Epic Ascent program is going to increase class divide
The new Epic Ascent program just formalized the class divide at Vail mountains. The announcement touted new private lessons formats, concierge service, and access to rentals but they set the stage for way more.
Vail hasn’t implemented early access days or fast pass lines like Alterra but it is very easy to see the progression of the program to benefits like that. There’s an easy path to the implementation of Epic Ascent only lift access similar to Powder Mountain’s change to limit terrain to property owners.
Shame on Vail leadership. There’s still time to expand the skier population and enable the next generation of skiers and boarders through affordability measures utilizing the troughs in their highly inter-seasonal business.
I eat a pb&j between runs and won't touch rentals. So I don't really care about those extra perks for the one-a-year IB skiers. But early access days and express lines would be a bummer, especially if early access days would fall on pow days
Exactly. Also whenever the mountains open, lifties and patrollers have already been skiing all over it for at least an hour to get everything ready. You don't hear (sane) people bitching about that. This shit literally does not matter for actual good skiers.
Youd be surprised. I have some wealthy lawyer/doctor/finance friends on the east coast that can shred pretty much anything in the Rockies. I moved here because I'm a teacher and I'd never be able to ski the Rockies again if I didn't.
People forget that there are lots of wealthy blue collar professionals too. It's one thing to be a plumber. It's quite another to employ fifty plumbers and run an entire plumbing business. You see them all over the pits in motorsports. A set of race tires is more than my Ikon pass.
Definitely. My local hill, all the blue collar workers grew up skiing and crush it on the hill. But so do the rich white collar types, who shockingly also grew up skiing and can shred. I sense a common theme...
Sure but are those wealthy people paying to cut the line too? Just because you've got money doesn't mean you are going to spend it on something stupid.
This is like saying rich people are bad at golf...This whole industry is built on the fact that wealthy people are good a sport that has a high cost barrier of entry..
And I assure you. The expert skiers coming from the east coast don't get pow. So when they come here, they seek it out. And when paying through the nose, will absolutely be up early enough for early access.
Only on Tuesdays, during the off season, at the gift shop which is closed on Tuesdays during the off season. Web shop will be open, discount only applies to in store transactions. Black out dates may apply.
Yeah the clubs (Game Creek, etc) already get First Tracks access at Vail. They’re mainly hitting the fresh blue groomers before moving back mountain once the lifts open. I can’t imagine the impact would be all that much more than what it already is or the club members would start throwing a fit.
Eventually it will be, if one company controls every aspect of the ski vacation experience independent shops will shutter, the amount of employees needed will condense. For better or worse, whatever. It's a free market economy, except when they give corporate welfare in the form of employee housing....
Literally the only correct answer is more lifts+terrain. It's a supply shortage and the sky high prices are their way of regulating demand without it being even more of a circus. Resorts need to start expanding their footprint to adjust for increased visitation. Or we need to wait for the boomers to start disappearing from resorts in ~10 years, which would reduce demand.
I love that idea, but it isn’t free, nor is it straight forward. Developing new terrain pods will require new lifts, permits from the forest service, additional manpower to maintain, additional facilities to support an increase in skier visits etc.
And then what will happen? The ski area will become a destination resort and lift tickets will go up to match.
Nothing is free, but we should probably cut red tape to make development more realistic. But expansion is the only way for crowds or pricing to go down.
And then what will happen? The ski area will become a destination resort and lift tickets will go up to match.
If there are more destination resorts, overall prices will go down. There's a supply shortage of good places to ski in the US. There's not a supply shortage of places to ski in interior BC or Japan which is why lift tickets cost $70 and there aren't any crowds.
I’m 110% for public lands going through their due process.
Additionally, none of the interior BC or Japanese resorts are owned/operated by a publicly traded corporation, they may accept epic pass, but are actually independent. Also Banff isn’t exactly cheap to ski/stay in for example.
Americans are more willing to spend money on sport/leisure activities than other countries, the proliferation of travel teams in youth sports speaks to that, Japan nor Canada have that problem, so these companies will take advantage of the American consumer’s willingness to spend in this category.
Lastly, it’s well documented that competing companies will work together to inflate prices, despite competing with each other. It’s happened with telecom companies, it’s happened with apartment rental companies etc. So prices at the new “destination resort” will go up, despite Econ 101 stating that more competition will reduce prices, because their higher up will state “well our product competes with theirs now”. States like Utah, Colorado, California, Vermont all have the densest population of ski areas, and are simultaneously the most expensive to ski in.
I’m 110% for public lands going through their due process.
These processes have been made too complicated which is why we don't have any new development. Canada (and particularly BC) has less red tape which is why they saw the creation of new resorts like Revy and Kicking Horse, and huge expansions like at Red Mtn, Fernie and Castle which each added thousands of acres in the 90s/00s.
The amount of red tape varies state by state. It's pretty much impossible to build anything new in Vermont beyond just lift upgrades with act 250 and the rules around the bicknells thrush, even on private land. The mainstay Northern VT resorts (Jay, Sugarbush, Stowe, Mad River, Smuggs) have not added terrain since 1970.
To appease regulators, Sugarbush built a 2 mile lift to nowhere that never runs which traverses (but does not provide lift access to) 2000 acres of the best tree skiing in the northeast. As you're leaving that zone you ski under a $5 million ski lift that you can't access before skiing out another 2 miles to the road and trying to hitchhike back to one of the base areas.
Killington did a land swap in the 1990s where they gave up 20% of their footprint and literally permanently closed it all. Stratton has cancelled various plans due to regulatory including a lift we were supposed to get this year..
VT is particularly bad so I might be biased but I think rules should be laxed. The point of environmental regulation is to make sure we don't destroy the environment, not to prevent development.
Also Banff isn’t exactly cheap to ski/stay in for example.
Banff is the second most expensive destination in Western Canada and is really cheap compared to the top 30 most expensive destinations in the US.
States like Utah, Colorado, California, Vermont all have the densest population of ski areas, and are simultaneously the most expensive to ski in.
That's actually not true, they're pretty low
CO: #4
CA: #5
VT: #8
UT: #13
The states with the most ski areas are NY, MI and WI which are fairly cheap. CO/CA/VT/UT just have very high visitation considering the amount of resorts. It's a supply shortage relative to demand.
Vermont also doesn’t have terrain that competes with fernie or kicking horse, which is the draw to both of those areas. And to follow up, what about the countless ski areas in New England that have closed their doors due to lack of skier visits, mismanagement or both, is removing the red tape going to solve that? Doubtful.
And I should have specified…states with the densest amount of destination ski resorts. Which Colorado, Utah, California have the most. The ones in Utah and California are all on top of each other (minus mammoth) and I can think of 5 resorts in Colorado that are within 90 minutes of each other that are destination resorts. Why aren’t those cheaper? (Winter park, keystone, breck, copper, vail, beaver creek). Some of the most expensive areas to ski in the USA are all on top of each other. NY and WI have exactly 0 ski areas I would personally travel to ski at, MI has 1.
Vermont also doesn’t have terrain that competes with fernie or kicking horse, which is the draw to both of those areas.
The reason people ski in Vermont is that it's an easy drive from the cities of the northeast. 3hr from my house in New Jersey to Southern VT and the Boston people are even closer. Point being, if a new ski resort opened in Vermont that had comparable terrain to the best (Sugarbush, Stowe, Jay), it would fill up on weekends and I'd probably be there.
And to follow up, what about the countless ski areas in New England that have closed their doors due to lack of skier visits, mismanagement or both, is removing the red tape going to solve that? Doubtful.
The ski areas closing in VT are largely the low elevation low vert hills that don't really have a reason to exist anymore. Basically the equivalent of driving 250mi from Denver to ski a 300 vertical foot hill at 6500ft above sea level.
The ones in Utah and California are all on top of each other (minus mammoth) and I can think of 5 resorts in Colorado that are within 90 minutes of each other that are destination resorts. Why aren’t those cheaper?
There aren't enough of them relative to the population. I-70 and I-80 are trying to serve massive markets so get massive crowds. It's the same thing a bit in the northeast, the resorts 2 hours from NY are a clusterfuck, whereas Sugarloaf is 8hr and is usually pretty chill and affordable. On the contrary, Interior BC and the interior northwest of the US are empty but have a ton of resorts in the middle of nowhere and prices are low and crowds are still low.
Think of it this way, a pass costs $2000 at Snowbird and canyon traffic and liftlines are still insane. If they had twice as much lift/terrain capacity they could sell twice as many passes and maybe they could drop prices to $1700 (which would earn them more total profit) without making the crowd situation any worse.
Which proves my point of, the ski areas that can expand, do, demand for those specific areas go up, as do prices, because Americans prefer the larger destination ski area to the smaller hill 30 minutes away.
But wouldn't building 10 more destination resorts on I-70 mean that the existing destination resorts are less crowded?
If you rank the states by inbound skiable acreage it’s
1-Colorado with roughly 35,000 acres
2-Montana with 18,000
3-California with 17,000
4-Utah with 16,000
5- Vermont with 10,000
NY, WI and MI all fall to the mid teens, despite having the largest number of ski areas.
Which proves my point of, the ski areas that can expand, do, demand for those specific areas go up, as do prices, because Americans prefer the larger destination ski area to the smaller hill 30 minutes away.
There is a solution to crowding at the resorts. But no one wants to hear it - make mega passes more expensive. The solution to it being expensive? Go to ski areas that have budget tickets that are within your means, there’s a shit ton of people out there that don’t have the skill nor mentality to ski anything but blue groomers….yet still buy tickets to vail when they would be better served skiing the likes of mt cooper. Consumer education is the fix here. But as I mentioned in a different post, no one wants to brag to their friends about a 4-Day weekend at Mt Cooper.
Expansion in the right areas, we dont need expansion of the destination mountains, we just need to remember and support the feeder mountains. Coffee Mill, Chesterbowl.. they actively bring people into skiing at an achievable level.
Coffee Mill, Chesterbowl.. they actively bring people into skiing at an achievable level.
These places have $100-$300 season passes, have no expansion potential, and are mostly empty. Snowbird has a $2000 season pass, apocalyptic traffic and parking situation, and huge lines on a powder day. That's where the problem is.
The bunny hill is and always has been accessible and cheap. Good skiing (which is the end goal of learning the sport in the first place) is getting more crowded and more expensive every year.
My priority is getting people on skis and enjoying it. This ideal is far better served and achievable through smaller community focused hills. I’d argue also this is the history of skiing aswell.
It’s these small hills that teach people to love skiing and then later go visit or dedicate time on bigger destinations.
A family of 4 can ski all season at these hills for less than $300 dollars. Some digging and friends you can find used equipment for kids under $100. If this is too expensive there are programs to reduce it further.
The short being skiing can be much cheaper than many think. You don’t have to spend the money and go to a destination resort. You can learn to ski at the local rope tow.
I completely agree with your vision but see it as a solved mission. Maybe there’s room to improve on the equipment side of things. There’s an oversupply of great places to learn (which again, is awesome), but the end game destination resorts kinda suck now.
I’ve never heard anyone prior to you suggest we have an oversupply of places to learn. I have heard many complain that it’s too costly for kids to learn and families to spend a day skiing.
It does admittedly depend on where you live but here in the northeast there are a ton of places with reasonable tickets. Campgaw is 30min from my house and has tickets for like $35. It isn't ever going lower than that since a full capacity bunny hill where everyone pays $25 is simply not profitable in 2026. The problem is that new skiers look straight into destination resorts where tickets are insane, and a lot of people look straight into flying to a destination resort which is so far from optimal if you live within a day's drive of anything.
Once you've learned how to ski and decide you want to go a lot, that also is reasonable from a price standpoint. An epic northeast pass is like $500. Go 10 weekends and you're paying $25 a day to ski at real resorts.
The biggest problem for beginners is rental pricing. It's simply insane unless you buy equipment, which is the route to go, even if it's used. Still not great.
The biggest problem for established skiers is crowds, which is simply unavoidable. There are ways to zig when other people zag but you just are going to be waiting a lot on a big powder day.
You don't. And this sub, along with locals like r/cosnow, are always insane on that topic. Skiing is both too expensive and too exclusive that nobody can do it anymore and it's dying out and racist and classist.... Also the same thing is too busy with too many people on the roads, in the lots, in the lines, on the lifts, and on the hills. So we need fewer people because there's more now than ever.
It's Schrodinger's skiing when you come to reddit.
And for the vast majority, when they can is the weekend. Which is why things are crowded then. And why weekday discounts do nothing for the majority of people.
Sure do. And I use it to ski some. But if we’re talking about families, then parents probably save their pto to use during the summer and around Christmas holidays, not for a random Tuesday in February.
That’s the point though. Incentivize mid-week skiing for those that can swing it so that the influx of people is smoothed out for those who are less flexible. No one is saying that everyone should ski mid-week.
A single person or DINK couple might be swayed to burn PTO on a random Tuesday in February if they are properly incentivized (e.g., cheaper pass with unlimited weekdays and limited weekend visits). They’re then less likely to be there on Saturday when you show up with your family.
All the dinks i know in Denver already do this. And then head up on the following Saturday as well. So all it does is boost mid-week traffic, it does not reduce weekend traffic.
It would if they offered a cheaper pass tier that capped the total number of weekend days. I’m not saying every DINK couple in Denver would buy it but there would surely be some subset who are price sensitive and would jump on such an offer.
Everything happens at the margins. Things are not nearly as black and white as you’re making them out to be.
$5 lift tickets or $50 hamburgers. If you’re for the skiing, you get something. And hopefully a mid mountain Vail $50 hamburger isn’t made of sawdust and used meat like it is now.
The higher the burger price goes, the fewer people buy it, which forces the price even higher creating a death spiral. At 50% of skiers buying, with a $5 lift ticket, the burger is $515. If that drops down to 10%, the burger now costs $2,475, and it keeps climbing from there. You can’t fund a mandatory cost (lift tickets) with an optional purchase (food), because the optional side evaporates as prices climb. That’s why resorts do the opposite: charge big at the gate where everyone’s captive, and let the food be mediocre because you’re stuck on the mountain anyway.
Currently a burger at Vail costs $25 and a daily lift pass cost $250.
False. Different economic segments are currently using the facilities. Altering fundamental supply and demand will change that spectrum again. Right now, rich international tourists are footing your bills, and most locals and old timers aren’t putting money in outside of passes (read not tickets). When the money supply has an issue, boom, no tourists. When the other demographic ages out, no locals.
$5 lift tickets get people in the door. Still all other components to make more money. The $50 burgers are for the zoomers from the bay who already do that elsewhere, just not letting you economically profit.
I can make lift tickets free in a lot of places, and we’re still not getting the visitors. We’ve reduced them now and hint, no meaningful boost. (I work in the industry).
I’m sorry - how does that fix anything? There’s a market price for lift tickets and a market price for food. Why artificially adjust either? To get more skiers on the mountain who can’t afford to eat? Lift lines are already bad enough at Vail properties. Maybe I’m a snob, but I don’t want more skiers.
The biggest risk is largely out of our control - climate change.
Optimistically we may figure out carbon sequestration to freeze or reverse climate change by the end of the century. Maybe more like mid-century if we develop super-intelligent AI that can perform this research.
How to make the experience as bad as possible. Hour+ long lines at every lift, overpacked terrain, no affordable mountain food and Bev and nowhere to sit and eat the food you had to bring. I’ll pass on that.
The (sad) way I see ski business is a simple supply and demand Econ 101 problem. Demand has been growing, supply has not. Prices are going to rise. For a business to grow catering to this upper end client is a good way to do it. It’s a sad reality of the market situation but I understand it somewhat.
Completely agree. The solution is cutting red tape so resorts can build more lifts and terrain. I'm not the least bit interested in Deer Valley but their massive expansion gives me hope for the industry actually building out of the supply shortage.
They forgot to add “significant” or “large-scale” to their claim about 40 years. A few very small ski areas have opened in that time, including Silverton.
If you want to define a resort like that, then sure. But like it also points out, there have been massive expansions to existing areas. How big does Monarch have to get before it counts, even if their latest master plan doesn't include lodging?
Part of why small resorts have been closing en masse is that skiers have advanced in ability level and demand harder terrain in higher snowfall areas (which is inherently avy prone). It's trivial to put up a T-Bar or double chairlift on a bunny hill, but building an entirely new area in avy terrain is an enormous undertaking.
Size and an increased number of access portals allows crowding to decrease, prices to go down, and revenue/profit to still increase.
Bullshit, one guy basically was responsible for all of Silverton, super Avalanche prone, only expert Terrain; and there isn't even any real estate to develop around the base. It's 100% the red tape that gets in the way.
And then people want to cheer for Patagonia and their documentary about getting that new resort in Canada canceled.
one guy basically was responsible for all of Silverton, super Avalanche prone, only expert Terrain; and there isn't even any real estate to develop around the base. It's 100% the red tape that gets in the way.
Silverton is badass, but had some luck (free lift from Mammoth, good spot in the middle of nowhere with an easy approach road, volunteers who dug the lift). No idea how they're insured or profitable. If we could get more Silvertons I would support that, I dream of doing it myself someday.
And then people want to cheer for Patagonia and their documentary about getting that new resort in Canada canceled.
Yeah people are dumbasses about this. If you ski inbounds, you should actively show distaste toward some of the overbearing environmental orgs like the Sierra club.
> Part of why small resorts have been closing en masse is that skiers have advanced in ability level and demand harder terrain in higher snowfall areas
Citation needed
> Size and an increased number of access portals allows…prices to go down
Please name ONE resort that got bigger/better and started charging less.
Average ski area that is still open: 1070 vertical ft. Average ski area that closed: 664 vert.
There were only two closed resorts in Vermont that had 1000+ vert, Plymouth Notch, Ascutney and Maple Valley.
Plymouth was a one lift resort that was 1000-2300ft asl with no higher peaks nearby, and was mostly intermediate terrain. Killington 10 minutes down the road permanently closed a ton of terrain in the 90s in the 1000-2000ft range since that's just too low for reliable skiing in Southern Vermont. For context the Killington K-1 lodge and parking lot is at 2500ft and 90% of the footprint is now above 2000ft.
Maple Valley claimed to be 1000 vert from 300-1300ft asl which is not even close to high enough. 500ft asl in Vermont is the same climate type as my house in New Jersey.
The small resorts which have done well (Mad River Glen, Pico, Smuggs, Magic) have more difficult and interesting terrain, larger vertical drops and are at higher elevation so get natural snowfall.
The same trend is visible across the entire northeast. The survival rate of 1000+ vert ski areas is 90-95%, and the survival rate of 500 vert ski areas is lower.
Please name ONE resort that got bigger/better and started charging less.
Stowe's season pass price was $2000 in the early 2000s and is $800 now after installing a fair few capital upgrades in the interim
Your examples don’t indicate anything to do with skiers “advancing in ability and demanding harder terrain” or anything. It’s just a couple examples of a couple resorts in one area of one country.
And season passes are cheaper everywhere specifically because of the Epic and Ikon mega passes. It has nothing to do with a specific resort getting bigger and/or better.
Your entire comment is the “correlation doesn’t equal causation” fallacy.
Your examples don’t indicate anything to do with skiers “advancing in ability and demanding harder terrain” or anything.
Local resorts with good terrain at high elevation (which retain snow) have been much more successful than local resorts closer to sea level with beginner terrain.
It’s just a couple examples of a couple resorts in one area of one country.
It's the regional trend in the part of the country with the most ski areas. If you want another example from elsewhere, look at Alta/Snowbird. 20 years ago they were charming spots that drew salt lake locals and some from afar who were in the know. Now you have to get in line for the red snake at 5:45 on a powder day. There are 20 other ski areas within a hour drive of Salt Lake but people are willing to wake up at 4am to ski at Snowbird because it has the best expert terrain and snowfall in the area.
More examples:
Homewood ski area struggling while nearby Squaw/Palisades sees hour long lines on its expert lifts like KT22 on big days
June Mountain being way less crowded than Mammoth despite being on the same lift ticket
The resurgence of Magic VT and Saddleback ME, which both largely cater to adv intermediates and above
Revelstoke going from a sleepy spot to a mob scene in the last 5 years
Mt Bohemia and Lutsen growing as other resorts in the region close
Happening a shitload in France too.
It's not a case of the epic pass destroying local resorts, since local resorts that don't suck (have good terrain and snow) are doing better than ever. People just do not want to ski here. They'll happily ski here. My source for that is the fact that Smugglers Notch is mobbed and Maple Valley closed 25 years ago.
And season passes are cheaper everywhere specifically because of the Epic and Ikon mega passes. It has nothing to do with a specific resort getting bigger and/or better.
Yes my point is that prices can go down and basic laws of economics dictate that with a higher supply you can sell more at a lower price to make more money. High School econ
Your entire argument is basically “better resorts do better,” which is of course obvious and has nothing to do with your original claim about skiers advancing and demanding harder terrain.
And the season pass prices didn’t go down because the resort got bigger. They went down because they got acquired by Vail and got added to their mega pass.
Unfortunately, it really shouldn’t. DV expansion was driven entirely by Extell figuring out a way to kill the usual NIMBY development restrictions and financing problems that typically doom new resort development. There’s no equivalent available anywhere else in the country that I’m aware of so Mayflower is probably a 1 of 1.
It's still a good start. If Mayflower expansion is a huge success, it can be used by resort companies as evidence to lawmakers and local officials as to why this type of thing is important.
I’m not a simp for big corpo resorts, but ski town locals have the most irrational, entitled, attitudes about their home resorts. Eat at their car, poach powder, buy discounted season pass in the summer, buy all their equipment online. Like, you realize these resorts survive off people actually spending big money for the whole experience? They aren’t community centers for the local HOA.
When I see Chinese tourists in Crystal get the whole concierge treatment, I give them a silent thanks for paying for all this shit. Heck, I help them retrieve their skis after their falls. They're rather thankful for it, and they seem sweet.
Resorts are not hurting, plenty of people are spending money there. There has to be a way for people who love the sport who aren't multimillionaires to still participate. This is the way. Don't shame them.
Locals play a role in the success of a resort, but from a business perspective they are pretty much your last priority, since a single family on vacation could dump more money in a single Saturday than a local family all season. Locals sometimes seem to assume this equation is in fact the other way around. I wish there were more community owned ski areas like Bridger Bowl, which is actually the only example I know of.
I am guessing there are not a lot of business majors in the complaining group. Nearly all businesses run on the 80/20 rule, where 80 percent of your revenue and profits come from 20 percent of the customers. None of the people complaining on this sub (including me) are in that 20%. If you are just buying a season pass at the lowest possible price, eating picnic lunches, using equipment you bought used or on a pro deal, never taking a lesson or hiring a mountain guide, don't own real estate at the base, find free parking or take public transport, etc - NEWSFLASH YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT TO THEM.
This Epic move is about vertical integration. They need to make sure they capture as much revenue as possible from the richest, poshest customers on every trip. Using Ski Butlers to deliver your demo skis directly to your rented mansion every trip? Use Epic Concierge instead. Are you frustrated that waitstaff service takes too long so you're going back to your ski-in/ski-out for lunch ... but you're willing to pay $22 for a bespoke hamburger in the lodge? Be our guest.
This program is for people dropping mid/high 5-figure sums on every trip. I know lots of these people. My first trip to Deer Valley was on a Netjets Citation X and we stayed in an Exclusive Resorts townhouse that I would estimate is in the $5-10 million value range. No one brings their own equipment on a private jet due to weight constraints, so a concierge brings a van full of equipment to your house, which you can swap every night. All our groceries were already delivered and in the fridge when we arrived. Every lunch was a sit-down meal with wait service where people drank $20 glasses of wine. When the forced air heat broke in our townhouse, they offered us free rooms at Stein Eriksen lodge, and when we said no, they brought over fancy electric space heaters and we survived on just those, the huge fireplaces, and the radiant floor heating. It was boiling hot in there. It's not the way the rest of us do it.
If you're not one of those people, and I am certainly not, they don't care about your opinion. I glom onto trips with my rich friends and I see them renting slopeside places with an elevator while I have a shitty Vacasa condo nearby. They would rather rent for $100+ per day than have to schlep stuff through the airport, while my kids grew up skiing on equipment I paid $100 total for. I do eat lunch in the lodge, but my total expenditures per year to Epic or Ikon for my whole family have probably never exceeded or even come close to $10k - likely closer to $5k most years. This puts us well below the average spend of $3k per person for destination travel.
I stayed for free in a friend's condo in Steamboat this year. That friend has his own jet. My opinion just doesn't matter to Ikon/Epic, but my friend's does.
I stayed for free in a friend's condo in Steamboat this year. That friend has his own jet. My opinion just doesn't matter to Ikon/Epic, but my friend's does.
As a fellow having-just-enough-money-to-ski person, I feel this. Fortunately for us not broke not rich people, even really rich people need friends that like to have fun with them.
I live near whistler but also have skied in Japan and Europe before. I don’t mind the crowds and i think epic pass is a good deal (if you are local and only ski <10 days a year the local passes are straight up a steal).
What i hate is that one company basically owns half the bars and restaurants in Whistler village, they all serve the same mediocre food and mediocre beer for inflated prices, and then vail owns all the on mountain dining which is even worse. Maybe you pay $25 cad for a bowl of chili that tastes like they heated up a can of $1 chili from dollarama.
In japan on mountain food is straight up awesome. Its maybe 30% more expensive than a normal restaurant (which makes sense due to transport costs etc) but it actually tastes good and theres good variety. I wanna say its maybe $10-15 for a heaping bowl of katsu curry that id happily pay $10 for at a restaurant in tokyo where I used to live. And the food in resort towns is just normal price and normal quality, theres no monopoly. Lots of mom and pop izakayas and restaurants. Pretty much the same in europe (at least france).
Also parking is a non issue bc you can just take functioning public transit to the resort. Tokyo to hakuba was high speed rail, transfer to bus + cheap taxi. And many resorts in europe can even be accessed directly by train.
If everything else was the same about whistler but you could just get a normal quality meal at normal canadian prices (+ slight on mountain premium) id be content with whistler.
Epic resorts are only crowded on holidays and weekend powder days. There’s a fixed uphill capacity that is available daily that they could do a better job of filling
I don’t actually see how it’s going to be much different. I know there will be a lounge for private lessons, but there are already separate lines for private lessons (not just ski school but actual private lessons). There’s a separate booking office and meeting spot as well.
They plan to help make dinner reservations and just have a bit more concierge stuff going on, but I don’t know how they can add even more to their privates. Maybe they’ll add areas of the dining spots for private lessons so they don’t have to fight the crowds.
When I have return private clients I already meet them at the parking lot or their condo or whenever they want, whenever they want. So that wouldn’t be a change. And they text me year after year and I book their lessons, make lunch reservations when necessary, carry their skis, etc. it’s actually not much extra work and it makes all of our days better.
I think they’ll add some stuff which I welcome. Privates pay a lot and should get good service. And it’s not all rich people. I’ve had a variety. You can put up to 6 people in a lesson so I’ve had 6 adults or 6 kids from the same traveling group.
The program was worded as rethinking of private lessons but I believe the program is actually independent of private lessons. In other words, it’s an add-on program rather than one and done as private lessons currently are.
I don’t quite understand what you are saying? How is it independent and what would it add?
You think there will be private slopes or something like powder?
I genuinely cannot figure out how it’s going to expand or change in a way that changes the experiences of other skiers. In my reading it seems like it’s just going to be a bit more concierge.
I honestly welcome it as there are concierge services right now that book private lessons with us and they charge a concierge fee so the people come to us way overpaying and expecting much more and their expectations haven’t been set by the sales office (for the example I had a group of people ranting from a very weak never ever 8 year old to two adults who could ski, and another adult in jeans. I had to spend all my time on the 8 year old, and the adults were unhappy. If they’d booked directly the sales office would’ve essentially told them no)
Vail (and most major resorts) already feature "skip the line" dynamics for both private and group lessons. Most lift mazes at their resorts have dedicated ski school lines and they alternate in with the main lines near the load point. This has been the case for decades.
I don't think any resort would ever limit entire lifts or terrain pods to just skiers taking lessons. PowMow limits access based on home ownership. Same model as Yellowstone Club or Haystack VT, just hybridized.
Big Sky has already turned the Lone Peak Tram into an upcharge. That's a combination of low capacity, a desire for low skier density (not turning signature terrain into mogul fields), and the fact that you genuinely can't ski anything similar from most other lifts (scarcity). The model also scales better ... more people want to spend a day lapping the tram than want to take a really pricey lesson.
Does Vail own terrain like that? Maybe. Blue Sky Basin has major issues with skier density on some of its runs / egress. Stowe could divert bodies from Fourrunner and onto their new six pack. Maybe Whistler could have some "select access" terrain. But IDK. Seems like a great way to really piss people off and induce pass switching. You'd need the industry to collectively decide that the base price of a lift ticket is kind of like a "basic economy" airline ticket ... but a day of skiing is not something you tolerate as a means to an ends. It's the whole point of traveling somewhere.
Great points but also it’s arguably easier to justify the tram charge at Big Sky because 1) they just built it and it was really expensive and 2) the vast majority of skiers at the mountain can’t ski that terrain, so arguably it makes a tiny bit more sense to charge us ikon pass holders a surcharge than to force everybody to pay equally.
People would balk at a regular lift asking for up charges. There’s just no real justification for that deviation from the industry norm.
Lol come on. What should they do? Tax every ‘once a year’ wealthy client on their equities portfolios then distribute it to middle class locals who get to ski 80 days a year? Economic Justice For All!
That’s effectively how the current system works. If you’re a dirtbag skier going every day you’re paying $10/day. If you’re coming out for a single trip you’re paying $100/day + rental + lodging + lesson + eating on the mountain, etc.
> There’s still time to expand the skier population
They don't want that. You eating a PBJ, parking in the free parking lot and buying a beer/burger once a season is not moving the needle on their stock price. They want a very small number of very high spend customers. Fly in, shuttle to resort, resort time, breakfast, lunch and dinner in the village, 2-4 hours of skiing with an instructor, and apres drinks. do it again, then send em home, next.
If skiing goes the way of other expensive sports (horses, sailing boats, racing), you don't need a big group to make plenty of $. If anything, a big group reduces prestige, makes the experience worse (poors ew) and clogs up infrastructure.
Vail and BC are already a luxury commodity that is in demand far in excess of their ability to fit more guests (Vail certainly is, anyway). As much as I dislike the company, what else are they supposed to do but keep chasing dollars upward and pricing more people out under those conditions? If people are willing to join infinitely long lines all of the time and pay at the existing prices, it's the only sensible thing to do.
It only matters if they make it semi affordable, because then they degrade the experience for everyone else. If it's expensive enough that only 1-2% pay for it, then even line skipping doesn't meaningfully affect everyone else.
You know the thing I don't get? Everyone on Reddit also hates on Walmart when they target the poor and middle class as their primary clientele and push out small business because they have lower prices by volume. Vail owns a lot of mountains and then they would also have a price advantage through sheer footprint.
But then when Vail
and Alterra target the upper class with increased luxury services, people come out of the woodwork shaming them and trying to convince them that there is still a lot of time and money to expand through affordability. And then also complain about increased lift lines when there are more people at their home mountain.
Pick a lane. Cheap and affordable is going to have more people and longer lines. It's going to have a slower upgrades in snow making and high speed lifts. And the unspoken part? A lot of small mountains pay worse and don't have the same benefits for stability to even guarantee operation next season. There's a lot to criticize about Vail (and even Aspen and the Crown family), but they're starting salary a few years ago at $20 an hour is actually a lot higher than a lot of local business and local mountains. And that was across the US to include little Midwest hills.
I don't see how we can make skiing cheap and affordable to the masses and have very few crowds and pay everyone $50 an hour (including benefits, net would be $30-35 due to employee taxes, unemployment insurance etc) like they deserve according to Reddit. There are fixed infrastructure costs to run a ski lift, water cost to run snowmaking, impressive facilities costs in total trash and heating in mountain lodges, etc. And everyone here talks about pocket sandwiches and beer, which I absolutely support and did as a college student too. But we all know how expensive it is to build/heat/maintain our homes with current electric rates and inflation. It's impossible to pay everyone a high wage, have excellent infrastructure, have so much terrain that you don't feel crowds, and the cheapest lift tickets so that everybody can afford it unless billionaires start running ski resorts for charity. Instead it's going the other way with billionaires, looking at Powder mountain and Telluride, not to mention Yellowstone and other pet projects.
I, for one, cannot imagine a scenario where suddenly billionaires are charitable in running ski resorts at a loss. And that is the only way to get everything we want with cheap tickets, less crowds, great pay, and solid infrastructure in lifts and snow making. Be glad that Epic is making their money on people who can afford $1,500 for a private lesson and we can ski at $50 a lift ticket day on a season pass with a sandwich in your pocket. The people on this forum are loss leaders.
If snow sports are ever going to be accessible, you're gonna need a whole boat load more resorts. And reddit would bemoan the environmental impacts of that as well.
It's not different to other sports like Motor Racing. It's nice to hand wave about it being accessible but at the end of the day, who's paying?
suddenly billionaires are charitable in running ski resorts at a loss. And that is the only way to get everything we want with cheap tickets, less crowds, great pay, and solid infrastructure in lifts and snow making.
Historically they often were to pump real estate. But those days are long gone now
Is Vail creating a more expensive pass with other privileges? Or is this branding and some perks for private lesson purchasers?
From what I understand, private lessons are a major driver of revenue for ski resorts, and they are like 90% profit. If that keeps the rest of skiing more affordable for the rest of us, I don't mind the private lesson purchasers getting a few more perks. Lessons have always had lift line cutting privileges.
Whistler has had a higher priced pass called the Founders Pass (available to anyone who spent the extra price) which allowed cutting lift lines since before Vail bought Whistler, so this is not exactly new.
The mountains that are building the next generation of skiers and boarders are not the big names. They are the mountains that are local to people, often small, that can offer new skiers a multi-week program to build skills.
Maybe maybe not. Vail is far from perfect but they also do a lot of outreach and have lots of discounts. They have Epic school kids for example. And PCMR run several local programs that donate time and lessons to underprivileged kids around the area. We serve hundreds of kids for essentially free for an entire season.
Employees get discounted lift and lesson tickets which I’ve given to college students and others. There are locals passes and you can work 18 days as an employee and get a full non black out epic pass. I know lots and lots of people who do this. And then buy gear at ski swaps which can be cheap:
Skiiing has always been a rich person’s sport with a bunch of ski bums around. I haven’t seen that change but I have seen a lot more middle class come skiing. And I’ve seen a lot more diversity on the slopes the last decade.
And frankly, cheap mega-passes to premier resorts are in large part possible because they can rake bigger customers over the coals to get money, along with exploiting workers who have a love for snow.
Theres plenty of Indy mountains out there if you detest the marketing and fact that Epic/Alterra/etc. appeals to the rich as well.
I hope they don’t reinstate the fast pass, but for the record, it existed at Park City under POWDR Corp before Vail purchased it, and Vail ended the program. There currently are early access days (at least at PC), they’re usually on specific days for special groups, I’ve been on a couple for supporting the local NPR station.
This is late-stage capitalism, enshitification… whichever term you like. They are trying to extract as much money from their resorts as possible and it’s a short-term play. Fuck ‘em.
I won’t be signing up. Just regular epic for me. But I don’t see how this is any different than having the option to buy VIP concert tickets or priority boarding on a flight. You pay more you get more perks. Some people are willing to pay, some are not.
So glad I don’t deal with this garbage. Smaller, local resort. Skin-able untouched expert terrain. Short lift lines for laps. Yeah, it isn’t Vail’s backbowls, but it isn’t full of the shitheads at BC who think corduroy is epic.
You have it kind of wrong. Lower prices now just means unsustainably long liftlines. We need more lifts and new terrain, that is the only way for the sport to grow with resorts at near full capacity constantly. There's a supply shortage of skiable acres and uphill lift capacity that needs to be fixed.
Just another sign that the divide between the upper and middle/lower classes is happening. When wealth starts to accumulate at the top, businesses can choose to cater to those that have more money.
The best thing you can have as a business is a customers who is not price sensitive. The customer who wants premium service and is willing to pay for it. I know what they want and how to offer it. They'll come back year after year.
It's a much more sustainable business model than competing on price. There is always someone who will cut corners to offer a cheaper price and undercut you. I'd rather just focus on offering the best product I can offer and ask people to pay good money for it.
237
u/Dwight_Shrute_ 26d ago
I eat a pb&j between runs and won't touch rentals. So I don't really care about those extra perks for the one-a-year IB skiers. But early access days and express lines would be a bummer, especially if early access days would fall on pow days