Killington Officially Announces Sale of Resort, New Superstar 6 Pack, New Skyeship Cabins, $30 Million of Investments

[thetrailboss]

Glad I got a Valley House one from Sugarbush when they were selling them. $200 seems like a bargain compared to what I've seen a lot of more recent ones going for.

In the last couple of years I have seen most of them out here for $2,000+ apiece. As soon as it is announced that it is an auction style then the costs skyrocket.

 

[xlr8r]

I wonder if they are going to keep the newer Poma Superstar chairs and swap them in for the older Yan chairs on Snowshed Express.

 

[thetrailboss]

I wonder if they are going to keep the newer Poma Superstar chairs and swap them in for the older Yan chairs on Snowshed Express.

Those old Yan Chairs would be cool to have as a yard bench.

 

[deadheadskier]

I don't think the interconnect would ruin Pico, and I would love to see it eventually get built. Especially paired with building proper walkable base villages instead of 1950s-mindset, car-dependent strip malls along the K access road.

From making the New England to California transition, with Palisades (nee Squaw + Alpine Meadows) now my home mountain, I saw it before and after they opened the Base to Base Gondola and properly connected both halves. And I I say this as someone who absolutely loves skiing Alpine Meadows with my partner. It's universally great, mostly locals, not really any Jerries, chill laid back vibes, great terrain. The Olympic Valley side, let's just say I try to avoid it at all costs on weekends during the main part of winter. The most dangerous trail there isn't the 100 foot cliffs back in Silverado, it's Mountain Run. On weekends, the Olympic Valley side has unbearable levels of Jerries. Like Mount Snow bad, especially if it's early season after the first big snowfall.

Almost everyone here thought the B2B Gondi would permanently ruin Alpine. That the unwashed masses from olympic Valley side would ruin Alpine forever. And then the B2B Gondola opened, and drumroll... that didn't happen. On the whole, it seems like weekend lift lines at Alpine slightly decreased everywhere except Treeline. If anything, a lot (but not all) of the teenagers and kids that came with their families, but skiied by themselves, that used schuss the runs at Alpine seem to have disappeared over to "the big mountain", and reverse rode the Gondola to Olympic.

If Killington ever builds a proper interconnect to Pico, I don't know if they would cheap out and do a direct lift like the Palisades 'B2B Gondola or Sugarbush's Slide Brook or Loon's Tote Road Quad. Maybe. But if they built it out with a few lifts and trail pods like the early 2000's trail maps showed, that would add several new lifts, and two ish new trail pods. Each lift and each trail pod can soak up a large number of guests. Crowds would spread out, and most trails/lifts outside of chokepoints would see a reduction in lift lines and skiier/rider density on trails.

Let's also add that if it requires several lift rides, and skiing across several trail pods to get between Pico and Killington, most normie skiiers will likely ski/ride over to Pico, ride a lap or two, realize it's lunch time, eat at the base lodge, then ski back to Killington, ride a few more laps, then call it a day. On the flip side, Pico may see more demand for parking lots for VT/NY crowd, because it's a shorter drive. These people may only aki/ride a single run there, and then use Pico like Skyeship base as a place to start and end your day. as they want to go over and ride more of the terrain at K. Again, a large number of people transiting between K and Pico would be spent in the intermediate pods, and NOT at existing trails/lifts at Killington or Pico, so this would likely have minimal to no negative impact. In fact, it may even allow a village with a lot mroe hotel rooms and condos to open at Killington, and result in shorter lift lines than present.

Also, while I have not skiied outside of the ski area boundaries at Pico, from looking at topo maps, it would seem like Pico Summit down to Pico Pond would make a killer trail pod. ~1800 feet of vertical on a NE exposure, with about 1400 vertical feet of sustained black trail pitch along lift/fall line with blue trail pitch near the norther periphery, with only about 400 vertical feet of blue trail runout above the pond. I'd also love to see Ramshead replaced with a chonky carrier (for increased wind resistance) six pack with a mid unload station at the current top terminal, with the proper top terminal extended to the original summit to reopen the lost terrain there. Similar to Treeline Cirque at Alpine Meadows.

Counter point: The Over Easy Gondola and Spruce Village ruined Stowe; at least on holidays and weekends.

Yes, Mansfield terrain is still arguably the best in the East and skis the same midweek. But I don't know a single long time Stowe skier who wouldn't love to see the toothpaste put back in the tube and return it to what it once was.

I'm 100% against the interconnect with Pico.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Counter point: The Over Easy Gondola and Spruce Village ruined Stowe; at least on holidays and weekends.

Yes, Mansfield terrain is still arguably the best in the East and skis the same midweek. But I don't know a single long time Stowe skier who wouldn't love to see the toothpaste put back in the tube and return it to what it once was.

I'm 100% against the interconnect with Pico.

Not sure that's quite the counterpoint you're suggesting. The OP made a point to note how the interconnect itself would soak up traffic and I find that logic compelling. That is completely different than taking a 2 minute gondola ride across a road and parking lot. Also, there was never any danger of any part of Stowe shuttering. Not sure that's the case with Pico - it's not self-sustaining if the cost of a new lift is more than the mountain is worth.

 

[deadheadskier]

Not sure that's quite the counterpoint you're suggesting. The OP made a point to note how the interconnect itself would soak up traffic and I find that logic compelling. That is completely different than taking a 2 minute gondola ride across a road and parking lot. Also, there was never any danger of any part of Stowe shuttering. Not sure that's the case with Pico - it's not self-sustaining if the cost of a new lift is more than the mountain is worth.

My point was more in reference to his claim that an interconnect and new base village wouldn't change the character of Pico because it didn't at Alpine. The Spruce Village and Over Easy very much changed the character of Stowe and I think the interconnect would also do so at Pico. I bet a huge portion of skiers coming from the Rutland side would now start their day on the Pico side to save 15 minutes on the commute.

And while Stowe wasn't in danger of closing like Pico might be as a stand alone entity, the mountain was hurting. The GM at the time, Hank Lunde (ironically the former Killington GM) sold the idea as necessary to compete. The mountain was losing money and had lost 50% of it's skier visits over the prior two decades. His claim, and it was probably true, was that it was due to superior snowmaking and slope side lodging build up at southern competitors. He told the community that without these "improvements" he'd be forced to cut operations significantly and run more like Smuggs with less snowmaking and a shorter season. He claimed he couldn't get AIG to pay for the expensive snowmaking pipeline and needed the real estate sales to fund it.

It went through and Stowe was changed forever and IMO, not in a good way. People seem to forget that prior to the Spruce development, Stowe was pretty rough around the edges compared to Killington, Okemo, Stratton etc. Yes, there was alway wealthy second homeowners and guests staying at places like Top Notch or Trapps, but it was by no means the most luxurious ski area in the East like today. The vibe and character back then is kinda like how Sugarloaf is today. It was not dominated by the Bogner crowd or anywhere near as busy.

My wish for Pico to remain unchanged is certainly for selfish reasons, not business ones. I prefer ski "areas" to ski "resorts." I liked Stowe much better the way it used to be. Jay would be another. I like Pico just how it is now.

 

[skiur]

Problem with not doing the interconnect is without it pico probably goes the way of the dodo bird.

 

[djd66]

Personally, if I am driving south on 100 (from Sugarbush) to use an Ikon day, I’m definitely not going to Pico,… I’m going to Killington. Are there many people on here that will use their limited Ikon days at Pico vs Killington?

 

[Edd]

Personally, if I am driving south on 100 (from Sugarbush) to use an Ikon day, I’m definitely not going to Pico,… I’m going to Killington. Are there many people on here that will use their limited Ikon days at Pico vs Killington?

I would as a former Ikon pass holder. I swear, when I had that pass, K was on it but Pico wasn’t somehow.

 

[Newpylong]

Problem with not doing the interconnect is without it pico probably goes the way of the dodo bird.

Doubtful as Solimano has gone on record saying it is self sustainable as currently operated (partial week).

 

[doublediamond]

But if Stowe didn't have the former massive Spruce lot or the other associated real estate including what eventually became the snowmaking pond and the golf course... would Stowe have just axed the Spruce side?

Remember at that time Spruce had extremely limited snowmaking, old lifts including one from the 50s, no first timer terrain, and of course its southern exposure.

IMHO if Stowe had a large enough lodge on the Mansfield side, the Spruce side would've been abandoned.

 

[AdironRider]

Good thing we don't have to worry about this because its never going to happen. The sheer cost of buildout in 2024 dollars would be immense, and for what? Killington is already the largest ski area on the East Coast. It gives you no bragging rights, takes a ton of upfront capital to build out, then is a boat anchor of ongoing operational costs.

I read through the trip report where someone did it for shits and giggles and it was very clear to me why they gave up on the project.

 

[xlr8r]

Personally, if I am driving south on 100 (from Sugarbush) to use an Ikon day, I’m definitely not going to Pico,… I’m going to Killington. Are there many people on here that will use their limited Ikon days at Pico vs Killington?

Last year I had Full Ikon and spent 6 days at Killington/Pico. I used 3 days at Pico and 3 days at Killington. When snow is good, Pico is more enjoyable than Killington.

 

[skiur]

Last year I had Full Ikon and spent 6 days at Killington/Pico. I used 3 days at Pico and 3 days at Killington. When snow is good, Pico is more enjoyable than Killington.

On a Saturday I can agree with that, any other day of the week Killington is much more enjoyable.

 

[doublediamond]

I read through the trip report where someone did it for shits and giggles and it was very clear to me why they gave up on the project.

The current work road was just one of the planned trails, kinda like Kansas at Sunday River. You're comparing apples to oranges as there was going to be two pods down into the valley which would've soaked up a lot of skiers. Think like Aurora and Oz.

 

[cdskier]

Personally, if I am driving south on 100 (from Sugarbush) to use an Ikon day, I’m definitely not going to Pico,… I’m going to Killington. Are there many people on here that will use their limited Ikon days at Pico vs Killington?

Yup...count me in that category. One of my best days of the season was at Pico last year. Absolute blast and virtually ski on all day even after substantial natural snowfall that week.

 

[jimmywilson69]

I thought Killington and Pico were on the same ticket. If you use your Ikon at Killington, you can't drive over to Pico and use it on the same day?

 

[skiur]

I thought Killington and Pico were on the same ticket. If you use your Ikon at Killington, you can't drive over to Pico and use it on the same day?

You can.

 

[cdskier]

I thought Killington and Pico were on the same ticket. If you use your Ikon at Killington, you can't drive over to Pico and use it on the same day?

Sure...but there's also more than enough at Pico to keep you busy an entire day. I doubt there are many people that choose to ski both in one day. That's one of the "benefits" people in favor of the interconnect would claim. I still think it would ruin Pico's vibe and see no benefit for anyone that genuinely appreciates Pico for being Pico.

I went back to K a few years go for the first time in a while and left having little desire to go back. On the other hand I went to Pico last year and left saying "I need to get back here far more often". Completely different mountains and I would hate to see them merged.

 

[Tonyr]

I don't think the interconnect would ruin Pico, and I would love to see it eventually get built. Especially paired with building proper walkable base villages instead of 1950s-mindset, car-dependent strip malls along the K access road.

From making the New England to California transition, with Palisades (nee Squaw + Alpine Meadows) now my home mountain, I saw it before and after they opened the Base to Base Gondola and properly connected both halves. And I I say this as someone who absolutely loves skiing Alpine Meadows with my partner. It's universally great, mostly locals, not really any Jerries, chill laid back vibes, great terrain. The Olympic Valley side, let's just say I try to avoid it at all costs on weekends during the main part of winter. The most dangerous trail there isn't the 100 foot cliffs back in Silverado, it's Mountain Run. On weekends, the Olympic Valley side has unbearable levels of Jerries. Like Mount Snow bad, especially if it's early season after the first big snowfall.

Almost everyone here thought the B2B Gondi would permanently ruin Alpine. That the unwashed masses from olympic Valley side would ruin Alpine forever. And then the B2B Gondola opened, and drumroll... that didn't happen. On the whole, it seems like weekend lift lines at Alpine slightly decreased everywhere except Treeline. If anything, a lot (but not all) of the teenagers and kids that came with their families, but skiied by themselves, that used schuss the runs at Alpine seem to have disappeared over to "the big mountain", and reverse rode the Gondola to Olympic.

If Killington ever builds a proper interconnect to Pico, I don't know if they would cheap out and do a direct lift like the Palisades 'B2B Gondola or Sugarbush's Slide Brook or Loon's Tote Road Quad. Maybe. But if they built it out with a few lifts and trail pods like the early 2000's trail maps showed, that would add several new lifts, and two ish new trail pods. Each lift and each trail pod can soak up a large number of guests. Crowds would spread out, and most trails/lifts outside of chokepoints would see a reduction in lift lines and skiier/rider density on trails.

Let's also add that if it requires several lift rides, and skiing across several trail pods to get between Pico and Killington, most normie skiiers will likely ski/ride over to Pico, ride a lap or two, realize it's lunch time, eat at the base lodge, then ski back to Killington, ride a few more laps, then call it a day. On the flip side, Pico may see more demand for parking lots for VT/NY crowd, because it's a shorter drive. These people may only aki/ride a single run there, and then use Pico like Skyeship base as a place to start and end your day. as they want to go over and ride more of the terrain at K. Again, a large number of people transiting between K and Pico would be spent in the intermediate pods, and NOT at existing trails/lifts at Killington or Pico, so this would likely have minimal to no negative impact. In fact, it may even allow a village with a lot mroe hotel rooms and condos to open at Killington, and result in shorter lift lines than present.

Also, while I have not skiied outside of the ski area boundaries at Pico, from looking at topo maps, it would seem like Pico Summit down to Pico Pond would make a killer trail pod. ~1800 feet of vertical on a NE exposure, with about 1400 vertical feet of sustained black trail pitch along lift/fall line with blue trail pitch near the norther periphery, with only about 400 vertical feet of blue trail runout above the pond. I'd also love to see Ramshead replaced with a chonky carrier (for increased wind resistance) six pack with a mid unload station at the current top terminal, with the proper top terminal extended to the original summit to reopen the lost terrain there. Similar to Treeline Cirque at Alpine Meadows.

Well, it also helps that the new interconnect Gondola at Palasides is not very reliable. Any time there is wind they shut it down. I was there last year in the spring for 4 days and the Gondola didn't run once. The locals were making fun of its unreliability as well as it's ridiculous cost.