Alterra and DV Presidents Speak at Virtual Town Hall Event in Park City

[thetrailboss]

For a place that is so fa fa, the base at Deer Valley does feel a bit tired.

How? I do not think it is that bad. The traffic and parking systems work well...until they clogged it with traffic.

 

[thetrailboss]

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

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.

 

[mikec142]

So for you and other SB regulars, now that you are on IKON, will you go to Killington more often?

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.

To address the Killington thing...I'm not sure. I thought that I might ski some days at K or Stratton, but ended up skipping them this year. Like Cdskier, I drive up from NJ so I see a scenario of driving up to SB on Friday and skiing there Saturday then driving to K or Stratton and staying the night and skiing there on Sunday to shorten the drive home. But I enjoy skiing SB so much that it's not a tremendous appeal to save 1-1.5 hours on Sunday. I'm sure I'll do K at one point, but Stratton really doesn't have a ton of interest to me.

For me, the calculus is, will I get in enough weekends and holidays at SB and day trips at Windham to dollar cost average my pass to what I consider to be a reasonable level. Reasonable to me is quad pack level. So basically $71/ticket. And I achieved that at 14 days. Any trips out west are pure gravy to me.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

i have always skied killington a lot. sugarbush switching from 5 days to full season increased my sugarbush usage for sure tho. my ikon this year was 13 days at sugarbush (to be 14), 4 days at killington (to be 5), 4 days at Stratton, and 1 day at loon. the rest was all indy and magic pass days. I'll end with 40 after this wkend.

 

[cdskier]

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.

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.

 

[thetrailboss]

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.

 

[thetrailboss]

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.

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.

 

[cdskier]

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.

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?)

K is at a point where there really isn't much room for internal growth in season pass-holders. People know what K has to offer (longest season in the east, reliable snow conditions regardless of weather, lots of terrain, etc). If those things aren't selling someone on being a K pass-holder, then that person isn't going to be a K pass-holder with or without Ikon. How would you propose K drive an increase in season-passholders to offset a loss in the Ikon revenue? If K isn't part of Ikon, do you really believe there are that many Ikon holders that are going to suddenly become K pass-holders? I don't think K is just being part of Ikon for the hell of it. They have access to the numbers and clearly they believe they're making more money with Ikon than they would be without Ikon.

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 don't really agree in K's situation as a partner resort. Ikon can only replace a K season pass if that person is ok with not skiing K that many days. And in that case, that person really wasn't a "loyal" K skier to begin with. If someone truly loves what K has to offer, then Ikon doesn't cut it with maxing out at 5/7 days. For the typical K skier, there aren't a ton of other Ikon resorts they're likely to ski in the East to make up for only having 5/7 days at K. I could be wrong, but I've always believed K's largest "audience" was the NYC metro market. For the NYC metro market, the main Ikon options would be K, Stratton, and Windham with Sugarbush being an option for some but also too far for many others. The Boyne resorts rarely enter the picture for NYC metro area skiers. Windham is a mediocre day trip option at best. So that leaves mainly Stratton as the major Ikon destination for the NYC market. I just don't see that many people jumping from a K season pass to Ikon and skiing most of their days at Stratton instead of K.

The Utah/SLC market is very different from what K has to deal with. In the SLC market, you have 21 Ikon partner days at resorts within roughly 30 miles plus an unlimited option in that same range. I can see how for Alta/Snowbird you could potentially replace a stand-alone pass to those resorts with Ikon if you're not somehow tied to Alta or Snowbird. For NYC your closest Ikon option is 130 miles away and your closest unlimited option is over 200 miles away. It just doesn't make that much sense here in our market. This is why I don't believe that simply focusing on somehow generating more revenue from season pass-holders than they would get from Ikon is a viable option for K.

 

[ss20]

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.

 

[cdskier]

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.

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. Right now SB only got about $20/day from me this season. And while some pass-holders like to spend a lot of money on F&B either for lunch or apres, etc, there are also a lot that don't spend much at the mountain.

Don't get me wrong, I still think season passholders should be the "priority" in terms of somehow being rewarded for their loyalty as they provide a reliable up front revenue source for the resorts that fund a lot of off-season maintenance, etc (i.e. maybe give your season pass-holders some additional perks via better discounts on lodging or on-mountain food, etc). I just don't agree that resorts should ignore/avoid partnerships like Ikon and cater exclusively to pass-holders.

 

[Domeskier]

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.

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.

 

[cdskier]

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.

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.

 

[Domeskier]

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.

Oh, I see. Hard to pass up a deal like that.

 

[thetrailboss]

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.

 

[cdskier]

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.

I don't really take it personally. I just think at times you let your dislike of Ikon cloud your judgement about anything Ikon/Alterra related. Your main issue is with POWDR and not really Alterra/Ikon. Don't blame Ikon for decisions made (or problems ignored) by POWDR. As you pointed out, some other partner resorts have made adjustments to their partnership with Ikon. Don't forget that Ikon (and Alterra) is only a few years years old. Adjustments to access levels should be expected as they learn what works and what doesn't and see actual real usage data. That's the right way to do things and shows that Alterra is open to change. Using changes as some sort of proof that the pass has major problems is flawed logic. How many products are ever released as a 1.0 version that are perfect out of the gate?

I really think your comments that pass-holders are unhappy and leaving are blown a bit out of proportion. Or at least they certainly seem to be in the East (I'll give you that your views on the west may be valid, but don't forget that the primary focus of this forum is the northeast). I haven't really heard much from any of the K people I know about being unhappy about Ikon and dropping their K season passes as a result. I also just did a quick search for Ikon on Kzone and didn't see much there. 1 person wished POWDR would create their own pass of only their own resorts instead of partnering with Ikon. Others attributed holidays being not too crowded at K to Ikon blackouts (they were happy about this). Others liked that K was including Ikon in the high-end Beast 365 offering. Granted it was only a quick search, but if a lot of people were unhappy, I would have expected to see some complaints and grumblings there.

Do you have any knowledge that K season passholder expectations aren't being managed well by POWDR? Or are you just using your western experiences and assuming the same thing is happening in the east?

And you're right that only POWDR knows why they delayed the finishing of the lodge further beyond the initial COVID related delays. In light of that though, I think it is a rather large jump to say they could mitigate these problems if they focused on season passholder revenue and ditched the Ikon revenue (as you essentially said a few posts back). If POWDR was really losing as many passholders as you think they are due to Ikon (and if Ikon isn't at least generating enough revenue to replace that), then why would they continue to be part of Ikon? It just doesn't make sense for them to stick with Ikon if they were truly overall generating less revenue as a result of the Ikon partnership than they were prior to Ikon.

 

[skiur]

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.

 

[thetrailboss]

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?

 

[AdironRider]

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.

Passholders are not as big of a deal as you think they are. Places like Snowbird and Jackson do well over a 1-2 million a day in business over holiday periods. So all 10,000 snowbird passholders make up the equivalent of 5ish holiday days of people paying full freight, eating out, buying retail, etc. Passholders rarely buy lessons, even more rare buy retail, maybe have a beer vs a 100 dollar per person lunch etc. Guess who they care about more.

You, the season pass holder, are not special or important when it comes to a ski resort. Plenty think they are, but the reality is much different.

 

[skiur]

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?

Yes

 

[thetrailboss]

Yes

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.