Ikon or Epic profits.

[coskigirl]

Agree. And certainly a holdover from the old Rocky Mountain Super Pass. But what bugs me is a holder of a full Killington pass gets zip at other POWDR resorts but a Stratton skier with an Ikon pass gets unlimited access. Many Killington skiers know have some flavor of Epic pass. Me included.

Yeah I have to agree the Killington setup for Powdr is odd.
Boyne gives full pass holders 3 days at Big Sky.
Why can’t a full Killington season pass not include 3 days at Copper? Maybe they fear some kind over crowding issue?
Bachelor is Powdr’s other oddity. They own it. But they have kept it off other pass products. Even if a Kton pass included 3 days at Bachelor, then there would be some reasoning at work.

Real completion could ensue if Boyne purchased Powdr. New England skiing at Killington, Loon, SR, SL and then with western access to Big Sky, Copper, Brighton and Bachelor. That is about 3 million skier days in the East, with obvious destination options out West.

Whatever RMSP or Ikon are paying Powdr for Copper access is clearly a lucrative amount.

Interestingly, it appears that Copper and Eldora passes also do not give access to other Powdr mountain resorts. They have some reciprocity with other mountains set up but those aren't even the same ones.

 

[Green08]

Interestingly, it appears that Copper and Eldora passes also do not give access to other Powdr mountain resorts. They have some reciprocity with other mountains set up but those aren't even the same ones.

Nope. Powdr has never played the reciprocity game within its resorts. This goes back to even when they had control of Park City. The best you could hope for was % off the window rate—which was a bit lower a decade ago I grant.

But, Powdr got into the game with the Max Pass, and that underlying model is what has fueled the partner days for Ikon. Boyne was not overly generous with Big Sky access before Max Pass either IIRC.

Powdr and Boyne are the large potential disrupters. But right now the Ikon $$ (whatever the formula is) seems to be enough fill the spreadsheets and bank accounts.

 

[Mister Tea]

I read an interview last season with the owner or manager of Sugarbush and he said that they get no money from Ikon, and that they are on the pass just to get folks there so they can see how nice it is and hopefully come back.

I am quite certain that Boyne and POWDR are not doing it that way. (c:

My hunch is that a lot of people buy Ikon or Epic and don't use it as much as they had planned ant that's the business model - sort of like gyms make lots of money from people who join but rarely or never go. I have no data to back this up.

As far as how to divide up the money among the various resorts, the simple way would be to take each passholder, and divide up the pass cost based on how many ski days they use i.e. if they ski ten days, each place they ski would get ten percent of the pass price per day, minus some overhead. Somehow, I doubt it's that simple, but I'd expect it's something along those lines. Very curious to find out...

 

[hbear]

That’s how Skidata is used in Europe.
Going further such as Austria, the lifts are privately run and a “toll” is paid to the lift owner for each use. Which is why you see each lift operator trying to outdo each other with nicer lifts to attract usage. (Seriously, there were lifts with heated Recaro seats in a bubble chair over there).

Would make sense to have a usage model over here (we are based in the Canmore/Banff area in Alberta for skiing).....but too many egos involved to create something that makes sense for everybody. $5-6k/family for a Rocky mountain pass is NOT a deal, especially when you can get a pass that covers many more areas in Europe for significantly less.

 

[DanoT]

Going further such as Austria, the lifts are privately run and a “toll” is paid to the lift owner for each use. Which is why you see each lift operator trying to outdo each other with nicer lifts to attract usage. (Seriously, there were lifts with heated Recaro seats in a bubble chair over there).

I think Sunshine Village has a chair with heated seats. Big Sky has an 8 pack bubble with heated seats so while not common, heated seat chairlifts are not unique.

 

[PinnacleJim]

I read an interview last season with the owner or manager of Sugarbush and he said that they get no money from Ikon, and that they are on the pass just to get folks there so they can see how nice it is and hopefully come back.

I guess that worked in a somewhat bizzare way. Ikon bought Sugarbush.

 

[hbear]

I think Sunshine Village has a chair with heated seats. Big Sky has an 8 pack bubble with heated seats so while not common, heated seat chairlifts are not unique.

Yes, Sunshine put a bubble chair in. It doesn’t have Recaro racing seats however.
The point being since the lift owners get paid per use, they do what they can to ensure patrons use their lifts more often (e.g. heated Recaro racing seats in a bubble or perhaps contouring the terrain so it’s easier to get back to your lift than the other one closest to yours).

 

[dbostedo]

Yes, Sunshine put a bubble chair in. It doesn’t have Recaro racing seats however.
The point being since the lift owners get paid per use, they do what they can to ensure patrons use their lifts more often (e.g. heated Recaro racing seats in a bubble or perhaps contouring the terrain so it’s easier to get back to your lift than the other one closest to yours).

Well theoretically, resorts have motivation to update all their chair lifts, if there's an impact on skier visits. (And I think there is.) And of course, resorts are all encompassing in NA, so the resorts own all their own chairlifts, and no one has a private one or any reason to own a private lift for the most part.

How does that work in Europe? If a new lift - as in one in a brand new place or slope - goes in, how is it funded? I can imagine some privately owned ones have been self-sustaining and upgraded over a long period of time. But for one on a new slope, say, does some private owner lay out millions of dollars?

 

[hbear]

The motivation is low and the impact on skier visits is low as well. Keep in mind in North America the resort is in its own bubble. If you buy a pass you are stuck at that resort. I’m not sure Sunshine had a huge influx of numbers due to the bubble chair, but certainly more use that chair vs the one it replaced spreading the lines around.

In many parts of Europe, (particularly the alps) you can start at a particular resort and end up in a different country. So you are not held hostage to a particular set of lifts.

Not sure how the lifts are funded in Europe. I’m assuming since privately owned, it would be privately funded as well. I do know maintenance costs and related are borne by the owner of the lift. (Incentive to keep the lift running well as being down literally loses them money and neglecting maintenance leads to closure and/or bigger repair costs in the future).

 

[raytseng]

I dont think the euro model would be followed, because that follows a single ski area with many interconnected resorts and typically window ticket money. The alterra/ikon war is grouping geographically separate resorts and fixed pass money.

The more I think of it, the big fear is a poor snow year and the benefit of the network is to hedge against that. For the partners they may be pessimistic and avoiding the catastrophe of poor year is more important than the benefits of a good year.
So the deals may actually be structured more on a fixed slice or guarenteed money than we think. (just like US sports teams like the nfl/nba etc).
Remember also since we're in a pass war with investor money, the money doesnt have to tie out. A plan can lose money in this area of operations as long as the it boosts other operations. Or overall it could just lose money (to keep key strategic partners) as long as in the multiyear long term it gets more passholders or hurts the other side more

 

[hbear]

Yes these pass systems are a hedge, that’s the business rationale behind it.

 

[Lvovsky /Pasha/Pavel]

Many Icon skiers underutilize their pass

^ this... I know nothing about ski area business model but I am guessing that Icon/Epic are banking on under utilization just like gift card issuers/sellers. I'm also guessing that resorts banking on the pass holders to spend money on food, drinks, merchandise, lessons, and bringing non-pass holders with them. Example: I'm joining a friend in Alta; he has MC pass, I don't... I'm going there because he is going.


Again, I know nothing.

 

[raytseng]

Well, I don't think the word underutilization is correct.
They know the average ski days per passholder and the average ticket price per skiday as well, it's neither under/overutilized, it is what it is. They know these stats exactly and post the Effective Ticket Price (ETP) as a key metric in the reports. You can view these stats in some of the Vail resort corporate reports for example.

But to counter your point of which direction they want to go, The tunderutilization" isn't what Vail/Alterra want.
At least in the current Vail business plans, they want it to go the other way, and are trying to push all skiers to increase visit frequency and days skied, and at least take a destination trip or two.

Investor Relations | Vail Resorts, Inc.

The Investor Relations website contains information about Vail Resorts, Inc.'s business for stockholders, potential investors, and financial analysts.

investors.vailresorts.com