Article: mega passes are killing skiing

[Coolhand]

Used to be a time not too many years ago that Jackson Hole and Big Sky offered "locals", Wyoming and Montana residents either discount ticket coupons or great 2-3 day ski and stay packages. Both of these areas were trying to market to these regional locals and legitimately wanted them to come. After the mega-passes and direct flights to Jackson or Bozeman from major metro areas, these regional marketing efforts and outreach to regional "locals" ended.

Now these former customers often pay full price at the ticket window, and are treated shabbily by these resorts as they are not viewed as a good revenue source vs. the destination travelers. The message from these resorts is "If your are a regional "local", we don't want you." They have made sure that this has happened by pricing those folks out. Both resorts are now over $150 per day at the window, and any discount is darn difficult to find. On hill lodging has doubled to tripled in cost (for the same facility). Older day lodge services are now scarce, a lot of that capacity has been replaced by upscale sit down restaurants and spas. There are very few hard core "ski bums" left at these resorts, as they have been priced out as well. Many of my customers that used to go to Big Sky or JHMR 3 to 4 times a year, have quit patronizing those resorts and are now either going to smaller and mid-sized ski areas or have quit skiing altogether. This is great for these smaller ski areas. But, it's not great for the industry when a family quits skiing due to high costs.

I now, really loath to go to either of these resorts or any other major destination. Both of my old haunts now sport big crowds of urban, destination skiers with an "uppity" attitude and sense of entitlement. I cherish the old days at these mountains before corporate America showed up. Now that they are "in charge", they can have it, and do without me and the rest of the great "unwashed".

 

[dbostedo]

I wonder that myself in the NE area. But I also think what would have happen if Peak Resorts did not buy the areas they did. Attitash and Wildcat were facing infrastructure issues and needed money to fix them. Wildcat was only a place you would ski after a storm or in the spring. Attitash has improved the snow making but now has the triple lift problem. I don't ski enough of Mount Snow and Hunter to hear the inside dirt but I suspect the same.

It takes both sides to agree to be bought.

I think Mount Snow has good lift infrastructure and fantastic snow making. And Hunter has recently done a large expansion. So they don't seem shy about spending the money - perhaps that will mean continued improvement at Wildcat and Attitash.

 

[marjoram_sage]

Used to be a time not too many years ago that Jackson Hole and Big Sky offered "locals", Wyoming and Montana residents either discount ticket coupons or great 2-3 day ski and stay packages. Both of these areas were trying to market to these regional locals and legitimately wanted them to come. After the mega-passes and direct flights to Jackson or Bozeman from major metro areas, these regional marketing efforts and outreach to regional "locals" ended.

Now these former customers often pay full price at the ticket window, and are treated shabbily by these resorts as they are not viewed as a good revenue source vs. the destination travelers. The message from these resorts is "If your are a regional "local", we don't want you." They have made sure that this has happened by pricing those folks out. Both resorts are now over $150 per day at the window, and any discount is darn difficult to find. On hill lodging has doubled to tripled in cost (for the same facility). Older day lodge services are now scarce, a lot of that capacity has been replaced by upscale sit down restaurants and spas. There are very few hard core "ski bums" left at these resorts, as they have been priced out as well. Many of my customers that used to go to Big Sky or JHMR 3 to 4 times a year, have quit patronizing those resorts and are now either going to smaller and mid-sized ski areas or have quit skiing altogether. This is great for these smaller ski areas. But, it's not great for the industry when a family quits skiing due to high costs.

I now, really loath to go to either of these resorts or any other major destination. Both of my old haunts now sport big crowds of urban, destination skiers with an "uppity" attitude and sense of entitlement. I cherish the old days at these mountains before corporate America showed up. Now that they are "in charge", they can have it, and do without me and the rest of the great "unwashed".

The lodging seems to be the real issue. You can get 5 days each at Big Sky and Jackson with Ikon base. So that's $65 per day even if you don't use any days elsewhere.

 

[Goose]

Used to be a time not too many years ago that Jackson Hole and Big Sky offered "locals", Wyoming and Montana residents either discount ticket coupons or great 2-3 day ski and stay packages. Both of these areas were trying to market to these regional locals and legitimately wanted them to come. After the mega-passes and direct flights to Jackson or Bozeman from major metro areas, these regional marketing efforts and outreach to regional "locals" ended.

Now these former customers often pay full price at the ticket window, and are treated shabbily by these resorts as they are not viewed as a good revenue source vs. the destination travelers. The message from these resorts is "If your are a regional "local", we don't want you." They have made sure that this has happened by pricing those folks out. Both resorts are now over $150 per day at the window, and any discount is darn difficult to find. On hill lodging has doubled to tripled in cost (for the same facility). Older day lodge services are now scarce, a lot of that capacity has been replaced by upscale sit down restaurants and spas. There are very few hard core "ski bums" left at these resorts, as they have been priced out as well. Many of my customers that used to go to Big Sky or JHMR 3 to 4 times a year, have quit patronizing those resorts and are now either going to smaller and mid-sized ski areas or have quit skiing altogether. This is great for these smaller ski areas. But, it's not great for the industry when a family quits skiing due to high costs.

I now, really loath to go to either of these resorts or any other major destination. Both of my old haunts now sport big crowds of urban, destination skiers with an "uppity" attitude and sense of entitlement. I cherish the old days at these mountains before corporate America showed up. Now that they are "in charge", they can have it, and do without me and the rest of the great "unwashed".

I understand your view here and in fact agree with your feelings about it. I think some here have not quite captured what your describing and its in line with the article itself. Ive also mentioned that Im not always a fan of big corporate often insensitive and greedy model that too often can be irresponsible towards the greater good of all. But as I also mentioned early in the thread there may also be an upside. Im not suggesting it will always work out this way , and forgive me for similarly repeating my earlier self. But along with the larger big corporate model and the visitors it brings can (may) also come a lot of better economics to the town and same locals. Increased revenue flow to existing business, and new/more businesses opening. Higher value to real-estate and an increase in real-estate development. More hotels/motels, condos, restaurants, shops, retail of all kinds, services and products. All doing better and adding more of it. That model doesn't happen without creating jobs which leads to better incomes. The whole thing has potential to mean more cash flow in general throughout. Including tax revenue. The benefits to the town and the locals may actually be a positive in the long term.

Of course this does away with "what use to be" and the good ol days. And if what use to be worked well for all concerned including the resort, the town/s , the locals, the businesses, etc....then a newer model can be viewed as unnecessary and unwanted and in fact sort of sad (should it happen). But if the old way wasn't truly working well for "all" concerned then the new model may be viewed as the savior that made things better for all. Or at least most. There are always casualties of course either way. I mean yea, id agree things too often usually do seem to get harder and harder for average folk (hence too many the ugly corporate models around). But things are very different everywhere. Thera are times and places (although imo rarer) where it can generally help and be better for all. Just which will hold true in the given towns and resorts? I suppose remains to be seen.