Park City Record article about IKON pass

[tromano]

Eh, I see a lot of whining. If you want to spend 5 or 7 days at DV, the IKON pass is still a good buy. If I lived in the area, it seems like a no-brainer coupled with an Epic pass of some sort. The IKON should be compelling to many destination skiers and locals alike. Maybe not the cheapest deal imaginable, but it's better than nothing, right?

The DV passes are pretty ludicrous in price. If you bought the big IKON pass, you would get 7 days there. You would need to ski 11 more days at DV to make the ~$2400 pass worth getting. DV is a weird case in general. When I've skied there, it's all kids in ski school or OLD people. The middle demographic has very low representation on the slope. Basically it matches the distribution you'd expect from the pass pricing.

Have you skied in the Wasatch? Most people I know don't want to ski 5 or 7 days at deer valley and the rest of their season at park city.

 

[RJS]

I'm super interested in what the future of Alterra and the Ikon Pass are in Utah. As far as partner resorts go, Snowbasin is out right now, but if the economics change or the MCP goes away, I could see them getting in.

Another thing to consider are resort acquisitions. If Alterra bought Snowbasin or Solitude or Brighton, could one of those go unlimited on the Ikon Pass? That would make Ikon/the Alterra world much more attractive to the Utah market than "just" getting 5 or 7 days each at DV and Alta/Bird ("just" in quotes because that's not a bad deal in itself if you can do trips to Big Sky, Montana, Aspen, etc.).

Long term, acquisitions are key for Alterra. I'm guessing that they're interested in resorts that either currently fit their mold (unique, high-end, destinations), or in resorts whose value could be considerably increased with proper management and investment. Snowbasin checks the first box, and maybe the second. Solitude checks the second box, but Alterra either passed on it or it wasn't for sale last summer. This is pure speculation, but I would guess that Vail would outbid any offer on Brighton (which is now owned again by Boyne, I believe) because Vail could connect it to Park City, creating an even bigger resort that all of a sudden sees much higher snow totals.

 

[MarkP]

[QUOTE="...

The biggest trick Vail played is with day tickets up to $200 people think they are getting a deal. Pre-epic pass day tickets were 100 and often had discounts dropping that rate to 80 or so. That $80 mark is what we should use to evaluate the value of the epic pass which equates to 12 days of skiing to be cheaper now than then. Again, I don't think the vast majority of skiers are getting 12+ days in.
...[/QUOTE]

An argument can be made for $75. That is the rate the Epic Pass insurance uses for determining how much of your pass price has been used up if you file a claim.

From the Insurance FAQ:
Q: What is the daily rate used for pro-rating refunds?
A: The daily rate is $75 per day ($35 at Afton Alps and Mt. Brighton) for an adult pass (age 13 and up); $35 per day ($15 per day at Afton Alps and Mt. Brighton) for a child pass (age 12 and under). If you were injured at the resort you will not be charged the pro-rated amount for that day on the mountain.

 

[tromano]

Offering unlimited access to one ski area, that just gets Ikon in the market for locals. The place still has to make sense as a home area for me and my family. It has to be worth driving past all the others to get there. If they go further and offer unlimited at two UT ski areas and days at deer vallet then that's much more interesting.

I am not sure that a chair over guardsman connecting brighton and PC can be connected with out additional permitting. Even if they keep it all on private land, watershed and all that.

Edit: The last time they tried a chair over the crest it was killed.

 

[LKLA]

In my experience, skiers are more price sensitive. I think it's new/infrequent skiers who get pushed by their experienced friends to go to the place they have a pass. The new/infrequent skier doesn't know better.
Studies/data shows that is not the case. Weather/conditions are a much greater factor than pricing. 90% of skiers are "casual skiers" - they are not on Pugski

Skiers make choices on where they ski by prioritizing other things rather than price. As an example, the window ticket price at Stowe has stayed relatively flat over the past couple of years, while the season pass has gotten 50% cheaper. More people have decided to ski at Stowe this year based on the season pass price. Others, in spite of the 50% drop in the price of season pass and the more favorable season pass price comparison to window tickets prices, have decided not to ski at Stowe.

That is because there is much more to think about as it relates to cost aside from the season pass vs window ticket, comparison. Even if you ski one week a year - the pass or window ticket could be considerably cheaper somewhere but it could end-up costing you hundreds if not thousands of dollars more to fly, rent a car and secure lodging, which would negate the initial ticket/pass savings. Or, you could buy a season pass that seems like a better deal as it compares to ticket window prices but then end-up spending considerably more on all the other costs, which if you have a family and if you ski on a regular basis, can very well end-up making things more expensive once you factor in food, lesson, rental, lodging,...costs.

93% of skiers earn more than the median in the US and about 50% earn more than the 20th percentile (100k per household). Paying thousands of dollars extra to have a family ski Vail is a big deal even to 100k households.
The high window ticket prices are there because they offset the low margin that the operators get on many of the season pass sales. Sure it can help push some people to buy the season pass but that is not the over-riding reason why window ticket prices are high.

The overwhelming majority of skiers do not buy the pass based on how it compares to ticket window prices. That is not what reality tells us. They buy a season pass by prioritizing other factors, be it the price itself on a stand-alone basis, where their family and/or friends want to ski, where they have a ski home, expected conditions....

Skier income stats from http://www.mrablog.com/explaining-ski-industry-demographics/
I am very familiar with the data. As I said the top 25% of households equate to around 60% of revenue for many resorts. These folks really don't much care - the household income is much greater than 100k or 200k or 300k.

 

[Tricia]

Studies/data shows that is not the case. Weather/conditions are a much greater factor than pricing. 90% of skiers are "casual skiers" - they are not on Pugski [/QUOTE]

Phil often refers to us as the Lunatic Fringe of skiers.

 

[LKLA]

I wish there were more "lunatic fringe skiers"

 

[Seldomski]

Have you skied in the Wasatch? Most people I know don't want to ski 5 or 7 days at deer valley and the rest of their season at park city.

Yes I have, and I agree. But, DV is not about cheap skiing. A much cheaper pass would totally change the experience at that resort. If you're skiing more than ~20 days at DV a season, the Ikon is not for you. So yes, I agree with the basic premise that the Ikon is not for locals. Should it be?

 

[Nathanvg]

Can you forward links of the studies you mention?

You can't predict weather for next year in April so I'm not sure why that would be important to buying a season pass. If anything, it would make you less likely to buy one due to the unknown.

Ultimately ticket prices are high because it maximized Vail's profits. I am sure these day ticket prices would not be high if it wasn't for the pass.

"They buy a season pass by prioritizing other factors, be it the price itself on a stand-alone basis, where their family and/or friends want to ski, where they have a ski home, expected conditions...."
All of these factors (except stand-alone price) impact where you ski not if you get a day or season pass. I agree that as people get more wealthy they are less likely to evaluate the cheaper options but certainly not a family that makes under 100k or even many families that make a lot more than that. And those people who are price insensitive due to wealth are also more likely not to bother with a pass at all.

 

[tromano]

Should it be?

In my post above I explained what I think is needed to make the ikon relevant for local UT skiers. https://www.pugski.com/threads/park-city-record-article-about-ikon-pass.9619/page-2#post-235346