How resorts are managed North America - pros and cons

[Saintsman]

Is it true that many of the lifts at European resorts are owned by private individuals?
That would make a huge difference in how an area would be managed. Not aware of a NA resort that does not own its lift system. Perhaps more complicated than a western area having the government as your senior partner.
How does it work with the huge European ski circuits operating on a single lift ticket? Even more difficult, how did it work in the days before computer scanning a ticket? What an prime invitation for businesses to get into a dog fight.
Also understand that much of the land on European resorts is privately owned, as in somebodies pasture land. How does that work? Are the land owners compensated? This would make for some interesting accounting too.

A lot of the lifts are owned by local communities/towns etc, but they tend to be run by a single operator on very long term contracts - for instance, Compagnie des Alpes operates a large number of Areas such as La Plagne, Les Arcs, Tignes etc. Then a lot of areas group together to offer interlinked ski tickets under profit share agreements, such as Portes de Soleil.

No idea about how the pasture areas are managed, but the land ownership goes further - many of the on mountain restaurants are completely independent of the operators as well. So the business model overall is very very different

 

[Cheizz]

I have the sense that in the US (and Canada?) things started off a bit differently. More as a business opportunity in a big bang kind of way as opposed to the more organic process that we see in most European areas. Is that the case? And if so, what are the pros and cons of the way things originated and are managed today in US resorts?

The question was whether my sense was correct that many US resorts were more purpose-built than in Europe. Apparently not. Great.
The follow-up question was on the pros and cons on how they are managed today. Nothing about snow quality, food, snowmaking, or anything else. Unless, of course, the way things are managed is of significant influence on these aspects of ski areas. Just to clarify things.

 

[Sibhusky]

Whitefish is still an independent resort, although most of the locals were bought out right around the time I moved here. The town is completely separate from the resort and a few miles down the mountain. Not all the restaurants AT the resort are owned by the resort. Nor is all the lodging, even if it is part of the online reservation system. Souvenirs shops spread around do not all carry identical merchandise. I've seen that at other resorts, but not here.

Thank God. Maybe it's because the town developed long before the ski area and even now is not totally dependent on the ski area. We are far more dependent on Glacier National Park and historically the railroad was the main reason we existed. There is still a huge switching yard here although logging isn't as huge as it used to be.

 

[Crank]

2 pros for North America both involving ski patrol are: Free rescue in bounds. This petty much includes everything between the outer boundaries of a ski area. and boundary to boundary avalanche danger mitigation (Is that a term?). Anyway patrol here does avalanche control all over the hill.

2 in the con column for Europe is you will get billed for a sled ride and if you ski outside the ropes you are going to die

 

[Cheizz]

Well, I haven't died yet. And being able to ski off-piste/powder without the entire resort chasing you and tracking things out in an hour is kind of nice as well. Just make sure you know what you're doing.
And my travel insurance (€ 60 a year) covers all mountain rescue, off-piste too.

 

[Saintsman]

2 pros for North America both involving ski patrol are: Free rescue in bounds. This petty much includes everything between the outer boundaries of a ski area. and boundary to boundary avalanche danger mitigation (Is that a term?). Anyway patrol here does avalanche control all over the hill.

2 in the con column for Europe is you will get billed for a sled ride and if you ski outside the ropes you are going to die

Interesting. Ski insurance for a European heading to NA on a one off trip costs the earth and back because of the expectation that everything from initial rescue to reparatiation is going to cost way off the charts. The cheapest insurance you can get is Euro only which covers everything that could happen to you on mountain, provided you stay inside the area - for which there are legal ownership issues as discussed earlier. Even Euro backcountry insurance is pretty cheap compared to NA

 

[James]

First ski lift was in Woodstock, VT. A rope and a truck. All these western areas are Johnny Come Lately’s. In terms of development, the Forest Service is the number one influence I think.
VT is so weird there’s even a new
Rip van Winkle lift- a single chair.

 

[dbostedo]

Nothing about snow quality, food, snowmaking, or anything else. Unless, of course, the way things are managed is of significant influence on these aspects of ski areas. Just to clarify things.

I'd think they way they are managed (looking at the generally single monolithic resorts, with one owner that owns almost everything there) definitely affects food, and snowmaking, and lessons - and sometimes retail and housing.

It's obviously not the same everywhere. But at some, I think the main effect is that there's not a lot of competition in those areas, so they don't get the benefits that competition could bring. I'd think that's something that makes food better and lessons cheaper in Europe. Having interconnected towns/villages lends itself to this too.

 

[Saintsman]

I'd think they way they are managed (looking at the generally single monolithic resorts, with one owner that owns almost everything there) definitely affects food, and snowmaking, and lessons - and sometimes retail and housing.

It's obviously not the same everywhere. But at some, I think the main effect is that there's not a lot of competition in those areas, so they don't get the benefits that competition could bring. I'd think that's something that makes food better and lessons cheaper in Europe. Having interconnected towns/villages lends itself to this too.

Exactly. The whole thing is connected, as it directly relates to the business model. If you look at a resort like WB - they control EVERYTHING in mountain, and monetise the whole thing. Whereas somewhere like (for example) Tignes the only thing they really control and monetise is the lifts and slopes.

I'm not going to say that one is definitively better than the other but there's advantages to both. And you can't just look at the slopes and lifts and ignore the externalities as they're core to the overall business model

 

[dbostedo]

Whereas somewhere like (for example) Tignes the only thing they really control and monetise is the lifts and slopes.

Well, everything else gets monetized too... just by other people/entities. And I'm still curious how common it is in Europe for all the lifts at a resort to be owned by a single company.

 

[Saintsman]

Well, everything else gets monetized too... just by other people/entities. And I'm still curious how common it is in Europe for all the lifts at a resort to be owned by a single company.

Yes it's monetised, but not by a single organsing entity - so there's a lot of competition on mountain between restaurants, by price/service/style. The downside of that is that the experinece isn't fully under the mountain control

And everyone on here is getting massively hung up on ownership of the lifts IMHO. the lifts may be owned by the local town, but they are managed as a whiole by the area mangement on long term contracts. So a small village will own the local gondola that connects them to the ski region. That brings them tourism etc. But the area manages the whole thing on their behalf so that it's a contiguous experience. As the end user you have no awareness of who owns what - you have a pss that covers everything, in exactly the same way as you have a pass covering all the lifts at WB

 

[dbostedo]

And everyone on here is getting massively hung up on ownership of the lifts IMHO. the lifts may be owned by the local town, but they are managed as a whiole by the area mangement on long term contracts. So a small village will own the local gondola that connects them to the ski region. That brings them tourism etc. But the area manages the whole thing on their behalf so that it's a contiguous experience.

What does "manage" mean in this context though? Can they remove them, upgrade them, change where they run, etc? Lift changes and upgrades are a relatively big deal in NA and resorts to some extent compete over lifts.

It's not about the contiguous experience for the skier, it's about ownership of them and changes/modifications, and how that occurs. Do individual lift owners compete over having nicer lifts? "Oh... that 1 of the 3 valleys is nicer because they're all high speed bubble lifts!"

 

[Saintsman]

What does "manage" mean in this context though? Can they remove them, upgrade them, change where they run, etc? Lift changes and upgrades are a relatively big deal in NA and resorts to some extent compete over lifts.

It's not about the contiguous experience for the skier, it's about ownership of them and changes/modifications, and how that occurs.

The local connectivity is out of their control. If a local village/town insist on they keep a gondola at 10 seats when it should be upgraded to 20 then not much will happen. But the remainder is effectively down to majority rule and upgrade costs come out of profits. So the management company shows a plan to the shareholders, they either approve or deny. Conceptually it's not all that different to NA - but the shareholders in this case are local government instead of the stock exchange. The problem for the average NA skier is understanding the scale - it's not just that you can ski down to another village, you can ski down to another country and back inside a day without breaking a sweat

Bear in mind we're only talking about the local region. When you get into the shared region territories then there's the same sort of thing going on but at a higher level

 

[dbostedo]

So the management company shows a plan to the shareholders, they either approve or deny. Conceptually it's not all that different to NA

Interesting... but most of the big publicly held US resorts would not be directly beholden to their stockholders for lift upgrades/changes. It's more about keeping the stock price up or the stock-holders happy, via making those changes as part of running the company. Not sure how much difference that makes in practice.

And there are still some resorts that are privately held, so they don't have stock holders. Though that number is diminishing.

The number of lifts we're talking about managing is pretty different too - Portes du Soleil, has about 200 lifts (would that be considered one area? Or would all the individual areas that make it up be managed somewhat separately?). Park City has the most in North America, with 39. This is in part because of the sprawl and interconnectedness I'm sure; versus the more compact NA area with runs more closely spaced. Some Googling shows at least 35 resorts in Europe with more lifts than Park City. On the other hand, if you think about Vail managing all their holdings, they probably manage a few hundred lifts.

 

[Bad Bob]

What are the maintenance regulations for lifts like in Europe? In the States they rank up there with elevators (you wouldn't know from this years record). This could be brutal for a lift owned by a small community.
The added compaction on mountain services would be nice, should get a lot better food for more reasonable prices.

 

[Saintsman]

Interesting... but most of the big publicly held US resorts would not be directly beholden to their stockholders for lift upgrades/changes. It's more about keeping the stock price up or the stock-holders happy, via making those changes as part of running the company. Not sure how much difference that makes in practice.

And there are still some resorts that are privately held, so they don't have stock holders. Though that number is diminishing.

The number of lifts we're talking about managing is pretty different too - Portes du Soleil, has about 200 lifts (would that be considered one area? Or would all the individual areas that make it up be managed somewhat separately?). Park City has the most in North America, with 39. This is in part because of the sprawl and interconnectedness I'm sure; versus the more compact NA area with runs more closely spaced. Some Googling shows at least 35 resorts in Europe with more lifts than Park City. On the other hand, if you think about Vail managing all their holdings, they probably manage a few hundred lifts.

Portes du Soleil is the group area. The management company are the local areas, Portes du Soleil are the profit share group. When you get to a resort - for example, Morzine - you can choose to by a local pass which covers Morizine/Les Gets etc. or the whole Portes du Soleil. Realistically I don't think there's much difference between the two, except that there's probably more onus on the management company to demonstrate future returns to stockholders BEFORE the investment takes place - i.e. the various stakeholders have more involvement in the initial approvement process

 

[Saintsman]

What are the maintenance regulations for lifts like in Europe? In the States they rank up there with elevators (you wouldn't know from this years record). This could be brutal for a lift owned by a small community.
The added compaction on mountain services would be nice, should get a lot better food for more reasonable prices.

I couldn't quote the exact regs, but as a general observation they're both far higher and far more transparent (which would align with virtually EVERY safety reg in Europe vs NA, or anywhere else in the world)

 

[Rod9301]

Yes it's monetised, but not by a single organsing entity - so there's a lot of competition on mountain between restaurants, by price/service/style. The downside of that is that the experinece isn't fully under the mountain control

And everyone on here is getting massively hung up on ownership of the lifts IMHO. the lifts may be owned by the local town, but they are managed as a whiole by the area mangement on long term contracts. So a small village will own the local gondola that connects them to the ski region. That brings them tourism etc. But the area manages the whole thing on their behalf so that it's a contiguous experience. As the end user you have no awareness of who owns what - you have a pss that covers everything, in exactly the same way as you have a pass covering all the lifts at WB

Are you implying that the restaurants are better because they are under the ski area control?

 

[Sibhusky]

Are you implying that the restaurants are better because they are under the ski area control?

I thought he was implying just the opposite.

 

[Saintsman]

I thought he was implying just the opposite.

Better/worse can and does have different meanings here. I think that on the whole, on mountain dining in Europe is probably of a higher quality from a dining perspective - and at a lower cost. But the customer experience can be inconsistent due to the lack of a single overall plan/management.