ikon pass details released

[Zermatt]

IkonPass is available to add on to any season pass. $599 or $899.

Still holding out hope MC will shake things up when they release details this week.

 

[boston_e]

IkonPass is available to add on to any season pass. $599 or $899.

Still holding out hope MC will shake things up when they release details this week.

Sure. Same price as buying it independently. There is no “add on discount” to a participating mountains season pass the way there was with Max Pass.

I think that is what people are taking about when they describe and “add on”

 

[Zermatt]

Sure. Same price as buying it independently. There is no “add on discount” to a participating mountains season pass the way there was with Max Pass.

I think that is what people are taking about when they describe and “add on”

#sarcasm

 

[djd66]

IkonPass is available to add on to any season pass. $599 or $899.

Still holding out hope MC will shake things up when they release details this week.

They are releasing further details on the pass this week??

 

[Zermatt]

They are releasing further details on the pass this week??

Mountain Collective will announce this week. They told me on Instagram

 

[djd66]

“Is the Icon pass an Add-on to my Sugarbush pass? EX: in 2018/19, if I want the Icon deal and full unlimited 7 privileges at Sugarbush - will I have to fork out $899 (for the Icon Pass) + $749 (for the Sugarbush pass) = $1,648”

You’re better off with just buying the Mountain Collective pass (~$400?) on top of you Sugarbush pass.

Normally, I only make it out west 1/year. If I go to only 1 resort (which is normally the case) then the MC addon or the Icon do not make any sense. If they are trying to compete with Epic Pass - the Icon pass makes no sense. I would be willing to pay a few hundred more as an add on to my Sugarbush pass, but $900 is crazy. I would bet 99.9% of Sugarbush passholders would be in the same boat.

 

[Jully]

Mountain Collective will announce this week. They told me on Instagram

Awesome. Holding out hope there too!

 

[cdskier]

Normally, I only make it out west 1/year. If I go to only 1 resort (which is normally the case) then the MC addon or the Icon do not make any sense. If they are trying to compete with Epic Pass - the Icon pass makes no sense. I would be willing to pay a few hundred more as an add on to my Sugarbush pass, but $900 is crazy. I would bet 99.9% of Sugarbush passholders would be in the same boat.

I would bet you are right. And I think Win agrees as well as he basically said as much in his e-mail to passholders about Ikon.

 

[boston_e]

I would bet you are right. And I think Win agrees as well as he basically said as much in his e-mail to passholders about Ikon.

As did Mike Solimano in his blog post.

 

[abc]

Normally, I only make it out west 1/year. If I go to only 1 resort (which is normally the case) then the MC addon or the Icon do not make any sense. If they are trying to compete with Epic Pass - the Icon pass makes no sense. I would be willing to pay a few hundred more as an add on to my Sugarbush pass, but $900 is crazy. I would bet 99.9% of Sugarbush passholders would be in the same boat.

Neither MC nor Ikon are "add-on". They're just independent passes you choose to buy on top of your home mountain passes.

For folks whose home mountain HAPPENS to be owned by Alterra and on the IKON pass unrestricted, great for them. For everyone else, it's just a second pass.

It maybe unthinkable for the northeast skiers, but my friends out in Colorado, many of them own more than one pass. A lot of them have Epic + RMSP, some have Epic + Loveland.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

if I lived in CO this season, I would have probably done A-basin/Keystone pass for like $300 to get the unlimiteds, and then MAX pass to get 20 more days in CO and options to travel. that's what one of my Denver friends does. works for him, especially since his fiancé's family has a house at killington where they spent 7 ski days over x-mas at pico/k

 

[jmgard]

Neither MC nor Ikon are "add-on". They're just independent passes you choose to buy on top of your home mountain passes.

For folks whose home mountain HAPPENS to be owned by Alterra and on the IKON pass unrestricted, great for them. For everyone else, it's just a second pass.

It maybe unthinkable for the northeast skiers, but my friends out in Colorado, many of them own more than one pass. A lot of them have Epic + RMSP, some have Epic + Loveland.

Hey some of us here have multiple as well... if you can qualify for discounts. Peak Drifter and NE College Silver = $600 for 10 mountains, unlimited at 7 and only a few blackouts at the other 3. That plus the Champlain Valley ski card is a lot of skiing for less than $800 total; I've only bought one actual lift ticket so far this season (foot of powder at Pico, totally worth it).

 

[Jcb890]

We did the Peak Pass and MAX Pass this year and have enjoyed it very much, it has given us a great variation of mountains to hit both in New England and out of New England. Next year maybe just the Peak sadly...

 

[p_levert]

Mountain Collective will announce this week. They told me on Instagram

It seems likely to me that the MC expands to include more resorts, such as Kmart, Stratton and Winter Park. Maybe even 3 free days instead of just two. This would be a way to expand into the Maxpass add on space, which I think sold well.

This is 100% conjecture by me, but it does make some economic sense.

 

[Zermatt]

It seems likely to me that the MC expands to include more resorts, such as Kmart, Stratton and Winter Park. Maybe even 3 free days instead of just two. This would be a way to expand into the Maxpass add on space, which I think sold well.

This is 100% conjecture by me, but it does make some economic sense.

Why does that make economic sense? More ski areas, less revenue, more skiers on your slopes not spending any money...

Makes economic sense for the skier, but not for the ski areas that abandoned the MAX Pass.

 

[sankaty]

Why does that make economic sense? More ski areas, less revenue, more skiers on your slopes not spending any money...

Makes economic sense for the skier, but not for the ski areas that abandoned the MAX Pass.

I don't pretend to know where the profitability breakpoint is, but presumably more mountains mean more passes sold. They must have some profit motive to offer the MC pass? If more mountains automatically meant less profit, why would they have any mountains on it at all?

 

[boston_e]

Why does that make economic sense? More ski areas, less revenue, more skiers on your slopes not spending any money...

Makes economic sense for the skier, but not for the ski areas that abandoned the MAX Pass.

Some of that would depend on how much added revenue they received from having added visits. (I would think more skiers on their slopes would = more money spent, most people will not go to a resort and spend zero money... and certainly if they don't have the skier there in the first place they are for sure going to spend zero money.)

For example, this year my family went to Sunday River over MLK weekend using the Max Pass (from having added it on to our K-ton passes). Over the 3 days we skied there I think we bought a total of 12 lunches in their cafeterias, 4 beers, 2 hot chocolate and 2 sodas at apres ski, plus toe warmers, and a neck gaiter. Additionally, they got whatever smaller amount was distributed to them from max pass for our visits.

Had it not been for the max pass there is no chance I would have gone and bought 3 days of lift tickets for my family so all of that would have been zero revenue. Instead we would have gone to K and skied on our K passes (where we are more likely to pack lunch / not forget a neck gaiter where it is our home mountain).

 

[boston_e]

It seems likely to me that the MC expands to include more resorts, such as Kmart, Stratton and Winter Park. Maybe even 3 free days instead of just two. This would be a way to expand into the Maxpass add on space, which I think sold well.

This is 100% conjecture by me, but it does make some economic sense.

If they want to sell more MC passes in New England they will need more New England mountains on board with it.

 

[cdskier]

Makes economic sense for the skier, but not for the ski areas that abandoned the MAX Pass.

Not quite sure where you get that they "abandoned" it. Some of the participating resorts would very much have liked to continue it. MAX was essentially run by Intrawest from what I remember...so when Intrawest was bought out and the new owners decided to create their own new pass using many of their own resorts as the basis, that's why you no longer have MAX.

If there was no value in being part of a multi-resort pass, why would K, SR, SL, SB, Loon, etc have agreed to join Ikon? All of these are places that had prior experience with being part of a multi-mountain pass. It must make some economic sense if they're doing it again.

They may not make a ton from the revenue sharing of the pass itself, but there certainly is ancillary revenue generated in many cases. While you could argue some people would still ski anyway at resort x or y or z even if they had to pay more for a ticket, there are plenty others like boston_e that wouldn't have skied at a particular resort at all if it wasn't part of the multi-mountain pass they happened to have.

 

[p_levert]

Why does that make economic sense? More ski areas, less revenue, more skiers on your slopes not spending any money...

Makes economic sense for the skier, but not for the ski areas that abandoned the MAX Pass.

That's not how I see it. If Killington sold 1,000 Maxpass add-ons, this will be in huge decline since 599/899 for an Ikon pass is a heck of a lot more than $329. I just don't see many people willing to pay 599/899 on top of their season pass price. So if Killington can participate in a $400 MC pass, they could potentially do quite well with it. That's what I was thinking.