Peak Resort Acquisitions

[drjeff]

Don't recall seeing a park at Pico, Middlebury or Magic either. Not sure about Smuggs, Jay or Burke.

Magic does have a small park with a few boxes, rails and small jumps just above the tubing area. In reality though, 95% of Magic is just one big, giant, smile inducing terrain park! It just doesn't necessarily cater to the "classical" park crowd demographic!

 

[drjeff]

Yup. I cant wait until the parks phase runs its' course. I've definitely seen declining usage over the last 5 years.

IMO, at this point I think it's sortof like coupon programs. There are some companies who undoubtedly think perhaps they should stop them, but they're afraid of what might happen to sales if they do, so it continues.

I think you also have to look at how a mountain views their park progression, which is a BIG commitment to the resources (snow quantity, proper grooming equipment with GOOD operators and a good fabrication shop for building the steel parts needed for many park features, and listening to the users of their parks) going over not just an annual basis, but also during the season.

Mountains with the commitment to keeping their parks evolving over the season and also have a variety of sizes of parks and features to allow the development of the skier/rider, DO see a return on their investment.

Resorts that just haphazardly throw together a few jumps and rails and maybe a box or 2 and then don't do much more than take a park rake and the occasional pass with the tiller of a groomer to the park, don't see the profit potential from their park(s).

Park users, especially in this social media/GoPro rich world we live in know where the progressive parks they're looking for are, and will seek them out early, mid and late season and their dollars they bring to those resorts are significant

 

[VTKilarney]

At Burke, only a very small percentage of skiers actually skis the park terrain. Almost all of the park skiers are made up of one of the following:
1) Grade school and high school students skiing on cheap student passes
2) College students skiing on cheap student passes
3) Part time employees skiing on free employee passes

Last Christmas, they focused a LOT of snowmaking effort in order to get the park open for the Christmas holiday. As a result, they were only able to have ONE trail from top to bottom on the main mountain. So the captive park skiers got preference over the tourists that pay good money to ski. I'm not sure who thought of that marketing strategy.

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

Don't recall seeing a park at Pico, Middlebury or Magic either. Not sure about Smuggs, Jay or Burke.

Burke has that whole Dashney Mile trail as one giant park.

 

[danimals]

Park skiing and riding isnt dying. The mountains that dont take park seriously just dont get the traffic. Serious park riders will go where the best parks are.

 

[Newpylong]

I don't see the parks going anywhere - but I see the shift from massive half pipes and snowboard specific features to smaller features more geared towards both freestyle skiing and snowboarding. I think that is a good move and surely better on the snowmaking budget.

This year Whaleback finally pre-built their larger hits out of earth vs having to build them in costly snow. They can get away with this because there is limited terrain for the park and people are happy to have them, so they are fine with the features being in similar spots every year.

 

[Not Sure]

Park skiing and riding isnt dying. The mountains that dont take park seriously just dont get the traffic. Serious park riders will go where the best parks are.

Big Boulder in Pa. has very little vert but does well attracting park traffic . They can't compete size wise but have found a niche and also could have been open into May this past year.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Park users, especially in this social media/GoPro rich world we live in know where the progressive parks they're looking for are, and will seek them out early, mid and late season and their dollars they bring to those resorts are significant

I'd like to see a study on how significant they generally are versus the significant creation, maintenance and upkeep, and increased insurance costs.

At Burke, only a very small percentage of skiers actually skis the park terrain.

I ski all over the place, usually a good 10 places a year or so, and this is more my current "sense" than not at most places. That's why I call them "Ghost town" areas. Sometimes I'll ski the sides of parks just to find better snow or an empty trail.

Almost all of the park skiers are made up of one of the following:
1) Grade school and high school students skiing on cheap student passes
2) College students skiing on cheap student passes
3) Part time employees skiing on free employee passes

I generally agree with this. The counter-argument people make, however, is that parents who ARE the financial decision makers and DO spend money, will go to the places that cater to their kid's wishes. While there may be some truth to that, I believe that in general that opinion greatly overstates reality. Mom & Dad will more often go where Mom & Dad want to go.

I don't see the parks going anywhere - but I see the shift from massive half pipes and snowboard specific features to smaller features...

As a generalization, I think that's likely true as well.

 

[drjeff]

I'd like to see a study on how significant they generally are versus the significant creation, maintenance and upkeep, and increased insurance costs.

"Significant" is the verbatim word that I've heard the admins at Mount Snow use when asked, both in a private one on one setting and also on multiple occasions in the public annual passholders meeting about the possibility of returning Carinthia, or at least some of it to a non park status. The answer is, and has been ever since they dedicated that entire section of the mountain to the parks, no, because of the "significant" revenue it generates them, which isn't just limited to peak season, but is present in off peak season, and is reflected in the fact that they have some park offerings available every single operating day of the season, as well as continue to make the quantity of snow needed for the full sized parks, regularly are buying new park specific designed groomers (not too many mountains have 3 Pisten Bulley 400 Park Pros that are less than 3 years old as Mount Snow does), and continue to expand their park progression and provide the full financial support for their evolution.

I fully get that Mount Snow does the entire park scene much different than most resorts out there, and that their model in no way could work, regardless of how you scale it up or down and any mountain, however when done "right" in the eyes, and wallets of the target demographic, it is a revenue producer and not a loss leader for a resort

 

[dlague]

I'd like to see a study on how significant they generally are versus the significant creation, maintenance and upkeep, and increased insurance costs.




I ski all over the place, usually a good 10 places a year or so, and this is more my current "sense" than not at most places. That's why I call them "Ghost town" areas. Sometimes I'll ski the sides of parks just to find better snow or an empty trail.



I generally agree with this. The counter-argument people make, however, is that parents who ARE the financial decision makers and DO spend money, will go to the places that cater to their kid's wishes. While there may be some truth to that, I believe that in general that opinion greatly overstates reality. Mom & Dad will more often go where Mom & Dad want to go.



As a generalization, I think that's likely true as well.

True that! Our kid/kids go or have gone where the parents want to go. They will find the park and if it sucks then they are fine in the woods. Might even ski with us. We went to mount snow one time and my son keeps asking to go back so there is a tiny bit of influence coming from the kids. We have not caved.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[Jully]

"Significant" is the verbatim word that I've heard the admins at Mount Snow use when asked, both in a private one on one setting and also on multiple occasions in the public annual passholders meeting about the possibility of returning Carinthia, or at least some of it to a non park status. The answer is, and has been ever since they dedicated that entire section of the mountain to the parks, no, because of the "significant" revenue it generates them, which isn't just limited to peak season, but is present in off peak season, and is reflected in the fact that they have some park offerings available every single operating day of the season, as well as continue to make the quantity of snow needed for the full sized parks, regularly are buying new park specific designed groomers (not too many mountains have 3 Pisten Bulley 400 Park Pros that are less than 3 years old as Mount Snow does), and continue to expand their park progression and provide the full financial support for their evolution.

I fully get that Mount Snow does the entire park scene much different than most resorts out there, and that their model in no way could work, regardless of how you scale it up or down and any mountain, however when done "right" in the eyes, and wallets of the target demographic, it is a revenue producer and not a loss leader for a resort

I would guess that if a resort puts in the amount of effort that say, Mount Snow does, then they get significant returns. However, if the resort does anything short of designing parks across an entire section of the resort, Sunday River is another player in that regard, then the returns are diminishing and potentially falling as the big players step it up every year.

From a kids perspective who might ask to go to a place with a huge park, they will request the biggest and best park resorts and for the parents that do cave, those resorts see an uptick in revenue. However, if the parents do not cave then whether the resort has no park versus a below average park I bet won't impact the family's choice too much. Certainly not enough to spend significant snowmaking capital and maintain the equipment.

 

[Gforce]

Anything new with the rumors?

There is no growth with the mountain operators in this market and gross margins however around 2% and ROE not much better....the only alternative is growth via M&A so it would seem to make sense.