Vail Resorts is buying Peak Resorts.

[Domeskier]

By offering full benefit senior pass at discount, you're hoping to capture the family of those seniors.

I am skeptical that many people make decisions on where to ski based on whether grandma and grandpa can get a cheap pass. I am skeptical that even grandma and grandpa are making decisions on where to ski based on the availability of such passes. By the time most people are eligible for these discounts, they already have strong preferences on where they ski based on other factors. If I'm going to Killington for 50 or 60 years, have property and a ton of friends there, I'm not going to switch to Sugarbush because I can get a cheaper pass. It's the same as cdskier's rationale for why Vail shouldn't worry about disavowing Hunter's lifetime passes.

My guess is that senior discounts kind of just happened at resorts because people are familiar with them from other contexts where senior discounts were intended to relieve financial burdens on people on fixed incomes who do not make significant demands on services (like senior discounts for bus and subway fare); as resort operators become larger, more sophisticated and focused on maximizing profits, they realize that they don't make economic sense and eliminate them.

 

[EPB]

I am skeptical that many people make decisions on where to ski based on whether grandma and grandpa can get a cheap pass. I am skeptical that even grandma and grandpa are making decisions on where to ski based on the availability of such passes. By the time most people are eligible for these discounts, they already have strong preferences on where they ski based on other factors. If I'm going to Killington for 50 or 60 years, have property and a ton of friends there, I'm not going to switch to Sugarbush because I can get a cheaper pass. It's the same as cdskier's rationale for why Vail shouldn't worry about disavowing Hunter's lifetime passes.

My guess is that senior discounts kind of just happened at resorts because people are familiar with them from other contexts where senior discounts were intended to relieve financial burdens on people on fixed incomes who do not make significant demands on services (like senior discounts for bus and subway fare); as resort operators become larger, more sophisticated and focused on maximizing profits, they realize that they don't make economic sense and eliminate them.

Broadly, most "regulars" at any mountain have very high switching costs whether it is though property or socially. In my experience, most regulars are begrudgingly loyal to their home mountain when bad management of any stripe come to town.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

I am skeptical that many people make decisions on where to ski based on whether grandma and grandpa can get a cheap pass. I am skeptical that even grandma and grandpa are making decisions on where to ski based on the availability of such passes. By the time most people are eligible for these discounts, they already have strong preferences on where they ski based on other factors. If I'm going to Killington for 50 or 60 years, have property and a ton of friends there, I'm not going to switch to Sugarbush because I can get a cheaper pass. It's the same as cdskier's rationale for why Vail shouldn't worry about disavowing Hunter's lifetime passes.

My guess is that senior discounts kind of just happened at resorts because people are familiar with them from other contexts where senior discounts were intended to relieve financial burdens on people on fixed incomes who do not make significant demands on services (like senior discounts for bus and subway fare); as resort operators become larger, more sophisticated and focused on maximizing profits, they realize that they don't make economic sense and eliminate them.

I agree with your first sentence...but then the rest I'm a bit mixed on. I don't think it is quite the same rationale. Seniors that need to be more conservative with their money are more likely to opt not to ski than to switch to another cheaper resort if there was no senior pricing. (So we agree switching to another resort isn't an overly likely scenario). Some would keep skiing if they could afford to do so at higher prices no doubt. But others would simply drop out of the sport and potentially even cash in and sell their ski area condo/home (or give/sell it to their kids or simply keep it and let their kids and their families use it and only ski a day or two here and there with them). I think senior pricing more-so came from the ski resorts looking at their own data and saying "what can we do to try to keep the older people as pass-holders".

Another way to look at the senior pricing is as a "thank you." There's a decent chance a senior skier at a resort has been a loyal customer of that resort for a long time. So as a thank you for being a long-time passholder, they offer them a discount.

 

[Domeskier]

Broadly, most "regulars" at any mountain have very high switching costs whether it is though property or socially. In my experience, most regulars are begrudgingly loyal to their home mountain when bad management of any stripe come to town.

Agreed. And if you're the rare itinerant skier who is not a regular at any particular resort by the time you qualify for a discounted senior pass, you probably have other priorities that outweigh the savings from locking yourself into a particular pass. All that being said, I will gladly accept any senior discounts that resorts want to throw at me if I still care about sliding down mountains on snow and ice when I reach 70.

 

[Domeskier]

Another way to look at the senior pricing is as a "thank you." There's a decent chance a senior skier at a resort has been a loyal customer of that resort for a long time. So as a thank you for being a long-time passholder, they offer them a discount.

I agree with this. I see senior discounts as a nice hold-over from an era when the culture cared more about the elderly than profit. I don't see Vail as likely to perpetuate that sentiment.

 

[Domeskier]

[snip double post]

 

[x10003q]

I am skeptical that many people make decisions on where to ski based on whether grandma and grandpa can get a cheap pass. I am skeptical that even grandma and grandpa are making decisions on where to ski based on the availability of such passes. By the time most people are eligible for these discounts, they already have strong preferences on where they ski based on other factors. If I'm going to Killington for 50 or 60 years, have property and a ton of friends there, I'm not going to switch to Sugarbush because I can get a cheaper pass. It's the same as cdskier's rationale for why Vail shouldn't worry about disavowing Hunter's lifetime passes.

My guess is that senior discounts kind of just happened at resorts because people are familiar with them from other contexts where senior discounts were intended to relieve financial burdens on people on fixed incomes who do not make significant demands on services (like senior discounts for bus and subway fare); as resort operators become larger, more sophisticated and focused on maximizing profits, they realize that they don't make economic sense and eliminate them.

I agree with this, plus -
Senior passes come from a time when most seniors where done skiing. Decades ago, ski areas probably did not sell many senior passes. As more people regularly exercised over the last couple of decades, and health care has improved, more seniors are able to enjoy skiing for more years beyond retirement. When you add in the higher monetary demographics of skiers, ski area owners realized that seniors skiers had more money than the general population.

One thing that I have noticed when skiing mid-week in the East - lots of senior skiers show up at the opening bell and are gone by lunch. Many never spend a dime beyond the cost of the pass. The age requirement for senior passes has become older or has disappeared. Ski areas are smarter to give discounts to 20 somethings.

 

[abc]

I am skeptical that even grandma and grandpa are making decisions on where to ski based on the availability of such passes. By the time most people are eligible for these discounts, they already have strong preferences on where they ski based on other factors. If I'm going to Killington for 50 or 60 years, have property and a ton of friends there, I'm not going to switch to Sugarbush because I can get a cheaper pass. It's the same as cdskier's rationale for why Vail shouldn't worry about disavowing Hunter's lifetime passes.

That describes one type of retirees. Those who had made the decision before they retire, had been skiing there much of their adult life, had probably had local social connection. They can't (won't) leave.

But there're others who's been skiing all over northeast mountains. To them, each mountain has its pros and cons. They may own property not near ONE mountain, but in a town that has easy access to multiple mountains. Their cost of switching is not that high.

(I happen to know one such retiree. Though for them, they're no longer skiing full days at all. So this may actually be a motivator to move to a smaller mountain instead)

Really, Epic pass's biggest advantage is the availability of multiple mountains. To the locals who doesn't travel to start with, they're the biggest losers when Vail buys their mountain. In the Cats, there's no real alternatives so I suspect the Hunter royalist will just have to suck it up. But in Vermont, the non-availability of midweek and senior pass could very well be driving some of the locals to explore other mountains nearby

I am skeptical that many people make decisions on where to ski based on whether grandma and grandpa can get a cheap pass.

I don't think their thought process works that way. It's more likely grandpa had been skiing there all along and invites the grand kids.

But if grandpa's pass is midweek only, grand kids may only gets invited in the summer.

 

[cdskier]

The age requirement for senior passes has become older or has disappeared.

Perhaps that depends on the resort. Sugarbush just lowered the senior age a few years ago (my dad was happy as he was able to qualify earlier). My dad point blank asked Win about it one day when he ran into him. His reasoning was that they looked at the numbers, saw they didn't have a ton of pass-holders in the 65-69 range, so figured worst case lowering the age from 70 to 65 would cause them to maybe lose a few bucks if they didn't sell any additional passes, but more likely would potentially encourage more people in that age range to get passes resulting in an overall net benefit.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Given the small pool of lifetime pass-holders and the uncertainty about how they might react to losing their passes, I don't think it's worth it to a company like Vail to disavow the lifetime passes in the hope of making a handful of additional EPIC pass sales, if that. It makes them look greedy and it will have zero meaningful impact on their bottom line. Alternatively, if they honor the passes, they get a rep for being a company that takes its obligations seriously even if not legally required to do so.

This is the correct answer. All the "analysis" going on in this thread is just overthinking a simple business decision by Vail that is tone-deaf at best. And it comes from Katz. He has an almost autistic-like laser focus on uniformity across brand that borders upon an irrational obsession with micromanagement. As many have said, this decision will affect exceedingly-few persons, so it has zero financial significance, yet it will generate some level of negative press or attention (SEE: this thread). But no matter, this decision had to be made, lest all the socks in the sock drawer were not organized left to right by ROYGBIV color with sock openings facing due north.

 

[Domeskier]

But there're others who's been skiing all over northeast mountains. To them, each mountain has its pros and cons. They may own property not near ONE mountain, but in a town that has easy access to multiple mountains. Their cost of switching is not that high.

(I happen to know one such retiree. Though for them, they're no longer skiing full days at all. So this may actually be a motivator to move to a smaller mountain instead)

True, but this type of retiree is probably just as hard to capture (unless it's by one of the major multi-passes). If you like chasing storms and skiing a variety of mountains, you're probably already comfortable paying more for that experience than you would for a season pass to a single mountain. Maybe the senior discount pushes you over the edge, but for every such senior skier, you might have five regulars who would be willing to pay full price for the pass.

I'm not saying that no senior skier is influenced by the availability of senior discounts - I'm sure many are; I'm just not wholly convinced that resorts make more money by offering them than by charging seniors full freight. If senior discounts were obvious money-makers, I would expect Vail to be fully on board.

 

[AdironRider]

This thread is jumping the shark.

Literally no one is going to change their ski destination because some other guy they don't know lost his lifetime pass. Even if they do know the guy, they aren't going to change their ski destination.

Outside of pointless debate on ski forums, this decision will have zero effect on Vail's bottom line other than increasing it by getting new passholders. Why? If someone loved a place to ski so much they bought a lifetime pass (which has proven over and over again to be the lifetime of the current ownership of the place), they aren't leaving.

In terms of senior discounts, they'll get over it also. Old men yelling at clouds and such. If you are out there skiing you can pay full freight just like the rest of us.

You chase cheap skate customers you are going to make shitty revenue. Vail knows where their bread is buttered and it isn't by cheap skates who only ski where they get the best deal. If 20 bucks on a lift ticket is driving your commitment, you aren't worth the hassle compared to a customer that will bring literally thousands more.

 

[mbedle]

I know they don't have anything yet on the east coast, but Vail does sell senior passes at other resorts. Maybe something will come to east coast after the sale.

 

[abc]

I know they don't have anything yet on the east coast, but Vail does sell senior passes at other resorts. Maybe something will come to east coast after the sale.

Where?

 

[abc]

You chase cheap skate customers you are going to make shitty revenue. Vail knows where their bread is buttered and it isn't by cheap skates who only ski where they get the best deal. If 20 bucks on a lift ticket is driving your commitment, you aren't worth the hassle compared to a customer that will bring literally thousands more.

Actually, I've always wondering about that. Why did Vail even offer the lower priced Epic Local pass? I (not being a "local" of the west) would have opened up my wallet for the full Epic pass!

Every year, I contemplated buying the full of either Ikon or Epic. But so far had mostly gone with the cheap Local version. Had that version not even exist, they would have gotten $300 extra out of me!

 

[mbedle]

Where?

Heavenly, Northstar, Kirkwood, Afton Alps and Mt Brigton.

 

[abc]

Heavenly, Northstar, Kirkwood, Afton Alps and Mt Brigton.

I see. I forgot about those. Basically local mountain passes that don't have "free" access to the rest of the Vail resorts. (**)

They may indeed bring those over to the northeast.


(**)
(those 50% discount are really only symbolic. With half price Park City costing ~$90, you'll be buying a "real" Epic pass at the tune of $600 if you even have an inkling of skiing elsewhere!)

 

[drjeff]

Actually, I've always wondering about that. Why did Vail even offer the lower priced Epic Local pass? I (not being a "local" of the west) would have opened up my wallet for the full Epic pass!

Every year, I contemplated buying the full of either Ikon or Epic. But so far had mostly gone with the cheap Local version. Had that version not even exist, they would have gotten $300 extra out of me!

To draw and lock more people into the Vail resorts network. Give them a taste of what their resort portfolio offers, and if folks so choose, they'll upgrade at some point to the full Epic, with less restrictions and go to one of the resorts, when they want, that the full Epic allows them to do over the Epic local.

Also helps in a way with crowd management, since if someone wants to go to Vail or Whistler or Park City for example over one of the 3 big Holiday periods (X-mas/New Years week, MLK Weekend and Presidents Week) they're going to buy the full Epic, if someone doesn't want to go to an Epic resort during a time that it's blacked out, then they will get the local. They still have an Epic product hanging off their coat, and Vail Resorts is in essence helping to limit some of the crowds that would likely hit up their restricted resorts during traditionally the busiest times of the season.

 

[AdironRider]

Actually, I've always wondering about that. Why did Vail even offer the lower priced Epic Local pass? I (not being a "local" of the west) would have opened up my wallet for the full Epic pass!

Every year, I contemplated buying the full of either Ikon or Epic. But so far had mostly gone with the cheap Local version. Had that version not even exist, they would have gotten $300 extra out of me!

Well they got the better part of 700 bucks out of you for one, just to start.

Plus you need to travel and pay for food, lodging and incidentals at one of their western properties or Stowe. Not exactly cheap ya know.

Vail is basically guaranteeing themselves over a g in revenue just from you, before you even get in the liftline.

 

[abc]

Also helps in a way with crowd management, since if someone wants to go to Vail or Whistler or Park City for example over one of the 3 big Holiday periods (X-mas/New Years week, MLK Weekend and Presidents Week) they're going to buy the full Epic, if someone doesn't want to go to an Epic resort during a time that it's blacked out, then they will get the local. They still have an Epic product hanging off their coat, and Vail Resorts is in essence helping to limit some of the crowds that would likely hit up their restricted resorts during traditionally the busiest times of the season.

But that would argue FOR offering midweek passes, which neither do.

I almost never ski Saturdays. Too crowded to start with. Plus almost none of my ski companions at the destination ski Saturdays. (they're local so they're more choosy. I do the same at home here, rarely ski Saturdays) I either go x-c skiing with them (if they xc ski). Or in some cases, I was just travelling TO the destination on Saturday.

Had there been a cheaper midweek version of both Epic & Ikon, I probably would get BOTH (instead of "rotating" from 1 year to the next). Same with some of my friends.