill more folks onto the existing trail system. Sometimes less is more....though I can't speak to feeling frozen with biting winds beating the warmth right out of you.

It is possible to have a faster lift, yet to even reduce capicity. Yes, the heavens gate chair dumps tuns of people onto jester, as it is the easiest way down, and serves about the right capicity for Organgrinder, Ripcord, and Paridise. So incresing capcity would be a problem, so mabey a custom detachible double, or tripple, or a quad with really wide spacing might be the solution. It would be nice to have shorter lift rides, though the lift would have to have about the same uphill capcitity. The same can be said with the Sumit quad, Inverness quad, and Norht Lynx Chairs.

 

[madskier6]

So, my terrain obsession continues. I know the Forest service is involved. But every time I look at Castlerock I don't see four trails. I see about 8 or 9. They are not outside the current terrain zone "boundry parameters" of Castlerock to Middle Earth, but cut between the existing trails.

Here's a few names - "Inner Earth", "Outer Rumble", "Rumble Earth", "Inner Rock"......you guys get the picture. Thin, classically cut trails within the existing "terrain pod", slinking down that great face like little rivers of expert joy. More of the same great Castlerock.... but not rocking the existing Castlerock boat.

How about it ? Feasible in any way ? Am I nuts ?

I agree with Smootharc but also realize that getting approvals for cutting new trails is not easy or quick. I also noticed this past weekend how nice it would be if there was one trail(or two) coming down to Castlerock from North Lynx. The terrain looks like it would be nice and challenging plus it would fill out Castlerock more as Smootharc has suggested. Would that ever be possible (or am I dreaming)? When ASC owned the Bush did they ever look into expanding the trail offerings in the Castlerock area specifically between Middle Earth and Birch Run?

I see on the map that this is beyond the current ski area boundary so it probably will never happen but why not? What is involved in expanding that small area between Castlerock and North Lynx?

 

[Tin Woodsman]

It is possible to have a faster lift, yet to even reduce capicity. Yes, the heavens gate chair dumps tuns of people onto jester, as it is the easiest way down, and serves about the right capicity for Organgrinder, Ripcord, and Paridise. So incresing capcity would be a problem, so mabey a custom detachible double, or tripple, or a quad with really wide spacing might be the solution. It would be nice to have shorter lift rides, though the lift would have to have about the same uphill capcitity. The same can be said with the Sumit quad, Inverness quad, and Norht Lynx Chairs.

You are correct re: capacity. What they have now is probably the ideal number, taking practical considerations into account (I'd prefer a double like C-Rock). OTOH, with a detatchable, you end up having a lot more downtime b/c they are much more susceptible to wind hold than a fixed grip chair. I'd prefer a faster ride there for sure, but not at the expense of even more wind holds. And, as someone mentioned, there are space issues at the top there. Not sure you could shoehorn a high speed lift terminal into that footprint.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I agree with Smootharc but also realize that getting approvals for cutting new trails is not easy or quick. I also noticed this past weekend how nice it would be if there was one trail(or two) coming down to Castlerock from North Lynx. The terrain looks like it would be nice and challenging plus it would fill out Castlerock more as Smootharc has suggested. Would that ever be possible (or am I dreaming)? When ASC owned the Bush did they ever look into expanding the trail offerings in the Castlerock area specifically between Middle Earth and Birch Run?

I see on the map that this is beyond the current ski area boundary so it probably will never happen but why not? What is involved in expanding that small area between Castlerock and North Lynx?

That is USFS land, so it's going to be difficult no matter what. That face also happens to have an almost due South aspect, so snow retention wil be difficult unless you have snowmaking, which itself demands essentially straight and boring trails - not exactly in tune with the current SB philosophy.

From the plans I've seen, ASC never had any plans for this area. They were focused on glades in the area between HG and CR, an extension of Spillsville, and a new trail between Downspout and Domino.

My own personal crusade has involved cutting some sort of run from the top of Middle Earth down to the bottom of Birch Run, enabling you to avoid the base area and Gate House lift alltogether.

 

[thetrailboss]

Your evidence is nothing of the sort.

OK.....just a refresher: this was the point that I rebutted and it is in your own words:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

This was the point that you made. It is an expensive sport.

If you wish to use your personal low speed quads, this is clearly still an option. while some ski areas may forbid it, most allow you to hike up before or after operating
hours/days. And then there are the lierally thousands of acres of backcountry. It's still free, but how is that germane to the price of a lift ticket?

So you concede that in terms of skiing as a sport, it is free to hike and ski? And that this form of skiing, being free, is not expensive?

Remember, your point was that skiing is an expensive sport NOT that lift tickets are expensive. That was only part of the argument. You also stated this about my argument regarding the "always" part:

I do take strong issue, however, with the ridiculous notion that skiing has EVER been an affordable sport.

And I responded with my three points from history and logic that proved otherwise. The first being the hiking comment. Is that an "expensive sport?" You responded by answering a question about lift tickets. Not my point. Again, I am addressing your contention that skiing has always been an expensive sport. This is how you framed the discussion. :wink:

First, most of those Mom and Pop ski hills that remain open (Cochran's, Blue hills, etc..) due indeed have dramatically lower day ticket and pass prices than large resorts like SB. It's always been that way and will always be that way. To this day, those ski areas remain quite accessible to skiers of almost any socioeconomic level, just like before.

So then you are conceding my point that skiing can be and has been affordable. Remember, your comment was:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

Remember that no one holds a gun to your head forcing you to ski at a large, expensive resort.

And nobody said this. Again, the topic at hand was:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

Second, the vast majority of these local hills are closed anyway. As with many industries, the growth in fixed costs like energy/water for snowmaking, insurance, and lifts has put operations lacking scale out of business. In other cases, smaller mountains were just outcompeted by their newer, bigger brethren. Most of the time, you can still ski at those places for free, as long as you hike up yourself.

This is my historical argument. You were adamant that:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

My point was that schools, clubs, families, etc. all at one time had ski areas in their backyards! Ropetows were cheap. Many people skied because it was accessible. NELSAP does point to places that are closed, but you ignore the fact that they existed which was the point. Specifically, this point:

In fact, skiing was for a long period of time an affordable form of recreation in the 1930's, 40's, 50's and even 60's.

This was the argument that at one time skiing was a relatively inexpensive past-time.

The high end resorts like Sugarbush, Stowe, and Stratton have never been priced for "the common man", but since they have survived while the Mom and Pops have faltered, they represent a much larger % of ski areas and skier visits than back in the day.

Again, the focus of the argument that you made was (just so we're all clear here :wink: ):

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

You seem to be blurring the argument here in talking about only ticket prices of "high end resorts." That is only a small part of the bold statement:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

And really is beside the point.

Let's look at that link a little closer. The Lyndon Outing Club is staffed by volunteers, so it's labor costs are diminimus. It doesn't appear to have much, if any, snowmaking, so it's water and electric costs are dramatically lower than your avg ski area. The website indicates it was closed on Jannuary 28 this year and that they were waiting for more snow so that they could re-open. How you could possibly compare this to a place like Sugarbush that uses paid hundreds of paid employees, has snowmaking on hundreds of acres, and has been open continuously since early November, is entirely beyond me. It's comparing apples and elephants. Why it is that you think these two dramaticlly different products and experiences should be priced in a similar manner is beyond me.

The Lyndon Outing Club point addresses this point:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

By addressing how skiing is an affordable sport thanks to the efforts of the community and volunteers. That was the point.

I am not making a comparison. You are:

How you could possibly compare this to a place like Sugarbush that uses paid hundreds of paid employees, has snowmaking on hundreds of acres, and has been open continuously since early November, is entirely beyond me. It's comparing apples and elephants. Why it is that you think these two dramaticlly different products and experiences should be priced in a similar manner is beyond me.

Which is again losing the focus of what I was responding to:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

And it appears once again that you concede the point that I make: that skiing has not always been an expensive sport:

Everyone has a right to ski.....at a price determined by the ski area they are patronizing, or for free if they want to hike/skin.

Again, the point you made originally:

Skiing always has been and always will be an expensive sport.

How does 'free' fit into your argument?

Seeing as how the ski industry has set records for skier visits in the last 10 years, it's hard for me to understand how skiing was more widespread back then.

I have not seen this conclusion before. NSAA numbers I have seen say that the market in terms of growth is flat.

And last, the issue on the season pass programs specifically:

And is SB really that far out of step? In all likelihood, it sees its main competitor at Stowe, who has an early purchase option of $1245, some $345 more than Sugarbush. Then there is K-Mart, where the Gold all-for-one pass starts at $619. That's $10 less than an unlimited season pass at Wachusett will cost you. Looks to me like ASC is underpricing it's product. Okemo checks in at $979 for its cheapest unlimited pass while Stratton is at $800. So when you compare it to other premium resorts in VT, it's really not out of line at all. The resorts in NH have done a commendable job of holding prices down to the $500 range, but the competition for the Boston weekend market is fierce. It's simply a different equation for most VT resorts.

Again, personally, I'd love to see SB lower their early-bird rate by about $100 to really hit my sweet spot. But you've presented absolutely zero evidence that they are either out of step with their competition (in this case, VT destination resorts) or are at the forefront of an industry wide trend to deny affordable access to skiing for the have-nots in this world.

First, read your own post. You cite the evidence of prices of the market place right there:

Then there is K-Mart, where the Gold all-for-one pass starts at $619. That's $10 less than an unlimited season pass at Wachusett will cost you. Looks to me like ASC is underpricing it's product.

But you reframed the question:

So when you compare it to other premium resorts in VT, it's really not out of line at all.

The debate is about the entire market and not what you feel it to be. If you had read my post(s), you would have seen this as my evidence (invisible...I know :wink: ):

In 2004-5, Sugarbush, Bretton Woods, Okemo/Sunapee, and Stowe were the only resorts that I observed that had an increase in the pass rate and that were way out of the price range of the market, which was falling. This was the first season of the "All For One." Jay Peak offered a full adult pass, with no black outs and reciprocity at many resorts, for under $500. Skibum cites Smuggs, a competitor, and Bolton, another competitor, also has dropped their prices as well. Even Stratton offers a Sunday pass that is under $300. Even worse, most pass programs are going to reciprocity with other resorts and other "added benefits" while SB pass, at $1000 or so, is still just an SB pass.

I think that SB is between a rock and a hard place. The place is too small to be Killington but too big to market as Bolton Valley. It is independent. I think that they can get more people "from their backyard" though by having more aggressive pass programs. Bretton Woods learned their lesson and their $499 Bode pass was a success from what I hear. I think simply defaulting to the, "it's an expensive sport...don't complain" line dodges the real issue at hand.

At the end, the answer to your statement is that skiing has not always been expensive. It at one time was very accessible. And skiing is what you make it to be in terms of cost. We skied for two seasons at a NH resort with an all-season pass program at $250 for adults. No blackouts. This was by no means, "expensive." And as to the season pass pricing, you did not see my evidence indicating that the market right now in New England is in the $250-$700 range for most resorts and that SB is at the top. That was the point. New England and not selected resorts.

 

[Greg]

My head is spinning... :blink:

:roll:

 

[thetrailboss]

My head is spinning... :blink:

:roll:

Yeah, mine too. :wink: :lol: :lol: World's longest reply post...almost an entire page of space.

Any last questions before I close this thread?

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Then I guess we were arguing about two different points. The original complaint specifically referenced SB and lamented the fact that skiing is an expensive sport. For top end resorts, it most certainly is, and SB's pass prices place it square in the middle of that market. As I stated, it has always been expensive at high-end places and always will be, and with good reason given the quality of the experience you generally receive.

For local hills, or mid-range mountains facing intense competition (read: most of NH), then the calculus is quite different and prices are lower. You can always go to local hills to get a bargain, just as you always could. Perhaps the best values can be found in NH or at one of the ASC resorts. I tend to subscribe to the notion that you get what you pay for, but to each their own.

In sum, stop whining about SB pass prices. They are in-line with their competition and you can always go to a myriad of smaller resorts that offer a much more compelling price point.

 

[thetrailboss]

OK, we're all set with this Challenge. Thanks for the great questions!

 

[Greg]

Win's responses are in!

http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2006/response.htm?resort=sugarbush

 

[thetrailboss]

GREAT responses!!!! Thanks Win! :beer:

 

[Sky]

Let's see...two "thanks"

1) Win, great responses. I'm a bit surprised my question made the cut...and I'm impressed you put such effort into your coverage of it.

2) Thanks AZ for listing my question.

Now it looks like I "have" to go to SB. *any excuse is good I guess*

 

[PowderDeprived]

Glad to see a commitment to preserve the natural terrain at the bush, and keep snowmaking where it is practical. I am also glad to hear that there is interest in the terrain above the Inverness and that that may someday be realized.

 

[skibum1321]

Thanks Win. Good responses.