Vail Purchases Peak Resorts, Adding 17 Additional Ski Areas

[Marker]

Killington is already aligned with IKON / Alterra.

Sure, but a major move like this one could have a ripple effect on what Powder, who owns K, and the others decide to do next. A K season pass is rather expensive, but I made this commitment because I wanted to own a place close to a major mountain within reasonable driving distance of my home in PA. K offered the best bang for the buck in length of season, skiing and prices for condos, but I'm limited to Pico for a change of scenery unless I buy an Ikon add-on. I had considered Mt Snow briefly because I could ski the nearby Peak properties in PA.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

Sure, but a major move like this one could have a ripple effect on what Powder, who owns K, and the others decide to do next. A K season pass is rather expensive, but I made this commitment because I wanted to own a place close to a major mountain within reasonable driving distance of my home in PA. K offered the best bang for the buck in length of season, skiing and prices for condos, but I'm limited to Pico for a change of scenery unless I buy an Ikon add-on. I had considered Mt Snow briefly because I could ski the nearby Peak properties in PA.

I hope there's no change with K either as we get the spring pass every year. Next season I may buy a mid week or a regular season pass because if I go there enough in October/November and the spring it will pay for itself. Also may just do an express card and the spring pass. So many options and I'm grateful K hasn't done what VR does and wipe out all this stuff. Perhaps it's because K is a partner resort. Whatever the reason I'm grateful there aren't changes at this point.

Does Okemo/Stowe have onsite bootfitters? Asking because I wonder if there were any changes once VR took over? My bootfitter is at Mount Snow and I will go wherever he goes, if he goes but hope VR let's the master stay and doesn't give him any grief.

I'm still sad about this because although Mount Snow is too crowded for me on the weekends I was looking forward to exploring mid week as there's lots of the mountain we haven't seen. That ship has sailed now. I have the tiniest of hope they'll still work with our ski club and still let us have our anytime group pricing but I need to let that one go.............

 

[Kneale Brownson]

Sorry my post was confusing and could be interpreted in more than one way.

I didn’t mean to ask whether a “local” was born in the state or not. Only how far from the mountain can still be counted as “locals”

Clearly, Denver was “local” for Summit county mountains. But what about Colorado Springs? Are they considered “local”?

How far do we stretch that? Is Salt Lake City “local” for Jackson?

Breck certainly is a day ski area for Colorado Springs folks, those who don't own a condo/ski house. It's 105 miles vs. 83 miles

 

[Tricia]

Mod note:
All discussion about Vail Medical has been pulled from this thread and put into moderation.
Lets keep this about VR and its purchase of Peak Resorts.

 

[fatbob]

Re the local assertions does it really matter. An immediate local is the same as a weekender is the same as a destination visitor when it comes to space on the chair.

Resorts will have a mix of the 3 on any given day as a result of accessibility*date*weather. Even places like Lookout or 49 North where I may have been one of the few destination visitors in history (ok not my final destination but I had flown across an ocean and continent before skiing them)

 

[Erik Timmerman]

It kind of does matter because those different users do different things. If every "local" has a pass, then the hill can get swarmed at the drop of a hat every time it snows or the sun comes out. If they're weekenders, they're gonna be a little more predictable. When it snows on a weekend, nobody is gonna be happy.

 

[Wasatchman]

Re the local assertions does it really matter. An immediate local is the same as a weekender is the same as a destination visitor when it comes to space on the chair.

Resorts will have a mix of the 3 on any given day as a result of accessibility*date*weather. Even places like Lookout or 49 North where I may have been one of the few destination visitors in history (ok not my final destination but I had flown across an ocean and continent before skiing them)

Here's why it would matter to me if I were running a ski resort.

The local skiers, are going to be a more stable customer base. They're much more likely to stick around in good economic times and bad. In the good snow years and the bad snow years. Piss them off too much, and if they can, they'll leave, and it's hard getting them back when you need them.

Tourists on the other hand, tend to be much bigger spenders. They're more likely to spend more at the resort on lodging, food, services. But they also tend to be a more fickle customer. They drop off quickly in recessions, bad snow years, or if something else comes along to catch their fancy.

I'd argue you want a balanced mixture that keeps the locals happy enough but still bringing in the big spending tourists. The stable customer base plus the big spending tourists. Not always an easy balance, but that's why it would matter to me if I were running a resort.

If I were running 49 North, the higher priority to me would be bringing in more higher spending tourists. If I were running Alta/Snowbird, it would be on my radar that a lot of locals aren't happy with some of the changes.

 

[KingGrump]

It kind of does matter because those different users do different things. If every "local" has a pass, then the hill can get swarmed at the drop of a hat every time it snows or the sun comes out. If they're weekenders, they're gonna be a little more predictable. When it snows on a weekend, nobody is gonna be happy.

Exactly.
Wed, April 10 2019, Winter Park/Mary Jane did not update their snow report total in the morning. Had 6" on the ground at 9:00 am. Really close in parking even at 10 am. Dumped all day, Great skiing all day. No one there. Finished the day with about 18" total.
The snow total was updated over night. All hell broke loose next morning. This is a late season Thursday. All the lots were full. Cars were parked on both sides of the MJ access road all the way down to US 40. Bear in mind the MJ access road is 2 miles long. More skiers were parked somewhere a mile down US 40. They were walking back along the highway. We took one look at the mess and left. That s**t show tells me there are ton of so call locals around there. A lot more than most care to admit.

 

[fatbob]

Fair points but you can't control that unless you are only going to sell so many passes to each class of visitor. A hill that goes locals only goes bust pretty fast with the possible exception of a few premium resorts where the price of admission to be a local in terms of property prices means they might sustain out of a smaller number of very rich pockets.

&re Altabird the owners also know they've got the monopoly on the best most serious skiing in Utah so are those same locals who are bitching really going to relocate to somewhere not on Ikon or Epic? Where is that anyway? Sundance?

 

[fatbob]

I'm the worst of all worlds - a low spending brown bagging tourist (at least I din't drive a camper so some motel makes some $). But then I have had a season pass of one kind or another most of the last 10 years and I don't even live on the continent. Such is the value proposition of pass v day tickets.

And another thought re tourists being fickle - it's not much of an argument against mega passes as they are the very things designed to lock in revenues waaay in advance and ensure that when a tourist comes they come to somewhere they are already invested in ( and ancillaries then flow).

I'm still mainly hearing an entitled case for local privilege.

 

[Wasatchman]

I'm the worst of all worlds - a low spending brown bagging tourist (at least I din't drive a camper so some motel makes some $). But then I have had a season pass of one kind or another most of the last 10 years and I don't even live on the continent. Such is the value proposition of pass v day tickets.

And another thought re tourists being fickle - it's not much of an argument against mega passes as they are the very things designed to lock in revenues waaay in advance and ensure that when a tourist comes they come to somewhere they are already invested in ( and ancillaries then flow).

I'm still mainly hearing an entitled case for local privilege.

Tourist dollars on mega passes are still going to presumably be more economically sensitive.

Without getting too bogged down on specifics on a reply that was meant to be more about conceptually why it matters local/tourist, regarding your question on Alta/Bird, more locals might say heck with it, I'll just buy straight up Ikon pass rather than Alta/Bird season pass, go backcountry, go to Snowbasin, or go Epic which ironically is less crowded in Utah now.

If the experience degrades enough, more people growing up locally might learn to prefer alternative winter sports such as snowshoeing, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, backcountry, etc. versus lift served skiing.

But yeah, that's what is frustrating to me about Vail/Alterra duopoly. Increasingly hard to find alternative. And the danger for you is that while they suit your fancy now, there is no guarantee in future they won't make changes you don't like. At that point that's about all you may be left with as well the way things seem to be heading.

 

[Asnis]

Here's why it would matter to me if I were running a ski resort.

The local skiers, are going to be a more stable customer base. They're much more likely to stick around in good economic times and bad. In the good snow years and the bad snow years. Piss them off too much, and if they can, they'll leave, and it's hard getting them back when you need them.

Tourists on the other hand, tend to be much bigger spenders. They're more likely to spend more at the resort on lodging, food, services. But they also tend to be a more fickle customer. They drop off quickly in recessions, bad snow years, or if something else comes along to catch their fancy.

I'd argue you want a balanced mixture that keeps the locals happy enough but still bringing in the big spending tourists. The stable customer base plus the big spending tourists. Not always an easy balance, but that's why it would matter to me if I were running a resort.

If I were running 49 North, the higher priority to me would be bringing in more higher spending tourists. If I were running Alta/Snowbird, it would be on my radar that a lot of locals aren't happy with some of the changes.

So how do you get the big spending tourists that drop money on lodging and food to be less fickle??? Give them a pass that they pay for 8-10 months before they use it, obligating them to visit the resorts.

 

[Ski&ride]

It isn’t until this discussion that it occurs to me the Salt Lake area no longer have “independent” mountain not associated with the duopoly!

I put “independent” in quotes, as majority of the mountains are actually independently own. But they’re ALL members of the big-2 pass!

Colorado still had a couple left (A-basin/Loveland). Tahoe has a few more. The northeast is in a peculiar situation. Almost ALL the larger mountains are now members of the duopoly, while many smaller mountains remain independent.

 

[dbostedo]

It isn’t until this discussion that it occurs to me the Salt Lake area no longer have “independent” mountain not associated with the duopoly!

What about Powder Mountain?

 

[Coach13]

What about Powder Mountain?

I doubt most would consider Powder Mt a “Salt Lake” resort. Great resort though and independent.

 

[dbostedo]

I doubt most would consider Powder Mt a “Salt Lake” resort. Great resort though and independent.

I would. It's pretty close... maybe an hour away depending on where you are around the city? I'd think the Salt Lake resorts are Park City, Deer Valley, Alta, Snowbird, Brighton, Solitude, Snowbasin, and Powder Mountain... and maybe even Sundance?

 

[Ski&ride]

Well, I wouldn’t.

But I kind of sort of see your point. For a large number of people living in the east, they travel much longer to get to their preferred mountain. For some, they don’t even has a choice of good or bad options as their closest mountain is longer than that.

An hour is a long commute for “local” mountain that you want to go everyday, or for a couple hours on a wimp. Which is what Salt Lake City has. In that regard, Powder Mountain doesn’t qualify.

 

[dbostedo]

^^^
I guess I tend to group resorts with any nearby big city. I think of Poconos mountains as Philly or NYC places. I think of Seven Springs as a Pittsburgh ski resort. I think of Liberty/Whitetail/Roundtop as Baltimore/DC mountains....

 

[Ski&ride]

In the east coast, the mountains near population centers are small and low. So many people drive right pass their “local” hill to get to a “real” mountain. Some people consider their regular mountain as “local” mountain even though it’s not the closest one by a long stretch.

That’s not the case for SLC. They have the best mountain right outside the city! Anything that requires longer drive is NOT a local mountain.

 

[Wasatchman]

So how do you get the big spending tourists that drop money on lodging and food to be less fickle??? Give them a pass that they pay for 8-10 months before they use it, obligating them to visit the resorts.

The premise is definitely on the assumption that locals offer a more stable revenue base. Otherwise, then no, I really couldn't come up with much of a business case for not just completely catering to high dollar tourists.

Intuitively locals would seem to be more stable. I would still think more locals would buy a pass in a recession than tourists, as they don't have the incremental costs of travel, lodging, etc. Also, tourists are not obligated to come after buying a pass. At that point, the pass is a sunk cost and hence may very well opt to save on the additional costs that would be entailed by travel, etc. and not come. That would not be the case for locals. In a bad snow year, less tourists come. Locals will still show up (albeit less often than they otherwise might) and while they might on average spend less at the resort than tourists, they still spend money. So I have a hard time believing locals are not a more stable revenue base for a resort, but if that premise is wrong, then if I'm running the resort I'm much more about prioritizing the tourists and the locals just have to suck it up and take what they get That is except @fatbob who doesn't spend enough money- Just kidding!!

Interestingly, it's not all that uncommon for places to place some importance on locals, even giving special perks. Heck, even Disneyland gives Southern Cal residents access to purchase a special pass. I could go on and on of instances of notable tourist destinations that still offer something for locals including discounts. Can anyone think if there is a business case for that, or is it just being altruistic to those entitled locals?