• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Vermont Skier Visits Down Significantly Due to COVID-19

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
8,002
Points
63
Location
Right where I want to be
“Season pass holders still frequented their favorite resorts at high rates, she said, but the number of day pass visits plummeted”

could that be that at some places they are charging a fuck load more for day tickets then they used to? And also no more discounts to entice people to buy day tickets?
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,368
Points
48
The numbers in those articles are a bit confusing to me. they say revenue was down 100m, out of 1.9b last year. but they also say the average revenue was down 30%. I'm no accountant but something doesnt compute.
 

ThatGuy

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
91
Points
18
Location
America
The numbers in those articles are a bit confusing to me. they say revenue was down 100m, out of 1.9b last year. but they also say the average revenue was down 30%. I'm no accountant but something doesnt compute.
They’re saying average revenue for the entire industry in VT is down 30% so some places it could be down 50% or 10%. The 100m is overall loss.
 

Tonyr

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
357
Points
28
We stayed/skied in MT, WY, UT, ID, CO, NY, & VT this season. Aside from Pitkin County (Aspen) VT was by far the most stringent place to visit. Those numbers don't surprise me.
 

NY DirtBag

Active member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
871
Points
43
Location
Mecox, NY / Winhall, VT
They’re saying average revenue for the entire industry in VT is down 30% so some places it could be down 50% or 10%. The 100m is overall loss.

I think his point was 100m/1.9b does is more like 5%, not 30%.

I think the answer is that 1.9 billion is not the total gross income of ski resorts in VT (which would be 333 million +/- if the 100m loss really is a 30% average, unless the numbers in the article are total bullshit).

Instead, the 1.9 billion number is the estimated economic activity generated by skiing in VT. Hotels, Food, Gas, Taxes, Retail sales, etc. The entire enchilada, not just revenue at ski areas.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,865
Points
63
Location
PRNJ
They’re saying average revenue for the entire industry in VT is down 30% so some places it could be down 50% or 10%. The 100m is overall loss.

I dont think that's it. It said, "the ski industry" does "generate" $1.9B per year, but I'm taking that to mean that that $1.9B is what's additive to State of Vermont's GDP, not that it's $1.9B in skiing-related revenue. I think that's the more likely explanation to resolve the oddity in the math.
 

ne_skier

Active member
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
170
Points
28
Location
Northeast US
I'm 99% sure it's based on skiing-related revenue. If I go to Vermont for the explicit purpose of skiing and I spend $150 on a hotel room and eat a $50 dinner, that money could be considered to have been generated by the ski industry, as if it weren't for skiing, I would not have spent $200 at Vermont's businesses.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,865
Points
63
Location
PRNJ
Honestly, I think the numbers should be worse than this. We "did the right thing", so to speak, and didnt go to Vermont even once to ski, but I'm guessing many people had to have just ignored all the rules or I think the hit would have ben far worse than $100M.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,865
Points
63
Location
PRNJ
I'm 99% sure it's based on skiing-related revenue. If I go to Vermont for the explicit purpose of skiing and I spend $150 on a hotel room and eat a $50 dinner, that money could be considered to have been generated by the ski industry, as if it weren't for skiing, I would not have spent $200 at Vermont's businesses.

When I say "skiing-related revenue", I literally mean ski revenue. Your example above would be what I meant by Vermont's GDP, and I agree that must be what they mean or IMO it makes no sense.
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,368
Points
48
I dont think that's it. It said, "the ski industry" does "generate" $1.9B per year, but I'm taking that to mean that that $1.9B is what's additive to State of Vermont's GDP, not that it's $1.9B in skiing-related revenue. I think that's the more likely explanation to resolve the oddity in the math.
If 100m is 30%., then total revenue to the resorts was 300m. That seems low, no? I mean we’re talking about tickets/pass, f$b and lodging for a good number of resorts.
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,368
Points
48
Honestly, I think the numbers should be worse than this. We "did the right thing", so to speak, and didnt go to Vermont even once to ski, but I'm guessing many people had to have just ignored all the rules or I think the hit would have ben far worse than $100M.
I don’t think most people ”ignored all the rules”. I think the vast majority treated the quarantine rules like most people treat speed limits while driving. they don’t go 54 on the highway but take care not to go crazy either.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,865
Points
63
Location
PRNJ
I don’t think most people ”ignored all the rules”. I think the vast majority treated the quarantine rules like most people treat speed limits while driving. they don’t go 54 on the highway but take care not to go crazy either.

That literally is "ignoring" the rules then, lol. There's no way most people skiing in Vermont this season who dont live in Vermont went through with the extremely long quarantine period. Zero. Did some of them? Of course. Most of them? Not a chance.
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,368
Points
48
Now that I think about, how could anyone possibly calculate revenue to the resorts given that the 6 biggest resorts are epix or icon. is It public knowledge how vail and alterra divvy up the proceeds from the pass sales to individual resorts?
im ikon and skied almost 40 days at sugarbush and twice at killington. Who gets what out of my pass?
 

HowieT2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,368
Points
48
That literally is "ignoring" the rules then, lol. There's no way most people skiing in Vermont this season who dont live in Vermont went through with the extremely long quarantine period. Zero. Did some of them? Of course. Most of them? Not a chance.
That’s true, but the rule didn’t require any quarantine in vt, if u were quarantined at home and had a negative test. many were quarantined at home anyway and skipped the test.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
4,370
Points
83
Location
NJ
Honestly, I think the numbers should be worse than this. We "did the right thing", so to speak, and didnt go to Vermont even once to ski, but I'm guessing many people had to have just ignored all the rules or I think the hit would have ben far worse than $100M.

Many people absolutely ignored the rules. I followed the rules by staying in VT and working remotely, but every weekend at my condo complex you'd see the same out of state cars show up only to disappear mid-week. Some people will justify it by saying "well when I went home I didn't go anywhere else" and believe they were somehow following the rules in their own way. I'm not saying I fault these people as the rules were overly restrictive, but there's no doubt many people did not follow the rules the way VT expected people to.
 

kingslug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
6,122
Points
83
Location
Stamford Ct and Stowe
So..a billion is 1000 million
2 billion is 2000 million
Losing 100 million doesnt seem like a lot mathematicaly.
But this isnt math..its reality..
Entire businesses are gone..
One has to wonder..was the "cure"...better than the disease...
 

PAabe

Active member
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Messages
156
Points
28
Location
Lancaster, PA
Vermont committed economic suicide. The more popular NY and PA hills were sold out every weekend and even the less popular places reported busier than every ticket sales and good financials - the lodges even seemed fairly busy too selling food, even if a lot of people were eating outside. The guy at my ski shop was saying how this is the best year they have had ever, they are basically sold out of everything.

Huge missed opportunity on Vermont's part. Short season last year, restricted travel, lodging, and food this year, that must be pretty rough as the article notes.

Now PA allegedly had a travel restriction for part of the season too but a lot of people didn't even know that it existed, nobody even mentioned it really.. I know a few people on the DC forum were talking about not coming to PA but I don't think the southern PA hills could have handled more people anyway, and the poconos lots were full of Maryland, NJ, and NY plates. But there are definitely a lot of people that avoided Vermont for alternatives.

I don't get the point of travel restrictions, if the disease is already spread around the world/country, why does it matter? And how the ski areas were singled out as being some huge covid risk when really there is zero chance of spreading disease while skiing - they should be encouraging not discouraging safe things to do - better to go skiing than go to a party. Just seems like politicians on a power trip
 
Last edited:

VTKilarney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,457
Points
48
Location
VT NEK
Keep in mind that Vermont was a very different place when the rules were made. Vermont had extremely few COVID-19 cases compared to the rest of the country and, in particular, the Northeast.

also, the theory was that, even if Vermont had the same number of cases as elsewhere, the mere act of traveling encourages the spread of the disease compared to staying home.
 
Top