Astro Hacker News - A brief history of federal lift ticket regulation

niwtsol |next [-]

That was a very interesting read. I've always wondered about the details around the contract between the big ski resorts and the NFS, fun to read the actual permit. Ikon and Vail seem to be a duopoly and the geographical limitations inherent of a ski resort make the free-market argument hard to believe - you can't just open up a new resort next to breck or vail and charge lower rates.

I was a long time epic/ikon pass holder - I didn't buy one last year, and I bought a smaller resort's season pass directly this year. Let it snow!

eru |root |parent [-]

> the geographical limitations inherent of a ski resort make the free-market argument hard to believe

That's a bit of a weird argument? It's a bit like saying that while you are inside a Walmart, they have a monopoly on selling you stuff. Yes, that's true. But surely the relevant competition for ski resorts happens before you book your vacation?

niwtsol |root |parent |next [-]

That's a fair counter. I think I stretched my usage of "geographical limitations" to include the permitting process and thus new entrants. It would be much easier for someone to build a competitor to the hypothetical Walmart you proposed on the same street, in the same town, somewhere close. Ski resorts need the permit from NFS and they stopped giving those out, so the supply is capped by federal policy.

eru |root |parent [-]

Yes. Though people usually plan their holiday a bit in advance and are willing to travel, sometimes even globally.

Ski resorts also compete with other non-ski holiday destinations.

markdown |root |parent |previous [-]

What if Vail owns all the ski resorts?

eru |root |parent [-]

Go to the beach?

Owning a ski resort is no different than owning any other desirable property: real estate has a local monopoly. You recover that via property taxes (or land value taxes).

brainwad |root |parent |next [-]

The beach? In winter?

The actual thing that skiiers in NA do now is fly to Europe or Japan, where Vail has not yet ruined skiing.

eru |root |parent [-]

Summer vacations compete with winter vacations for people's money. You can do fun stuff at the beach even in winter, and the beach was just one example.

Thanks for bringing up international competition, too.

Btw, just because it's cold in one part of the world, doesn't mean it's cold in another part.

hydrogen7800 |root |parent |previous [-]

"Don't ski" is not a solution to a ski resort monopoly.

cucumber3732842 |root |parent [-]

Yeah, it is. Recreational skiing is one of the purest of luxury goods.

There are plenty of other exclusive hobbies that can more than soak up the demand. Bird hunting is basically a straight drop in replacement (expensive travel, expensive equipment, outdoors, etc).

passivegains |root |parent |next [-]

None of the skiers I know ski because they want to spend a lot of money, they spend a lot of money because they want to ski. (Hauling yourself up a freezing cold mountain might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.) Nothing but skiing will do.

None of the hunters I know hunt because they want to spend a lot of money, they spend a lot of money because they want to hunt (birds or otherwise.) (Crouching in a tree or a swamp for hours on end might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.) Nothing but hunting will do.

Hobbies are almost never drop in replacements for each other.

cucumber3732842 |root |parent [-]

My point was that if skiing kills itself something else that scratches most of the same itches will become fashionable among the same demographics. I have no idea what it would actually be (if I did I would invest in it, lol).

Kind of like how the cruising industry has exploded over the past couple decades as the "traditional" US vacation spots have become unaffordable to the masses. It's not a straight drop in, but it's close enough. The same people who used to go to the Poconos, Tahoe or Cape Cod or still do, but they're not being replaced because people see the cost vs the fun you get and say fuggit. The old places continue on but they cater to a small exclusive clientele because the other potential customers are doing something else, probably at the same price point but a better value.

>(Hauling yourself up a freezing cold mountain might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.)

The vodka makes you warm on the inside. (joking but also not)

hydrogen7800 |root |parent |previous [-]

I guess you can argue that the monopolization of a luxury good has no victims. Who feels bad for the consumers of luxury? But the monopoly itself is the harm, and especially highlighted in this example since its private monopolization of a public resource.

eru |root |parent [-]

I think your argument would need to be that it has no sympathetic victims.

In any case, local monopolies that come from land are a common theme, not just for ski resorts. It's literally what land ownership is--or even just a 99 year leasehold, even with no freehold 'owning'.

The usual solution is property taxes (or land value taxes) to have the taxman soak up the benefits of any monopoly.

pxx |next |previous [-]

All of this text complaining about prices rising faster than other goods, but many of the listed ski resorts suffer from overcrowding.

If anything, ticket prices during peak times are too _low_. There's just too much demand.

zombot |next |previous [-]

There is federal lift ticket regulation, but the internet is the wild west. That's some irony.

ramesh31 |next |previous [-]

On the other hand allowing the high window prices and holiday pricing are what drive the ability for these companies to make the massive capital investments that they have, while season pass prices have plummeted for anyone local that actually skis a lot. It's not just rent seeking; a lift ticket today is fundamentally a far superior product to what was being sold in the 70s, and nobody but gapers are paying full retail. Let them subsidize it for us I say.

fchicken |root |parent |next [-]

Not true. If you're on vacation looking to ski for 3 days, you're right in the crosshairs of the ski resort's price model, and you're not getting around it.

I also don't see how the product is superior to what was offered prior

smelendez |root |parent |next [-]

This is an issue with all kinds of products and services, from residential university education to cars to restaurant food.

Expensive options with lots of extras that not everybody wants—and some may actively dislike—replace broadly affordable options with fewer bells and whistles. Everyone is catering to the whales and, thanks in part to our robust lending industries, trying to convince the minnows that they can be a whale too.

CalRobert |root |parent [-]

It's an issue with inflation calculation too. Sure, product X (house, car, whatever) is twice as big, but now it also costs twice as much - can we really say that doesn't represent inflation when the smaller, cheaper version is no longer being made?

smelendez |root |parent [-]

Yes, exactly. Same issue with cellphones: They’re more powerful and have better cameras, but many people are paying more to use the same apps they used a decade ago, even though inflation numbers say they’re getting a better deal.

|root |parent |next |previous [-]

ramesh31 |root |parent |previous [-]

>Not true. If you're on vacation looking to ski for 3 days, you're right in the crosshairs of the ski resort's price model, and you're not getting around it.

That's exactly my point. If you take a 3 day family ski vacation once a year, you are the demographic whose money keeps the whole industry afloat, and allows the $600 season passes to exist.

>I also don't see how the product is superior to what was offered prior

Lifts today are a completely different thing from the 70s. You were talking single speed doubles and T-poles back then for basically everything, and there was nowhere near as much terrain developed. Getting six digit vertical days was completely unheard of. Now you take a high-speed detachable quad from base to the top, and have vastly more terrain available. Practically every major ski area has expanded massively since then.

|root |parent |next [-]

dh2022 |root |parent |previous [-]

FYI - I deleted my response after reading the post better. While as far as I can tell there has not been massive expansion in Western WA skiing inthe past 25 years, you were comparing with 1970s. I really have no idea how skiing was in Western WA in 1970s, thus I deleted my response.

dh2022 |root |parent |previous [-]

How are you avoiding full retail prices? Curious since where in western WA state where I live the only alternative to day prices are season passes (and I stopped buying season passes due to climate change. For example: last season at Snoqualmie was absolutely horrible- I skied only 1 day)

ramesh31 |root |parent [-]

>How are you avoiding full retail prices?

Skiing more than 3 days a year. Pass prices are trivial at that point. The entire business model of the resorts is based around the family that goes once a year for 3-5 days, so if you're in that group it kind of just is what it is; an expensive luxury vacation.

dh2022 |root |parent [-]

This would not work in Western WA.

Snoqualmie (the shittiest snow in western WA) offers 4 day passes for $229 (https://www.summitatsnoqualmie.com/tickets/flex-ticket-packs...) or season pass for $759 (https://shop.summitatsnoqualmie.com/l/all-passes/downhill-pa...). Both options exclude Alpental

Mount Baker (the only ski-able place last winter. I skied there 5 times) season pass for returning pass holders is $1,200 (https://www.mtbaker.us/tickets-and-passes/season-passes/any-...) for new skiers is $1,300 (https://www.mtbaker.us/tickets-and-passes/season-passes/any-...). Day passes though are $100.

Still looking not to pay retail prices, but if the only way to save on the daily ski cost is to get a season pass and ski 13 days in a season I will pass- there are not that many good skiing days in a season in Western WA any longer because of climate change.

ramesh31 |root |parent [-]

>if the only way to save on the daily ski cost is to get a season pass and ski 13 days in a season I will pass- there are not that many good skiing days in a season in Western WA any longer because of climate change.

I say this with the utmost respect, and not trying to put you down here, but serious skiers are literally just getting warmed up for the season at 13 days, even if the snow is crap.

Skiing has always has been the prototypal "rich person" vacation because it is and always has been prohibitively expensive to casual folks for whom it competes with other vacation options. But the developments in the industry over the last 30 years from capital improvements funded by them have been an absolute godsend to locals who live the lifestyle.

dh2022 |root |parent [-]

I agree with everything you said except for "Skiing has always has been the prototypal "rich person" vacation".

At least in western WA from 2000 till 2010 I could ski for a day for less than the price of gas to get there. I skied like that at Baker and Stevens. Day passes at Whistler in 2004-ish were about $70CAD - very reasonable even for Canadian customers.

Not anymore. Skiing (like a lot of other things) started going back to being a rich people hobby in the past 10 years or so.

ksudb |next |previous [-]

[dead]

fchicken |previous [-]

Wow.