Vail Resorts is buying Peak Resorts.

[catskillman]

Was the pass good for the lifetime of the passholder? Or for the lifetime of the company that owns the mountain?

There are folks that bought a lifetime pass. Good for their life. Peak honored them.

Then there are ex volunteers that earned a pass after 12 years. Peak honored them also.

apparently the sale to peak did not address them, but they honored them.

Peak eliminated the 70+ heavily discount pass. However, there was another option that was only a diferance of $100, most of them bought this but continue to complain that they got screwed relentlesly. What makes them think they are entitled to this confuses me to no end. Why would a public company be required to sell you something they do not offer just because of your birthday?

I am not 70 but it would have been nice when I get there. I won't stop skiing because of it, and if I don't have an extra $100 a year in the budget, maybe I should not be skiing.

 

[catskillman]

AIG Stowe had lifetime passes which were supposed to be good for the lifetime of the passholder-- which I was told became invalid after the Vail acquisition.

Yeah, I am sure this is what will happen with those at Hunter. They are all worried. But Vail can't give those at Hunter a pass if they did not give them to those at Stowe and other mountains they acquired. IF other mountains even had them to begin with.

 

[Edd]

AIG Stowe had lifetime passes which were supposed to be good for the lifetime of the passholder-- which I was told became invalid after the Vail acquisition.

I remember similar things happening at Killington after an acquisition.

In this case, I find a move like that so short-sighted. The negative feelings generated vs. how ever much extra profit they expect to make doesn’t compute for me.

 

[cdskier]

Yeah, I am sure this is what will happen with those at Hunter. They are all worried. But Vail can't give those at Hunter a pass if they did not give them to those at Stowe and other mountains they acquired. IF other mountains even had them to begin with.

Curious...how much did these lifetime passes cost? Can't say I would blame Vail at all for not honoring them though unless it was explicitly detailed in the sale contract that they had to. Lifetime passes that were paid to a previous owner bring nearly 0 value to a new owner even if you account for some goodwill and F&B purchases or something like that. The way I see it, at least some of these people would likely buy new passes if their lifetime ones were taken away. Even if it is a small percentage, that is most likely still more revenue than you're getting otherwise from these lifetime passholders if you had let them keep using them.

 

[abc]

It's really hard to have a contract outlasting the entity. Peak may be bound by the contract to honor it in the sales contract. But that contract between the owner of Hunter and Peak wouldn't have any validity for Vail. And what's the benefit for the selling entity to insist the lifetime passes to be honored by the buyer?

(If I'm selling my house, I can ask the buyer to accept my cat. If the buyer happen to like cat anyway, he/she might agree. But by the time the house is sold again, there's no guarantee the new seller feel strongly about MY cat. And if the new buyer don't care for cats, the cat got sent to the shelter!)

The benefit from Vail's perspective is different. Lifetime pass holders are typically the biggest marketer of the mountain. They love it so much they either 1) paid for a lifetime pass or, 2) earn it some way. So if they're still skiing, they would quite likely bring their family/friends to ski there -- paying day/season pass!

Take their passes away, they turned into the biggest badmouther of the mountain! But I guess Vail figure they could survive the badmouthing. They did that in Stowe. So they're more than likely to do that in Hunter.

 

[Newpylong]

Yes those Killington lifetime passes were for the Sherburne Corporation aka S-K-I which was the legal DBA name of K even after the acquisition by ASC. Upon purchase, Powdr changed the legal name, and nulled the lifetime passes legally by doing this.

 

[Domeskier]

In this case, I find a move like that so short-sighted. The negative feelings generated vs. how ever much extra profit they expect to make doesn’t compute for me.

Agreed. Particularly for a company with market cap of nearly $10B. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost more pass sales than they gain with such a move. Lifetime pass-holders probably have family members who buy passes; I can see them all moving their business down the road if treated like that. Vail should just let this miniscule number of skiers age out of the sport and not try to bleed them for profits that wouldn't even amount to a rounding error.

 

[chuckstah]

Lifetime passes at Wildcat were voided when Peak bought them, although IIRC they were given one final season as the deal was finalized. The results led to lots of negative comments and press, probably why they let Hunter lifetimes remain, figuring it's not worth it to cancel them.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[EPB]

It's really hard to have a contract outlasting the entity. Peak may be bound by the contract to honor it in the sales contract. But that contract between the owner of Hunter and Peak wouldn't have any validity for Vail. And what's the benefit for the selling entity to insist the lifetime passes to be honored by the buyer?

(If I'm selling my house, I can ask the buyer to accept my cat. If the buyer happen to like cat anyway, he/she might agree. But by the time the house is sold again, there's no guarantee the new seller feel strongly about MY cat. And if the new buyer don't care for cats, the cat got sent to the shelter!)

The benefit from Vail's perspective is different. Lifetime pass holders are typically the biggest marketer of the mountain. They love it so much they either 1) paid for a lifetime pass or, 2) earn it some way. So if they're still skiing, they would quite likely bring their family/friends to ski there -- paying day/season pass!

Take their passes away, they turned into the biggest badmouther of the mountain! But I guess Vail figure they could survive the badmouthing. They did that in Stowe. So they're more than likely to do that in Hunter.

I've never understood the outrage at the buying party for not honoring lifetime passes. Those were agreements forged between the SELLER and the passholders. Often, the owner of a mountain will sell lifetime passes as a way to raise money. They take the passholder's cash and use it to improve the mountain in some way and then sell the improved mountain to someone else. They have the option to "do right" by their lifetime passholders by taking a haircut on their purchase price to continue lifetime pass benefits for those who "invested" in them (e.g. agree to take x times the cost of a season pass for each lifetime passholder off the purchase price to ensure their benefits continue). They could also pay lifetime holders a dividend after the sale if they wanted. Why lifetime pass holders act like the buyer owes them anything, I will never understand.

As a side note, it seems like in most cases, lifetime passholders have usually earned a pretty return on their investments by the time their mountains are sold anyway. Wildcat was a recent example where, as I recall, lifetime passholders had their passes for an average of 30+ years, and they hadn't been offered for so long that nobody could reasonably say they had been ripped off (e.g. paying 5X the cost of a pass in 1985 for 25+ years of passes is a screaming deal). Yes, it's unfortunate that they didn't keep their benefits under Peak, but they got a great deal (and as I understand it) had no legal or ethical claim against Peak.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[drjeff]

I remember similar things happening at Killington after an acquisition.

In this case, I find a move like that so short-sighted. The negative feelings generated vs. how ever much extra profit they expect to make doesn’t compute for me.

I think that yes, there is some negativity towards the new owners if they choose not to honor a lifetime pass issued by previous owners. I also think that short of small sized forums such as AZ and a few other ski forums, as well as some locals that it affects, the masses who will frequent the ski area aren't aware of this situation, those who may have a "lifetime" pass are likely tied to the area itself via real estate and/or businesses in the area, so chances of them leaving, or if they own a business in the area, the area seeing a drop in customers, is small.

The entire lifetime pass concept is certainly a conundrum. Yup, many ski areas, decades ago, when they were opening up and/or expanding needed the capital infusions that the investments that people chose to make in a "lifetime" pass brought the ski area. As time goes on, and ownership changes, unless it was explicitly stated that transfer of the pass would remain if the resort was sold to another resort operator, as we all have seen, that gray area of "goodwill" verses legally bound/obligated to issue a new pass going forward. The person making the initial investment also took some risk in that the ski area they were investing in would remain open so they could continue to use their passes (My Mom for example had bought the equivalent of a "lifetime pass" in the form of a bond issued by the long since closed Mt Tom ski area outside of Springfield, MA back in the 60's. If Mount Tom was to ever re-open, even though there's been legal chain of ownership of the property from the developers she had originally bought the bond from, highly doubt there'd be any legal ground to stand on should she decide to pursue a pass with any new potential owner/operator)

I'm sure some of the Killington long timers can add/correct me on this, but I think the Killington situation was they were "bond passes" and that since they were issued as essentially an investment "bond" with a side perk of a season pass while the company was in existence, it was determined that at some point, where there was a full change in the ownership, and not just the original owners changing the name of the holding company, that the original agreement between the original owner and the bond investor lost legal status going forward, and thus the "requirement" to issue a season pass each year ended (Guessing some lawyers made enough trying to figure all this out to buy a lifetime of season passes for themselves ;-) )

Just an interesting topic to consider when all of the variables are considered.....

 

[cdskier]

Agreed. Particularly for a company with market cap of nearly $10B. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost more pass sales than they gain with such a move. Lifetime pass-holders probably have family members who buy passes; I can see them all moving their business down the road if treated like that. Vail should just let this miniscule number of skiers age out of the sport and not try to bleed them for profits that wouldn't even amount to a rounding error.

I don't think it is as simple as "well I'll just take my business elsewhere then". Let's look at Hunter. What other options are there in that same general area? Windham, Belleayre, and Platty. If you're a Hunter lifetime passholder, would you be happy at any of those other resorts? A Platty pass would cost you about the same as an Epic Local pass (and get you a far shorter and less reliable season). I love Platty's terrain but personally would have a hard time justifying the cost of their pass. A Windham pass would cost substantially more than an Epic local pass (nearly double) and I'd say the terrain is nowhere near what Hunter offers. A Belleayre standalone pass that doesn't include Gore or WF would be cheaper than an Epic Local and would probably be the best alternative for someone in that scenario. I happen to love Belleayre, but would Hunter lifetime passholders that have skied there for ages feel the same way? Then there's also the real-estate factor to consider. If you had a lifetime pass to Hunter and made that your home mountain, did that mean you also had property in the area? Some people may have just been day-tripping, but I'd have to imagine some are also local property owners. Now if you lose your lifetime pass and decide to spend money to ski somewhere else, you'll also have to factor in driving to that other mountain every time you want to ski. If you genuinely liked Hunter, going somewhere else seems a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face. So in conclusion, I don't buy the argument that most (or even many) of the lifetime passholders are going to just go elsewhere. Sure they may complain, but I don't know that matters enough to negatively impact the bottom line.

Overall though I still think anyone that expects a lifetime pass to truly last forever even through ownership changes is a bit naive and unrealistic. You have to realize there's a risk that a future owner wouldn't honor your pass.

 

[abc]

A Platty pass would cost you about the same as an Epic Local pass

You're only looking at the full pass.

Senior and mid-week passes are much cheaper. But Vail doesn't offer either.

But your point on no alternative is right on.

 

[Edd]

To posters pointing out that we all need to have our big boy pants on about lifetime anything, I get it.

But the goodwill created by continuing to honor these passes (seriously, how many can there be) seems more valuable to me than a few extra bucks. It’ll cement some loyalty instead of resentment.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[catskillman]

Curious...how much did these lifetime passes cost? Can't say I would blame Vail at all for not honoring them though unless it was explicitly detailed in the sale contract that they had to. Lifetime passes that were paid to a previous owner bring nearly 0 value to a new owner even if you account for some goodwill and F&B purchases or something like that. The way I see it, at least some of these people would likely buy new passes if their lifetime ones were taken away. Even if it is a small percentage, that is most likely still more revenue than you're getting otherwise from these lifetime passholders if you had let them keep using them.

Most folks that bought them are most likely not using them - as they would be into their 80's, unless a parent bought them for a child. The Slutzky family offered them for only a short time over 50 years ago.

 

[cdskier]

You're only looking at the full pass.

Senior and mid-week passes are much cheaper. But Vail doesn't offer either.

But your point on no alternative is right on.

True, although Platty doesn't have a mid-week pass either 8) (But yes, the other resorts do and Senior passes would be cheaper as well which one would think many of the lifetime passholders probably qualify for. On the flip side though, an Epic pass would give them access to a lot more than just a single resort if they were feeling adventurous). I don't quite understand why Vail doesn't have any Senior pricing for the Epic Pass, but maybe one day they will reconsider that. I always found that strange.

 

[catskillman]

I don't think it is as simple as "well I'll just take my business elsewhere then". Let's look at Hunter. What other options are there in that same general area? Windham, Belleayre, and Platty. If you're a Hunter lifetime passholder, would you be happy at any of those other resorts? A Platty pass would cost you about the same as an Epic Local pass (and get you a far shorter and less reliable season). I love Platty's terrain but personally would have a hard time justifying the cost of their pass. A Windham pass would cost substantially more than an Epic local pass (nearly double) and I'd say the terrain is nowhere near what Hunter offers. A Belleayre standalone pass that doesn't include Gore or WF would be cheaper than an Epic Local and would probably be the best alternative for someone in that scenario. I happen to love Belleayre, but would Hunter lifetime passholders that have skied there for ages feel the same way? Then there's also the real-estate factor to consider. If you had a lifetime pass to Hunter and made that your home mountain, did that mean you also had property in the area? Some people may have just been day-tripping, but I'd have to imagine some are also local property owners. Now if you lose your lifetime pass and decide to spend money to ski somewhere else, you'll also have to factor in driving to that other mountain every time you want to ski. If you genuinely liked Hunter, going somewhere else seems a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face. So in conclusion, I don't buy the argument that most (or even many) of the lifetime passholders are going to just go elsewhere. Sure they may complain, but I don't know that matters enough to negatively impact the bottom line.

Overall though I still think anyone that expects a lifetime pass to truly last forever even through ownership changes is a bit naive and unrealistic. You have to realize there's a risk that a future owner wouldn't honor your pass.

agree. There are probably about 200 people involved, and they would all continue toski Hunter. Location, familiarity and most of all they have ski buddies there!

they can keep moaning, especially one cranky female who everyone has had enough of, but most of us have stopped listening long ago. They just need to sit back and face reality. What does Vail owe them? Not a thing!!

 

[Domeskier]

I don't think it is as simple as "well I'll just take my business elsewhere then".

My post was ambiguous. I did not mean I wouldn't be surprised if _all of the lifetime pass-holders_ moved their business. I meant that I would not be surprised if some lifetime pass-holders took _all of their family's business_ elsewhere. I also wouldn't be surprised if some lifetime pass-holders just stopped skiing. Given the small pool of lifetime pass-holders and the uncertainty about how they might react to losing their passes, I don't think it's worth it to a company like Vail to disavow the lifetime passes in the hope of making a handful of additional EPIC pass sales, if that. It makes them look greedy and it will have zero meaningful impact on their bottom line. Alternatively, if they honor the passes, they get a rep for being a company that takes its obligations seriously even if not legally required to do so.

 

[Domeskier]

I don't quite understand why Vail doesn't have any Senior pricing for the Epic Pass, but maybe one day they will reconsider that. I always found that strange.

I always found it strange that anyone would. Mid-week passes makes sense to me, but I fail to see the rationale for subsidizing the cost of elderly people's skiing.

 

[kbroderick]

I'm sure some of the Killington long timers can add/correct me on this, but I think the Killington situation was they were "bond passes" and that since they were issued as essentially an investment "bond" with a side perk of a season pass while the company was in existence, it was determined that at some point, where there was a full change in the ownership, and not just the original owners changing the name of the holding company, that the original agreement between the original owner and the bond investor lost legal status going forward, and thus the "requirement" to issue a season pass each year ended (Guessing some lawyers made enough trying to figure all this out to buy a lifetime of season passes for themselves ;-) )

Just an interesting topic to consider when all of the variables are considered.....

Sold passes represent a liability in accounting terms, whether it be an annual pass (and a one-season liability) or a "lifetime" pass (and thus a "lifetime" liability). Depending on how the contract between corporate overloads is structured, the new owner of a ski area may or may not acquire the liabilities along with the assets of the company. Whether or not the previous owner—who was a party to the contract that created the pass—is required to include honoring the pass liabilities as part of the sale terms would depend on the contract between the passholder and the owner at the time of that pass being sold.

IIRC, in the case of Killington, it was more complicated than just some number of locals skiing on lifetime passes; many of bond passes were transferrable on an annual basis, and some people had acquired a number of them and would sell them via classifieds/CL/word-of-mouth each year, basically in direct competition with the resort for season pass sales. That was further complicated by the possibility that the bond—and thus the right to use or sell the annual pass—could be sold, and there were some number of people who had bought them just before the ASC purchase of Killington and the subsequent drop in pass pricing. Those people generally didn't get the return they expected, because between the lower annual value and the suspension of the passes after Powdr came in, the long-term value of the "lifetime" pass became a lot less than expected prior to the ASC purchase. While it pissed off a lot of people, I can't blame Powdr for deciding that they had no interest in competing with a bunch of individual sellers for pass sales.

 

[abc]

I always found it strange that anyone would. Mid-week passes makes sense to me, but I fail to see the rationale for subsidizing the cost of elderly people's skiing.

It's only "subsidizing" if the majority of those seniors will buy full pass had the senior pass no longer exist.

Those old enough to qualify for the senior's pass, many are retired. So they'd be skiing mid-week mostly. By offering full benefit senior pass at discount, you're hoping to capture the family of those seniors. Without it, they may simply buy a midweek pass but go skiing with their family at random mountains that suits their younger member of the family better.

Does it make sense to offer mid-week, senior pass at additional discount? I can't find any justification for that.

But as Vail is not offering any midweek passes either. So it's an entirely different calculation.