How is this leagal

dan4060Ski resorts absolutely cannot operate this way. They would lose tons of money on day tickets and season passes.

see what I wrote above. Yes, it could absolutely work to your advantage in an area with multiple ski areas to choose from.

You say they would loose all sorts of weekend warrior money. Do weekend warriors buy seasons passes or day tickets? Most of the ones I know buy day tickets. If this means they buy a pass instead and split it with a friend then are more inclined to ski that hill solely as a result this is only a benefit. Choice needs to exist.

eh, the way that theyre handling it seems a bit extreme (assuming you arent exaggerating which you probably are a bit). seems pretty cut and dry to be like "oh you have a pass youre using that isnt yours? sorry we have to black it out and have them re-instate it at the pass office. it will just entirely blacked out next time you guys are caught, etc...". Resorts usually take theft of services a bit too seriously when it comes to this kind of stuff, which i get. I dont really understand the legal action required or whatever.

Sounds like you guys were being dicks, though, which is mostly typical with anyone who is already breaking the rules, knows they are, and gets caught. I dont understand why you guys are mad, probably do a better job of planning next time, and if its going to cost his dad $2,500 to get it renewed, how much did it cost him to buy it initially? you're telling me they cant help you out with a buddy pass or something? good friends you're skiing with haha.

its their rules and you dudes knew what they were, got caught, and are now mad and kind of fucked over your friends dad in a big way too. id be fucking pissed if i was him, id never let my kid borrow a single fucking thing of mine ever again.

VinnieFsee what I wrote above. Yes, it could absolutely work to your advantage in an area with multiple ski areas to choose from.

You say they would loose all sorts of weekend warrior money. Do weekend warriors buy seasons passes or day tickets? Most of the ones I know buy day tickets. If this means they buy a pass instead and split it with a friend then are more inclined to ski that hill solely as a result this is only a benefit. Choice needs to exist.

I define people who are weekend warriors as people who go up regularly. Those people are most definitely buying season passes. I go to Mammoth 3 weekends a month, which is 6-7 days of skiing. My Mammoth pass costs only 700, which is very cheap. You only have to go 5 days for it to pay off. If someone only goes to Mammoth 1 weekend a month it still makes sense, as they would ski about 12 days a year, which is less than 60 dollars a day. Mammoth sells a TON of passes to people in southern California who fit this description, in my guess is that the majority of people who buy season passes to Mammoth use them fewer than 15 days. This would allow people to borrow season passes from friends who are only using them one weekend a month. That costs Mammoth a lot of money, because day tickets are usually 150 to 170. If someone can borrow a pass for a weekend Mammoth is out at least $300 for that person. You could have a situation where eight people buy 2 passes, each weekend a different pair of people goes up to use the two passes. You end up with a situation where Mammoth sells to passes instead of 8, and loses $4200. In a populated area like socal most people are going to know someone who has a pass, so Mammoth would lose a ton of money in lost day tickets among people who go up once a year, i.e. won't buy a season pass. A mountain like Mammoth would absolutely get crushed, in an area like socal, or Denver, where a mountain sells tons of season passes the mountain would get killed by people borrowing a friend's pass instead of buying a day ticket. Denver has a ton of people who buy season passes, Vail/Breck would get killed if people were to borrow passes instead of buying their own. There would be too many people to borrow passes from, they would lose a ton of money on day tickets.



Personally, I have no interest in sharing a pass with someone. I want to be able to use mine whenever I want, so it does not make sense to share. For someone who goes 10 days a year, sharing makes sense. But why would Mammoth want to do that? One year they sold 25,000 passes, which is 17.5 million in revenue before the snow even falls. The majority of those are to weekenders, people who live down in LA. If they can share, people who ski 10 days or fewer will probably only share a pass, which could cost them thousands of passes, and millions in revenue. Also, you would lose revenue because people who have friends with passes would just borrow, instead of buying a day ticket. For a mountain like Vail or Mammoth it simply makes no sense.

I don't think shared passes would cause people to buy more passes. In fact, it would be the opposite. Maybe in an area with several little mom/pop places competing you might be able to make something work, but for a big mountain it does not make sense. I should also add that being able to share a pass would not make any difference to me. I would rather pay $700 for a full pass than 175 for a pass I would share. I think resorts would charge more for a shared pass, which is a lose/lose. I like things the way they are, season passes are pretty cheap in lots of places.

Stupid Jerry go ski loveland pass dont get hit by a car

dan4060I define people who are weekend warriors as people who go up regularly. Those people are most definitely buying season passes. I go to Mammoth 3 weekends a month, which is 6-7 days of skiing. My Mammoth pass costs only 700, which is very cheap. You only have to go 5 days for it to pay off. If someone only goes to Mammoth 1 weekend a month it still makes sense, as they would ski about 12 days a year, which is less than 60 dollars a day. Mammoth sells a TON of passes to people in southern California who fit this description, in my guess is that the majority of people who buy season passes to Mammoth use them fewer than 15 days. This would allow people to borrow season passes from friends who are only using them one weekend a month. That costs Mammoth a lot of money, because day tickets are usually 150 to 170. If someone can borrow a pass for a weekend Mammoth is out at least $300 for that person. You could have a situation where eight people buy 2 passes, each weekend a different pair of people goes up to use the two passes. You end up with a situation where Mammoth sells to passes instead of 8, and loses $4200. In a populated area like socal most people are going to know someone who has a pass, so Mammoth would lose a ton of money in lost day tickets among people who go up once a year, i.e. won't buy a season pass. A mountain like Mammoth would absolutely get crushed, in an area like socal, or Denver, where a mountain sells tons of season passes the mountain would get killed by people borrowing a friend's pass instead of buying a day ticket. Denver has a ton of people who buy season passes, Vail/Breck would get killed if people were to borrow passes instead of buying their own. There would be too many people to borrow passes from, they would lose a ton of money on day tickets.



Personally, I have no interest in sharing a pass with someone. I want to be able to use mine whenever I want, so it does not make sense to share. For someone who goes 10 days a year, sharing makes sense. But why would Mammoth want to do that? One year they sold 25,000 passes, which is 17.5 million in revenue before the snow even falls. The majority of those are to weekenders, people who live down in LA. If they can share, people who ski 10 days or fewer will probably only share a pass, which could cost them thousands of passes, and millions in revenue. Also, you would lose revenue because people who have friends with passes would just borrow, instead of buying a day ticket. For a mountain like Vail or Mammoth it simply makes no sense.

I don't think shared passes would cause people to buy more passes. In fact, it would be the opposite. Maybe in an area with several little mom/pop places competing you might be able to make something work, but for a big mountain it does not make sense. I should also add that being able to share a pass would not make any difference to me. I would rather pay $700 for a full pass than 175 for a pass I would share. I think resorts would charge more for a shared pass, which is a lose/lose. I like things the way they are, season passes are pretty cheap in lots of places.

So I think the big difference here is you're pulling from your California experience and me from my eastern Ontario experience. Totally different places where totally different marketing may or may not work. For instance you see 700 for a pass as cheap, I got my 5 days/6 nights pass for 160ish and would see 700 as completely ridiculous. My local hill wouldn't have implemented their current pass system if they thought they'd lose money.

Man I didn't know Vail had this many CEOs

Hi, I’m from the future, and in 2 weeks time, this thread is going to have almost the same notoriety as the broken on3p’s....

Ahah I wanted to comment the same thing. Especially since that thread got deleted, people will need something new..

weedooHi, I’m from the future, and in 2 weeks time, this thread is going to have almost the same notoriety as the broken on3p’s....

FIRATAhah I wanted to comment the same thing. Especially since that thread got deleted, people will need something new..

The thread was deleted?

Yup

IsitWinterYet17The thread was deleted?

Darn. There was some good stuff in there. It did get out of hand at points.

"non-transferable"

weedooHi, I’m from the future, and in 2 weeks time, this thread is going to have almost the same notoriety as the broken on3p’s....

Still confused as to why that thread got deleted...

And there's 3-5 threads like this a season so I doubt it.

VinnieFSo I think the big difference here is you're pulling from your California experience and me from my eastern Ontario experience. Totally different places where totally different marketing may or may not work. For instance you see 700 for a pass as cheap, I got my 5 days/6 nights pass for 160ish and would see 700 as completely ridiculous. My local hill wouldn't have implemented their current pass system if they thought they'd lose money.

You are certainly correct. Where you are it might well make sense for a resort to do that. And I'm not saying it would not be good for some consumers, it just does not make sense for a big resort that is within 5 hours of a major metro area. There is another factor with Mammoth, Mammoth (now KSL) owns basically ALL of the competing resorts in the area. For people in socal, they can drive 5 hours to ski Mammoth or June for the weekend, but Mammoth owns both Mammoth and June. Within 2 hours of LA you have Mt. High, Mt. Baldy, Big Bear and Snow Summit. Mt. Baldy has the best terrain, but they rarely get snow, they actually survive by selling snow play tickets. I'm not kidding, people go to Baldy and pay to have snowball fights. The big areas down there are Big Bear and Snow Summit, both of which are owned by Mammoth. Mt. High passes are pretty cheap, and it is easy to find cheap day tickets, so I doubt it would be worth it for them to go in the direction you are suggesting, but you never know.

One of the interesting things about skiing right now is that two entities, KSL (or whatever they are called, Alterra or something) and Vail are buying up ski areas like mad. This means a pass will get you access to a ton of mountains. Look at the Epic pass, you can ski resorts all over the country for only 850. It has become a very good time to be someone who skis 20 days a year or more, you can have your home mountain but also do trips and not have to buy another season pass. The issue is that competition is becoming limited, Squaw used to compete with Alpine Meadows, now they own it. I do have to admit that I like the idea of paying $900 (or whatever, we don't know what the Ikon pass will cost, or how exactly it will work) for a pass that allows me to ski Mammoth, Squaw, Alpine, Snowbird, Alta, Jackson and the Aspen areas. But I don't like the idea of two corporations increasingly owning everything. One of my buddies who lives in the bay area and skis Squaw 35 days a year is not happy with the way KSL is running things up there. I have heard lots of people on TGR echo his sentiments. In fact, I have heard stories about people complaining on Facebook and having their passes suspended, I doubt KSL would do that if they didn't own Alpine, but the only other great mountain in north lake is Sugar Bowl, so what are customers going to do? They are pretty much stuck either going the Squalpine route or going south to Kirkwood. And Mammoth has not competition, I don't have any other serious options where I can buy a season pass. I like what you are saying about competition, it is good for the consumer, but we are seeing less of it in the ski industry. On the flip side, there has never been a better time to be a skier in terms of value for what you get in a season pass.

LonelyStill confused as to why that thread got deleted...

And there's 3-5 threads like this a season so I doubt it.

My guess is it turned into too much cyber bullying vs Mort.

IsitWinterYet17My guess is it turned into too much cyber bullying vs Mort.

yeah that shit was ridiculous. some dumb kid makes a thread about ON3P and you'd think the sky was falling. time to get over it guys

The ticket says none transferable, I get it. But confiscating the ticket and wanting to charge you $2500? Thats ridiculous! Assuming you were polite and reasonable they should just kick you off the mountain and tell you to not do it again....

Obviously their systems work to the point where they can differentiate you from the true pass owner... So why the need to confiscate it too? That's some shitty customer service if you ask me.

Well he never bought a pass, so he isn't a customer, hence the shitty customer service.

2500$ ??? Holy fuck, that's ridiculous. And that reward thing is fucked but I can't say I'm surprised since it's vail. It is normal that you get your pass pulled for that pretty much everywhere in the world though. How fucked are you if they call the police btw ... here in europe even then you would be better off than paying 2,5k haha

dylanthreesixMan I didn't know Vail had this many CEOs

nah, just a few people with a but a common sense who dont act like cunts whenever using a borrowed pass.

Catching ppl swapping season passes is one thing, but the “theft of services” is some straight up bullshit.
If i buy a can of coca cola, its my fucking coke, and i can do what i want with it. If i wanna sell my coke to somebody, thats my business. Same with a full day ski pass. Take your greedy stingy shit back to the gas chamber, mr ski resort ;)

DeebieSkeebiesnah, just a few people with a but a common sense who dont act like cunts whenever using a borrowed pass.

I'm not talking about defending vail, i'm just talking about all of these people who seem to know every little thing about every one of vail's policies as well as whats best for the company. None of these people work there, or at least in a high position, so they have no business arguing like they do.

ManesPhoney2500$ ??? Holy fuck, that's ridiculous. And that reward thing is fucked but I can't say I'm surprised since it's vail. It is normal that you get your pass pulled for that pretty much everywhere in the world though. How fucked are you if they call the police btw ... here in europe even then you would be better off than paying 2,5k haha

Jesus.

The reward thing is fucked? A ton of mountains have been doing it for a decade, maybe more. What's the point of having people by lift tickets if they're not getting checked, or a ton of people are going up without them? The reward system gives people a reason to do their job, and actually check tickets/bust people who don't have one. Def not a "vail thing" but I get that people are clueless and VR is an easy target.

dan4060You are certainly correct. Where you are it might well make sense for a resort to do that. And I'm not saying it would not be good for some consumers, it just does not make sense for a big resort that is within 5 hours of a major metro area. There is another factor with Mammoth, Mammoth (now KSL) owns basically ALL of the competing resorts in the area. For people in socal, they can drive 5 hours to ski Mammoth or June for the weekend, but Mammoth owns both Mammoth and June. Within 2 hours of LA you have Mt. High, Mt. Baldy, Big Bear and Snow Summit. Mt. Baldy has the best terrain, but they rarely get snow, they actually survive by selling snow play tickets. I'm not kidding, people go to Baldy and pay to have snowball fights. The big areas down there are Big Bear and Snow Summit, both of which are owned by Mammoth. Mt. High passes are pretty cheap, and it is easy to find cheap day tickets, so I doubt it would be worth it for them to go in the direction you are suggesting, but you never know.
.

It isn't just big mountains, it isn't just "a california thing". Most places would lose a ton of money if they made their passes transferable, that's why they don't. This is about the small mountains with $200 season passes just as much as the big ones.