How? I do not think it is that bad. The traffic and parking systems work well...until they clogged it with traffic.For a place that is so fa fa, the base at Deer Valley does feel a bit tired.
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
How? I do not think it is that bad. The traffic and parking systems work well...until they clogged it with traffic.For a place that is so fa fa, the base at Deer Valley does feel a bit tired.
That is so dumb. It will end up costing more with the delays. Perhaps POWDR should focus on their season pass business instead of chasing pennies on the dollar with IKON. That's how they can make more money to pay for this half-completed lodge. Pres Smith would be sick to see this mess at Killington.lol they sure do. old killington base lodge is there but butts up against a giant half structure that eats some of the parking area. really the area that used to be the skier drop off loop. the ticketing at killington peak is in a trailer in the parking lot. the old k-1 lodge is only really open for bathrooms and quick food service. guest services no longer in there. they scan you for contact tracing on the way in. that may be everywhere tho, last weekend at killington was the first time i went in a base lodge all season. my pass had stopped scanning so i went to deal with it at guest services, and was directed to the damn parking lot trailer.
one good end result of this is that the lodge will be downhill of the gondola base
this is taken from the side. you see the k-1 gondola cable coming across the top of the frame. so thats the old side door of the lodge. the front door where outdoor ticketing used to be almost touches the new lodge:
View attachment 51395
the future:
View attachment 51396
This was my first year as an Ikon pass holder (full pass). I paid $1000. This coming year as a returning user I will pay $900 (minus whatever small refund I get for covid stuff). I skied 17 days this year. 13 at Sugarbush, 1 at Windham, and 3 at Aspen. At just this level, my per day cost was $59. I'm absolutely thrilled with this value. And this doesn't include the 7 days of family passes I used for my kids that got me a discount off of full retail. And it also doesn't include the fact that I really didn't have to make "reservations" in advance. Just that flexibility alone was worth it this year. Other than the day at Windham, I experienced very few crowds.So for you and other SB regulars, now that you are on IKON, will you go to Killington more often?
That is so dumb. It will end up costing more with the delays. Perhaps POWDR should focus on their season pass business instead of chasing pennies on the dollar with IKON. That's how they can make more money to pay for this half-completed lodge. Pres Smith would be sick to see this mess at Killington.
My point is that passholders is the bigger business and should be the focus. Specific example is that fellow POWDR resort Snowbird has 10,000 passholders. The season pass price is now over $1,000. So a high but reasonable estimate is that passholders represent $10 million of business. Ikon is $1 million and then some once the revenue becomes over $1 million. I am not a math expert, but $10 million is more than $1-2 million. Additionally, in the case of Snowbird, the Ikon revenue is less because they split it with Alta.Chasing pennies on the dollar? Weren't you the one that shared the info on what the resorts were being reimbursed? It sure wasn't pennies on the dollar... Look at it this way - if someone wants to ski K more than 5/7 days, then they're likely going to be a K pass-holder. If someone is skiing K 7 or less days, the question is would those people ski at K if it wasn't on Ikon? In many cases sure (in which case they're likely either buying day tickets or the cheaper discount K tickets they offered in the past so they could be making either more or less than the Ikon reimbursement. So this part probably breaks out fairly evenly and balances out). But in other cases, the answer is no. If K wasn't on Ikon, they'd get $0 from me. Me going there once was something like $85 in K's pocket if I remember the numbers that were posted correctly. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat. Overall I don't think they're getting less from Ikon than they would get on their own if they weren't part of Ikon. I really don't see how K not being part of Ikon would translate to enough additional season pass sales to offset the Ikon revenue.
And the most recent post as to Ikon revenue sharing is something like $1 million guaranteed, passes billed against it at $37 a day until the $1 mill is exhausted. Then $80 something every day beyond that. So there needs to be about 28,000 Ikon skier days before even hitting the $80 something figure.Chasing pennies on the dollar? Weren't you the one that shared the info on what the resorts were being reimbursed? It sure wasn't pennies on the dollar... Look at it this way - if someone wants to ski K more than 5/7 days, then they're likely going to be a K pass-holder. If someone is skiing K 7 or less days, the question is would those people ski at K if it wasn't on Ikon? In many cases sure (in which case they're likely either buying day tickets or the cheaper discount K tickets they offered in the past so they could be making either more or less than the Ikon reimbursement. So this part probably breaks out fairly evenly and balances out). But in other cases, the answer is no. If K wasn't on Ikon, they'd get $0 from me. Me going there once was something like $85 in K's pocket if I remember the numbers that were posted correctly. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat. Overall I don't think they're getting less from Ikon than they would get on their own if they weren't part of Ikon. I really don't see how K not being part of Ikon would translate to enough additional season pass sales to offset the Ikon revenue.
My point is that passholders is the bigger business and should be the focus. Specific example is that fellow POWDR resort Snowbird has 10,000 passholders. The season pass price is now over $1,000. So a high but reasonable estimate is that passholders represent $10 million of business. Ikon is $1 million and then some once the revenue becomes over $1 million. I am not a math expert, but $10 million is more than $1-2 million. Additionally, in the case of Snowbird, the Ikon revenue is less because they split it with Alta.
Granted I don't know how many passholders Killington has or how many Ikon passes they see.
I also agree that Ikon is a replacement for day tickets but Powdr and consumers are not seeing it that way. Folks see it as a replacement for a season pass.
I am a loyal Killington skier, but a tourist still nonetheless and don't have real estate ties in the area. So I did Ikon Base, used up all 5 of my K days, then got a spring pass using $50 in credit I had last year. That's a great deal. If K got $80 per day from me on Ikon that's $400, then another $200 in $$$ from the spring pass I got. That's $600 so almost a season pass to Killington....but I only skied their 10-12 days...so $60 per day in revenue to K. If I had the full pass I would've done more skiing at Killington, and they would've made less money per day on me if I had gotten 25 days there and gotten a full pass.
Except that a rate-per-day comparison between Ikon users and season pass holders is largely meaningless. The rate-per-day metric matters for Ikon users because the resort only gets paid if the skier shows up. The rate-per-day of a season pass holder should have no meaningful effect on a resort's bottom line.That's a good point. If someone's argument is that Ikon doesn't bring in a high enough rate per day, then many season pass-holders are often bringing in even less.
Yes and no. Ikon apparently guarantees a certain amount of revenue regardless of how many show up ($1M was the supposed amount). Once you get a certain number of Ikon visits, then you get an additional daily rate per visit.Except that a rate-per-day comparison between Ikon users and season pass holders is largely meaningless. The rate-per-day metric matters for Ikon users because the resort only gets paid if the skier shows up. The rate-per-day of a season pass holder should have no meaningful effect on a resort's bottom line.
Oh, I see. Hard to pass up a deal like that.Yes and no. Ikon apparently guarantees a certain amount of revenue regardless of how many show up ($1M was the supposed amount). Once you get a certain number of Ikon visits, then you get an additional daily rate per visit.
So a few points. First, you're looking at this on the micro level (revenue per day) than the macro level (overall revenue). Second, the point that you're missing is that those who are passholders at a lot of these partner resorts are NOT happy with the crowding and the issues created by Ikon. So a lot of them are dropping their passes or threatening to do so. WHY would you risk losing someone who represents at least $1,000 in revenue for someone who, at most, represents $200-480 or so? And even then you are competing with other resorts to get that revenue? You wouldn't. That's why you are seeing places like Big Sky, Brighton, Jackson Hole, and even Crown's own Aspen resorts restricting Ikon access because their very own passholders are not happy with the crowding issues and are leaving. Hell, Aspen has even quit Ikon base altogether and it is an owner of Alterra. What does that tell you?You do realize it doesn't need to be one or the other, right? If they should focus on season pass-holders, does that mean they should ignore the $1M+ they get from Ikon? Even if we assumed pass-holders represent $10M in revenue (wouldn't surprise me if it is more than that at K...but still for simplicity we'll use that example), why should they throw away the $1M+ they get from Ikon? $10M + $1M is still more than $10M alone. It isn't like they're somehow focusing on or catering to Ikon holders. Delaying the K1 base lodge replacement project a bit longer has nothing to do with Ikon (heck, do we even know if it the delay is financially driven? Or is there another reason?)
So a few points. First, you're looking at this on the micro level (revenue per day) than the macro level (overall revenue). Second, the point that you're missing is that those who are passholders at a lot of these partner resorts are NOT happy with the crowding and the issues created by Ikon. So a lot of them are dropping their passes or threatening to do so. WHY would you risk losing someone who represents at least $1,000 in revenue for someone who, at most, represents $200-480 or so? And even then you are competing with other resorts to get that revenue? You wouldn't. That's why you are seeing places like Big Sky, Brighton, Jackson Hole, and even Crown's own Aspen resorts restricting Ikon access because their very own passholders are not happy with the crowding issues and are leaving. Hell, Aspen has even quit Ikon base altogether and it is an owner of Alterra. What does that tell you?
You are right that, to some extent, the two can coexist provided that there is no conflict. Here there is and POWDR ain't doing nothing about it. But the problem becomes that the ones who are paying the freight are asking, "why am I paying this much for an experience that is now more crowded?" and are leaving. Normally you do not want that. Boyne, Jackson Hole, and even Aspen are indeed responding to this concern while POWDR is ignoring it completely and even acting adverse to the largest portion of their business. Why is that? It flies in the face of normal business logic.
My point with POWDR is that it is trying to have its cake and eat it too. And I have reason to believe it is not working out because they are losing passholders and can't pay to hold onto good staff or finish this project at what is supposed to be a flagship resort. As I predicted last year, instead of evaluating Ikon to appease passholders they just increased the pass price to make up for the loss of revenue. They want to have Ikon AND pass revenue. But in some places that creates the conflict I've outlined.
Now getting back to my bigger point--and that is POWDR not finishing the lodge. Ultimately only POWDR knows why. POWDR is not managing season passholder expectations well and, at least out here, has lost passholder business because of it.
And finally my comments about Ikon are not at all meant to be personal. I get the sense that you are taking it that way. I'm glad that you are having a good experience with Ikon and it works for you. As you said the dynamics are different on the east coast. They are not out here.
Is that still the case for 21-22?Don't forget that you get a free ikon base pass if you get the Killington 365 pass. So Killington is using the ikon pass as a selling point to get people to buy a K pass.
My point is that passholders is the bigger business and should be the focus. Specific example is that fellow POWDR resort Snowbird has 10,000 passholders. The season pass price is now over $1,000. So a high but reasonable estimate is that passholders represent $10 million of business. Ikon is $1 million and then some once the revenue becomes over $1 million. I am not a math expert, but $10 million is more than $1-2 million. Additionally, in the case of Snowbird, the Ikon revenue is less because they split it with Alta.
Granted I don't know how many passholders Killington has or how many Ikon passes they see.
Is that still the case for 21-22?
Don't forget that you get a free ikon base pass if you get the Killington 365 pass. So Killington is using the ikon pass as a selling point to get people to buy a K pass.
Is that still the case for 21-22?
Really? At Snowbird, Deer Valley, and other places it is no longer included with the premium pass option and is now an add-on. Weird.