• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
Liftopia Adult Lift Ticket Prices:

Suicide Six -- $32
Sugarloaf -- $45
Mount Snow -- $35
King Pine -- $31
Mt. Abram Learn to Ski Package -- $69
Attitash Wildcat -- $52
Bousquet Mountain -- $28
Jay Peak 2 Day + Rental -- $190
Bromley 3 Day -- $131
Bolton Valley 3 Day + Rental -- $178
Magic Mountain + Tubing -- $54
Waterville Valley -- $39
Jiminy Peak -- $68
Dartmouth Skiway -- $15
Black Mountain (NH) -- $25
Cranmore Mountain -- $49
Attitash -- $30
Wildcat -- $30
Eagle Point -- $59
Nordic Valley 2 Day -- $44
Diamon Peak -- $59
Mt. Ashland 1 Day + Rental -- $46
Anthony Lakes 2 Day -- $30

Thanks I didn't feel like looking that up again.
 

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,911
Location
Reno
Liftopia Adult Lift Ticket Prices:

Suicide Six -- $32
Sugarloaf -- $45
Mount Snow -- $35
King Pine -- $31
Mt. Abram Learn to Ski Package -- $69
Attitash Wildcat -- $52
Bousquet Mountain -- $28
Jay Peak 2 Day + Rental -- $190
Bromley 3 Day -- $131
Bolton Valley 3 Day + Rental -- $178
Magic Mountain + Tubing -- $54
Waterville Valley -- $39
Jiminy Peak -- $68
Dartmouth Skiway -- $15
Black Mountain (NH) -- $25
Cranmore Mountain -- $49
Attitash -- $30
Wildcat -- $30
Eagle Point -- $59
Nordic Valley 2 Day -- $44
Diamon Peak -- $59
Mt. Ashland 1 Day + Rental -- $46
Anthony Lakes 2 Day -- $30
I forgot about Liftopia. Too bad there's no way to make sure a skier's first day is TRULY their first day. Massive discounts or even free to get them on the hill.
 

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,911
Location
Reno
I am not sure if these are bucket list type mountains but regardless I am sure many of them are great and there seem to be some pretty darn good deals out there.
The good thing for a beginner/new to the sport person is they're NOT bucket list mountains. They're accessible for the new skier who doesn't need or want a massive 4,000' vertical, double black cliff drop place.
 

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
Magic and Sugarloaf have some pretty good cliffs.

A lawyer in our building skis at Attitash, poor guy.

Ok, how much do many of these "average" people spend on vacations, dinner out, sports tickets, etc? We're by no means gentrified but our family of four saves over $1,000/year with the new corporate passes. We probably save money because our kids don't play aau bball. It's unfortunate that some people really can't afford to ski, even at some of the prices listed above. But I suspect this discussion isn't about making skiing affordable for low to moderate income households.

VT seems quite happy with it's mix of residents. Perhaps they could lower taxes provide an accommodative environment for new housing.
 

DB Cooper

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Posts
134
i had no idea there was someone else out there who felt the same way i did, especially regarding the supply side of the real estate question. increasing supply should have a downward effect on prices! forbidding development can only drive prices up as demand increases and i wish more mountain towns would view things through that prism as opposed to protecting the interests of incumbent homeowners then complaining about the effects walling off their communities have on the rest of us!

There are some legitimate reasons to be skeptical of multi-resort passes and their effects on the ski industry. That said, this article is incredibly lazy, and has a bunch of holes in it.



Where's the evidence that Vail's purchase of Stowe caused the real estate prices to increase? Logically, are people really buying homes or second-homes at Stowe because all of a sudden it went from being owned by AIG to being owned by Vail? Let's take a look at the chart below which plots Zillow's "home value index" for Stowe alongside Burlington, VT and Boston, MA. The vertical line is for February, 2017, when Vail announced that they were acquiring Stowe.


Home prices in Stowe have certainly risen since February, 2017, but so have prices in the nearby city of Burlington, and also in New England's biggest city, Boston. During the timeframe of February, 2017 to the present, the economy and the stock market have been doing incredibly, and prices have risen all over New England. In short, I would like to see additional evidence that Vail's purchase of Stowe is causing the price increases.



As a matter of public policy, why don't ski towns consider regulating rental properties? The city that I live in, Cambridge, MA, is extremely touristy, and we passed laws regulating short-term rentals as a ton of property in Cambridge was showing up platforms like Airbnb.

More importantly, Big Sky has been and will be investing over a hundred millions dollars in a huge plan called Big Sky 2025. This plan has been available at least since August 2016, long before Big Sky went on the IKON Pass. The way that they pay for this plan is with increased visitation and/or higher prices! Whether it was being on the IKON Pass or spending a huge amount on marketing, Big Sky was going to try and attract a lot of new customers one way or the other. The writing was on the wall.



Without knowing details of KSL's development plan, I wonder if local residents realize that opposing this development actually goes against many of their goals? If the face of growing demand, increasing supply is really the only way to bring down or stabilize prices. Wouldn't you rather have out-of-town guests clustered in a few high-rise hotels near the base of Squaw than many of them staying in nearby towns, causing owners to list more and more property on VBRO/Airbnb? And these out-of-towners will be contributing to traffic by driving to/from their accommodations instead of being able to do ski-in/ski-out? One lesson I've learned from my interest in urban planning is that the best thing to do with a whole bunch of folks with money is to cluster them all into one place, leaving the rest of the space for everyone else. In cities, that means letting the rich live in a cluster of high-rises, leaving the triple deckers surrounding neighborhoods for the less well-off. The same thing applies to ski towns. If you don't accommodate increased demand with increased supply, prices go up. IKON might be driving some of this demand, but a lot of it is also coming from population growth in the West and great snow.



I agree with the premise that increased day ticket costs makes it harder for beginners to get into the sport.

The business model of trying to get more money from fewer customers would actually make a lot of locals that are complaining about the IKON Pass happy though, right? You can't complain about both costs and crowding. One is very much a function of the other.



I agree that this is shitty thing for Vail to do. Ski resorts can and should do more to house employees. But if ski towns, which heavily restrict supply, make an effort to increase supply to meet demand, there wouldn't be as much of a need for subsidized housing. I know that land is scarce in ski towns, but land is also scarce in big cities. We've basically solved this issue: building up. You might not like the idea of a seven story hulking apartment building being built in a quaint ski town, but that's how to house a lot of people in a small space.

Sorry about the long rant. Again, this is a very real issue, but the article was not very well written. Instead of hand waving and anecdotes, I want to see some real analysis done on the effects that multi-resort passes have on skiing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJS

RuleMiHa

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Posts
576
Location
Philadelphia, PA
What I wish is that local bumps were using the high day ticket prices (for Vail etc.) as a marketing tool to promote their mountains. Everybody's whining but it seems like a perfect opportunity to market to entry level consumers if you are a small local mountain.
 

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
liftopia is fine "if" you know for certain when your going and then happen to find that available. But for many average folks its never a sure thing. That's why they sell seasons as a guarantee sale. But many day skiing folks don't know exactly when they can go. Its often a last minute or last day decision unless a pre planned day or weekend is made. And even then there are things that can prevent it from happening. So saving 20 or 30 bucks via a discount can often be a risk at losing the rest of the paid price if for whatever the reasons plans changed. So its not always such a no brainer nor the most practical thing to do.

The "sale" scenario imo is not really relevant when discussing window pricing and this topic for the day ticket. Its still is priced what it is and is how many day trippers do ski. That's the "only" price relevant when discussing the expense of skiing because its what they charge. .
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJS

LKLA

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
1,428
liftopia is fine "if" you know for certain when your going and then happen to find that available. But for many average folks its never a sure thing. That's why they sell seasons as a guarantee sale. But many day skiing folks don't know exactly when they can go. Its often a last minute or last day decision unless a pre planned day or weekend is made. And even then there are things that can prevent it from happening. So saving 20 or 30 bucks via a discount can often be a risk at losing the rest of the paid price if for whatever the reasons plans changed. So its not always such a no brainer nor the most practical thing to do.

The "sale" scenario imo is not really relevant when discussing window pricing and this topic for the day ticket. Its still is priced what it is and is how many day trippers do ski. That's the "only" price relevant when discussing the expense of skiing because its what they charge. .

Optionality costs. De-risking costs. If you want to wait until the last minute then you are going to pay more. If you don't want to have a cash outflow months ahead of time and risk not utilizing that purchase, then you will likely pay more for that optionality.

It's what you pay that matters, not what they charge. And if you buy a pass, or a multi-day or buy tickets on "discount" platforms or via other means, then you are going to pay considerably less than what they charge at the window.

If you are beginner and you like skiing, you will soon wise up and not pay the window ticket. If you just want to ski 1-3 times a year then you likely don't give a rat's behind about the price. And, if you try it and hate it, then it won't much matter what the cost is as you will never spend a penny skiing again.

For example, who reads the Wall Street Journal every day and pays $4 for it at the newsstand? If you read the WSJ on a regular basis you likely have a subscription that gives you a 50% discount versus the newsstand price. Maybe you pay $4 once or twice a year when you buy the paper at the airport to have something to read on the plane or if you are at a hotel and want something to read by the pool. Maybe you pay $4 a few times when you first discover the WSJ and are deciding if you like it. Or maybe you only buy it when you see an interesting article, when something really captures your attention. But no sane person pays $4 day in and day out to read the WSJ. The same applies to skiing and window prices.

A lot of posters seem intent on ignoring the many resorts that do not charge $150 window prices. Many posters seem to express concern for the independent mountain operators yet have an Epic or IKON pass or seem largely interested in sking Vail or Alterra resorts. I would think that we all want the salaries of hard working men and women in the ski industry to increase and for them to have stable jobs. Yet most of the talk is about how to ski for less. :huh:
 
Last edited:

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
I believe the main reason Alterra/Vail et al like passes is they get the money up front, months out from the season. They win whether the season is great or crappy. If they relied on day passes and it's a low tide year with lots of rain, very few people will come but they still have to run the area. With passes, they have to run the area but they've already money in the bank to cover it. The day tickets at an outrageous price are gravy. Luckily there are other options to the day ticket at most places (family packs, 2 or 4 day passes, ticket/rental/lesson bundles, etc.). That still doesn't make it easy for a beginner or family but it does make it more probable they'll come.

I do believe these areas really need to reevaluate their day prices. If I'm a newby I certainly will choke at the thought of paying well over $100 for a ticket plus rentals and all the other stuff to try something I may not like. That's not a way to get new blood into the pool to replace those who are leaving the sport.

This sums up my thinking exactly. I didn't buy passes until the Mountain Collective a couple years ago and Ikon this year. They didn't get any of my money if it was a poor snow year. From now on they'll get my money, up front, every year the pass is available. Plus, they're getting my lodging, food and souvenir money. That pass purchase is a layer of protection against bad snow years that resorts really need to have, IMO.

The other point is just as valid. What newbie is going to get into the sport when the cost of a day pass is well over $100? Those day prices will really hurt the sport when it comes to hooking the next generation of new skiers.


EDIT: LKLA has very effectively cut the legs out from under my comment! ogsmile :doh:
 

EricG

Lost somewhere!
Skier
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Posts
1,331
Location
VT
Pass sales are great for projections and covering some of the fixed expenses. But during daily visits people purchase the high margin stuff: soda, French fries, misc food, beer, misc stuff from the base lodge shop (those things you forget), lessons, rentals, etc..
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
I definitely need more popcorn :popcorn:
 

4aprice

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Posts
975
Location
Lake Hopatcong, NJ and Granby Co
The good thing for a beginner/new to the sport person is they're NOT bucket list mountains. They're accessible for the new skier who doesn't need or want a massive 4,000' vertical, double black cliff drop place.

All hail the "feeder" mountain. Plenty of good ones here in the northeast.

What I wish is that local bumps were using the high day ticket prices (for Vail etc.) as a marketing tool to promote their mountains. Everybody's whining but it seems like a perfect opportunity to market to entry level consumers if you are a small local mountain.

Agree that this is a good opportunity for areas on the smaller spectrum. Not only with beginner or novice skiers but with young families as well. I know we skied a lot of medium and smaller areas as our children grew up.
 

Brad J

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
871
Location
Newbury, Ma.
It seams to me that the resorts are forcing most serious skies to buy a pass because the window prices are so high. that locks people in to an area or a group of area's. The window prices are left to those who either don't care or figure it is only a couple of days they are going to ski a year and just pay
 

Johnny V.

Half Fast Hobby Racer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
1,427
Location
Finger Lakes/Rochester NY
We opted for Deer Valley today rather than fight the LCC boondoggle (yeah, we missed the powder!). Looking around I saw few IKON tickets and a lot of single and multi day window tickets plus lots of low end rental skis, families with kids and instructors with classes. None of those are the typical IKON passholder, so there's a lot of dollars rolling in not connected to the multi resort passes. Hey, even us cheap old retirees split a panini at the Empire lodge for lunch and bought a couple of apre' ski beers, so they got some cash from us too.
 

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
Optionality costs. De-risking costs. If you want to wait until the last minute then you are going to pay more. If you don't want to have a cash outflow months ahead of time and risk not utilizing that purchase, then you will likely pay more for that optionality.

It's what you pay that matters, not what they charge. And if you buy a pass, or a multi-day or buy tickets on "discount" platforms or via other means, then you are going to pay considerably less than what they charge at the window.

If you are beginner and you like skiing, you will soon wise up and not pay the window ticket. If you just want to ski 1-3 times a year then you likely don't give a rat's behind about the price. And, if you try it and hate it, then it won't much matter what the cost is as you will never spend a penny skiing again.

For example, who reads the Wall Street Journal every day and pays $4 for it at the newsstand? If you read the WSJ on a regular basis you likely have a subscription that gives you a 50% discount versus the newsstand price. Maybe you pay $4 once or twice a year when you buy the paper at the airport to have something to read on the plane or if you are at a hotel and want something to read by the pool. Maybe you pay $4 a few times when you first discover the WSJ and are deciding if you like it. Or maybe you only buy it when you see an interesting article, when something really captures your attention. But no sane person pays $4 day in and day out to read the WSJ. The same applies to skiing and window prices.

A lot of posters seem intent on ignoring the many resorts that do not charge $150 window prices. Many posters seem to express concern for the independent mountain operators yet have an Epic or IKON pass or seem largely interested in sking Vail or Alterra resorts. I would think that we all want the salaries of hard working men and women in the ski industry to increase and for them to have stable jobs. Yet most of the talk is about how to ski for less. :huh:

Both the bolded remarks in your post I don't agree with.

For that first point......when discussing the cost of a season pass vs a day ticket or simply discussing the day ticket by itself,.... what the resort charges for that day ticket is the only relevant firm comparison. Pre purchase Internet sale and 3rd party sale prices are not always going to work for the day tripper for reasons given earlier. And they are not written in stone either. If this topic was simply about how to ski cheaper then those avenues are certainly valuable suggestions but that's all they are and only "if" they happen to work out for the purchaser. And a lot of that is not about "wising up". That's just far too much a generalization and doesnt take into account the inner workings of ones personal life and family. When discussing cost the way we are here,...it has to be about what they charge. That's the only thing it can be about. Like season tix, its the other firm cost to base things on.

For that second point. ….many those skiing just 1,2,3 days certainly do give a rats ass about cost. It can very often be part of the very reason they are not doing more days. Many cant afford the nut (especially for a fam) for season passes. And are not sure they will get to go enough to make it worthy even if they did barely have the money. So they often get caught in the middle. To note...the term "expensive" is only relative to the individual anyway. And its also relative from place to place and resort to resort. Skiing is cheap in the poconos vs vail and both those are different from say Killington. But they all have their place of financial relevance to their customers bases regardless of being widely different cost at the different resorts. Folks can still feel its expensive and they wouldn't be wrong just because its cheaper than other places.
 

Pat AKA mustski

I can keep a Secret
Ski Diva Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Posts
4,871
Location
Big Bear, California
Read to the bottom of the page, they have this article: The Giant Resorts You Hate Are Saving Skiing. I guess when you argue both sides of the story, you are never wrong.

A good debater is always ready to argue both sides of the argument; that's more than half the fun. There is always some truth in both sides.

Nothing wrong with presenting two sides of the story and letting the reader decide which is the more compelling argument. Two different writers, two different opinions.

In an age of incessant media bias, it's refreshing for me to see a publication present both sides.
Agreed! Too often, we fall into the either or trap. I'm happy to see media presenting both sides of the issue.

I am not sure if these are bucket list type mountains but regardless I am sure many of them are great and there seem to be some pretty darn good deals out there.

Truthfully, I think most folks entering the sport are looking for whatever is the cheapest option in their area. I did that when starting my son and his friends on skis. We didn't need much terrain to get the kids having fun; we needed a reasonable price. From there, however, we began to look for "best bang for the buck" which involved terrain and variety. Had there been a mega pass available, I think we would have purchase that about year 3. There is plenty of room for both mom and pop operations and high end resorts.
 

New2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 3, 2017
Posts
728
Location
Spokane
I'm not terribly impressed with this article. Most of what's covered has little or nothing to do with the multi-mountain pass model. And even if I agreed 100% with each point made, it doesn't add up to "killing skiing."

Its become like Disney world where as its the one time visit/vaca and anything outside of that is just not practical nor doable. But unlike Disney, skiing is something people who make the efforts want to be able to participate on some sort of repeat basis.

I think you're projecting too much. I don't know much at all about Disney World specifically, but certainly Disneyland in California has a robust annual pass program with pricing that looks a lot like Ikon/Epic... they're not selling these to people who don't want to be able to participate repeatedly.
 

LKLA

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
1,428
Both the bolded remarks in your post I don't agree with.

For that first point......when discussing the cost of a season pass vs a day ticket or simply discussing the day ticket by itself,.... what the resort charges for that day ticket is the only relevant firm comparison. Pre purchase Internet sale and 3rd party sale prices are not always going to work for the day tripper for reasons given earlier. And they are not written in stone either. If this topic was simply about how to ski cheaper then those avenues are certainly valuable suggestions but that's all they are and only "if" they happen to work out for the purchaser. And a lot of that is not about "wising up". That's just far too much a generalization and doesnt take into account the inner workings of ones personal life and family. When discussing cost the way we are here,...it has to be about what they charge. That's the only thing it can be about. Like season tix, its the other firm cost to base things on.

For that second point. ….many those skiing just 1,2,3 days certainly do give a rats ass about cost. It can very often be part of the very reason they are not doing more days. Many cant afford the nut (especially for a fam) for season passes. And are not sure they will get to go enough to make it worthy even if they did barely have the money. So they often get caught in the middle. To note...the term "expensive" is only relative to the individual anyway. And its also relative from place to place and resort to resort. Skiing is cheap in the poconos vs vail and both those are different from say Killington. But they all have their place of financial relevance to their customers bases regardless of being widely different cost at the different resorts. Folks can still feel its expensive and they wouldn't be wrong just because its cheaper than other places.

Reality is what you pay. Let's not distort reality - more than we already have. At the end of the day that is what gets deducted from your account, not the price printed on the window. If they happen to be same or you happen to buy at the window, then of course they are the same. But when talking about ticket prices, they often differ as people can buy tickets on sites like Liftopia, or use a buddy pass, or buy tickets on Ebay...Vail alone has over 60 passes, not including the Epic Day pass, which goes from 1 to seven days.

Btw, the average ticket window buyer skied an average of just over 2 days for the entire season, so people are not using the window ticket as their go to or long-term solution.

Why do you get to dictate what the ONLY FIRM comparison is? If that is what you choose to reference then by all means go ahead. That is your right. But most folks reference what they end up paying as the cost, as the measure to reference the value proposition against.

It is wishful and naive to think that you can pay the same if you give up time value of money, take on the risk, and give up optionality as you would if you held onto your money, assumed less risk and kept as much optionality as possible. If your life circumstances do not allow you to buy a pass six-nine months out, then you may have to pay more when you do end-up skiing, on a per day basis that is. If you can't buy airline tickets 6-12 months out and need to purchase them the week before traveling, then you are likely going to pay more for that airplane ticket. If you can't or don't want to pay for a annual subscription to a newspaper and instead buy it the morning that a story grabs your attention, then you will likely pay more per newspaper.

Of course sometimes Liftopia works and other times it does not. Sort of like just about everything in life! Sometimes the lift works and sometimes it stalls. Sometimes there is snow and other times there is rain. Sometimes the car works fine, and other times it breaks down. It is a silly argument you are making. Lliftopia and other means of buying a ticket other than at the window are as viable as they can be. I guess you could go to the window and find out your credit card does not work for some reason!

The data from a number of surveys clearly shows otherwise. So your statement is an opinion, not a fact, something you seem to confuse often. While we ALL give a rats ass about cost, it is not the cost of the ticket that people care about as much as it is the total cost - the cost the ticket, cost of a lesson, food, gear, lodging, travel...and time invested in getting to and from the mountain and level of enjoyment and concerns around getting injured and safety that people state as primary obstacles.

Very true that some people are more price sensitive than others or have a hard time affording to ski.That may mean that they might have find a cheaper activity to enjoy together. But I don't think that is likely necessary since they can go on Liftopia right now, Thursday evening, and buy tickets for this weekend at many resorts at some great prices. There are HUNDREDS of resorts that sell season passes for a $200-$400 (less for kids, or even free). Not all 440 ski resorts charge $180 or even $100 a day to ski, or $950 for a season pass. To argue that skiing in 2019 is expensive is preposterous. Healthcare, perhaps. Housing, most likely. Education, certainly seems that way. Food, often, at least healthy food. Utility bills, yup. Lift ticket prices, not so much!

Skiing is about the most discretionary spend I can think of, so harping about the cost of something completely discretionary seems silly, even though some folks seem to think that they own the mountain or that it is their God-given right to ski for $5 a day.

Ski operators are not in this for philanthropic reasons. Even charging the prices you say many people feel are too high, many ski operators can barely keep the lights on. Most resorts actually need /should raise prices in order to remain in business and pay their employees a fair wage (not to mention investing in their lifts and snowmaking and lodges). This idea that you seem to put forth that ski operators are out to gauge people and are living large is ill informed. Maybe Vail makes money. Maybe Killington makes money. Maybe Lee Canyon makes money. But the overwhelming majority of the resorts across the US are barely operating in the black.
 
Last edited:

LKLA

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
1,428
A good debater is always ready to argue both sides of the argument; that's more than half the fun. There is always some truth in both sides.


Agreed! Too often, we fall into the either or trap. I'm happy to see media presenting both sides of the issue.



Truthfully, I think most folks entering the sport are looking for whatever is the cheapest option in their area. I did that when starting my son and his friends on skis. We didn't need much terrain to get the kids having fun; we needed a reasonable price. From there, however, we began to look for "best bang for the buck" which involved terrain and variety. Had there been a mega pass available, I think we would have purchase that about year 3. There is plenty of room for both mom and pop operations and high end resorts.

Completely agree and that is what they should do. No need for folks to hop on a plane to Sun Valley to learn to ski. That was my point - while those may not be the most desirable mountains on the sample list they are all more than adequate and nice and enjoyable places for people to learn to ski and they all seem to offer great deals.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

Top