Superpasses: more crowds?

[prsboogie]

Just a general question, what is the early season price of the K pass?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

I don't see any chance that K would become an unlimited Ikon resort.

I agree. The only resorts you'll see become unlimited on Ikon are ones that Alterra outright owns. And I don't see them buying K. Everyone else is a partner with 5/7 days depending on the pass you buy.

 

[skiur]

Just a general question, what is the early season price of the K pass?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app

About $1000

I have been a K passholder for over 15 years with 30+ days a year. My first pass there was in the ASC days with the $350 bronze pass and back then the mountain was a zoo. When powdr bought K and nyburg took over he drove away many and skier visits were way down and pass prices started going way up. It was nice that the mountain wasn't crowded on the weekend, but not much money was put back into the mountain. (no new lifts, shorter season, less snowmaking etc.) After Solimano took over they started going back to what they used to be and crowds started to come back, but even with the ikon pass they last few years it is no where near busy like it was in the early 2000's. I for one have not noticed a major uptick in the last two years with the ikon pass so I dont mind it. If K was a unlimited ikon destination I may feel different.

 

[ss20]

Also a Killington passholder here. Don't say that IKON can't make as much money for the mountain as a season pass. If you look at a per day basis, I'm sure K gets more $$$ per day with Ikon compared to someone who buys an unlimited pass and skis 80+ days at K and is paying less than $10 per day. That said, not too many K passholders skiing 80+ days a year will jump ship to Ikon...totally different markets. With Sugarbush being owned by Alterra and most likely going unlimited Ikon next season tho it's a real possibility some K regulars will go up the road to SB. Cheaper pass, great terrain, and they'll still get 5/7 days at Killington.

Personally I am considering Ikon base+Killington spring pass next season. With that matrix I'd ski roughly 5 days at Stratton, 5-8 days at SB, and still get 20+ days at Killington, mostly in the spring. Also want to get to Sugarloaf. But I'm still not sure if Ikon base is worth those 15-20 ski days.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The problem is everyone thinks the resorts are "lying" about the numbers with Ikon. Of course no one has any proof at all of this other than anecdotal "well it seems busier to me" stories.

Well that's clearly not true. When you have numerous people who've skied the same areas for decades all tell you that in the last few years of EPIC & IKON they're seeing things they've never seen before in terms of crowding regardless of feast or famine snow years, something is up. Pictures of parking lots that never overflow, overflowing are empirical, etc.....

 

[BenedictGomez]

Why is this so far fetched?

It's not at all far-fetched from the consumer standpoint at all, it's the business standpoint that I'm not comfortable with. He claims Killington visits are the SAME pre & post-IKON, it's just that many people are apparently now IKON visitors. How is it possible that that does that not impact the Killington margin negatively?

The other thing I think is odd is allowing & being okay with a 3rd-party competitor to "control" such a huge portion of your revenue in the Killington case (again, if he is to be believed). If I worked there, I would warn, "Alterra aint our friend" and this is an unequal symbiotic relationship at best.

Do Killington (and other resorts) REALLY believe that the day isnt going to come when Alterra & Vail start to "squeeze" them if & when "cooperation" becomes "dependence"? Alterra & Vail hold the data, they are keenly aware just how many days are used at every resort.

 

[cdskier]

Well that's clearly not true. When you have numerous people who've skied the same areas for decades all tell you that in the last few years of EPIC & IKON they're seeing things they've never seen before in terms of crowding regardless of feast or famine snow years, something is up. Pictures of parking lots that never overflow, overflowing are empirical, etc.....

Umm...we're literally only in the SECOND year of Ikon existing. But somehow people have seen the impact for a few years already? With only 1 full year of data, how can you even say we've seen the same thing during feast or famine snow years? Last year was a great snow year nationally. Even MRG saw their visits up 11% last year and they're not on Ikon or Epic!

 

[BenedictGomez]

Umm...we're literally only in the SECOND year of Ikon existing.

EPIC's been around longer & experiences the same ********.

But even with IKON, when it happens at numerous places simultaneously I fail to see why you think we need 4 or 5 or X years of data.

The ****show currently occurring at Jackson Hole that you read about is enough to make me a believer. The late season crowd I saw this year at Deer Valley with my own eyes is enough to make me a believer. A crowded lodge at the base of Magic Mountain filled with Stratton skiers last year (most of who claimed "they dont ski Stratton" or literally told me they're only hitting Stratton due to IKON) is enough to make me a believer. The heretofore unheard of traffic jams in BCC are empirical evidence enough to make me a believer. These are just SOME of the examples which could be listed, not a comprehensive list.

 

[Edd]

I’ve no doubt Epic/Ikon are adding to crowds, but it has been pointed out on here that Bretton Woods and Gunstock, not on these superpasses, ran out of parking on MLK Sunday, the same day other eastern resorts that are on these passes, got overran.

A good friend of mine manages the ski/snowboard department at Kittery Trading Post. They’ve seen noticeable sales increases this year, just mobbed some weekends. He’s thinking people are just generally “getting outside more”.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[EPB]

I’ve no doubt Epic/Ikon are adding to crowds, but it has been pointed out on here that Bretton Woods and Gunstock, not on these superpasses, ran out of parking on MLK Sunday, the same day other eastern resorts that are on these passes, got overran.

A good friend of mine manages the ski/snowboard department at Kittery Trading Post. They’ve seen noticeable sales increases this year, just mobbed some weekends. He’s thinking people are just generally “getting outside more”.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

It's been a long time since the last recession and the economy is running hot. There's no doubt that's playing a role on top of the Epic/IKON effect. Even without superpasses, we should expect high visit numbers.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

The last two posts illustrate a big argument I'm making...that there are a lot more variables at play than simply Epic/Ikon. MRG's numbers were up 11% last year...

And I'll also state that if the Epic/Ikon contribution to crowding is so significant, then there MUST be other resorts that are LESS crowded. Has anyone seen any non-Epic/Ikon resorts that have seen a decrease in crowds as a result of Epic/Ikon pulling so many people to their resorts?

 

[EPB]

And I'll also state that if the Epic/Ikon contribution to crowding is so significant, then there MUST be other resorts that are LESS crowded.

This statement is false when industry wide visits are growing. The Epic/IKON segment of the market could just grow at a faster rate (e.g. the industry grows visits 5%, super pass resorts see 10% growth and non super pass resorts see 2% growth). The super pass resorts that were already crowded could move into unbearably crowded territory without forcing skier visits elsewhere into the negative - on average.

When the upper-middle and upper classes haven't seen layoffs in 12 years and consumer confidence is high, the hypothetical I outlined could very well be happening now. In the long run, skiing is not likely to be a real growth industry, and with flat to slightly growing skier visits industry-wide, I do expect independent places to struggle (i.e. almost all growth in visits could come from super pass resorts).

This season, places with limited snowmaking might see a decline in skier visits. That's probably about it.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

This statement is false when industry wide visits are growing. The Epic/IKON segment of the market could just grow at a faster rate (e.g. the industry grows visits 5%, super pass resorts see 10% growth and non super pass resorts see 2% growth). The super pass resorts that were already crowded could move into unbearably crowded territory without forcing skier visits elsewhere into the negative - on average.

However some people have continually made the argument that NSAA data supports the theory that skier visits remain relatively flat (yes you have up years and down years primarily driven by weather, but overall your trend continues to be pretty flat). I've seen some people here argue that Ikon/Epic make things more crowded AND that skier visits overall are not increasing. So my response was based more on if that argument is correct. (I personally maintain we need to see several years of data over both good and bad snow years to fully understand the impact).

My big issue however is that the people with access to the data say one thing, and others (with no access to the data) say they're wrong. I'm not saying Ikon/Epic add nothing, but I also don't believe they add what some people think they add*. When actual traditional season pass-holder visits are up too, how can you blame more crowds primarily on the "Ikon/Epic effect"?

*What people seem to keep forgetting (or ignoring) is that there are a substantial number of Ikon visits that were from people that were already visiting the resorts pre-Ikon. People have simply shifted how they obtain access to the mountain. (Instead of buying a day ticket or a quad pack or something they're now buying Ikon and still skiing roughly the same number of days at some of the partner resorts). There seem to be some people that somehow think all the Ikon people are brand new to the resort and are "additional" people on the mountain. Are there some people that fall in this category? Absolutely. But it doesn't reflect the majority of the Ikon visits from what we're told (and I have no reason/basis to dispute this claim).

 

[Ski2LiveLive2Ski]

The last two posts illustrate a big argument I'm making...that there are a lot more variables at play than simply Epic/Ikon. MRG's numbers were up 11% last year...

And I'll also state that if the Epic/Ikon contribution to crowding is so significant, then there MUST be other resorts that are LESS crowded. Has anyone seen any non-Epic/Ikon resorts that have seen a decrease in crowds as a result of Epic/Ikon pulling so many people to their resorts?

I don't think other resorts being less crowded is a necessary consequence of Epic/Ikon resorts being more crowded. There is a natural tendency for people with a ski pass to ski more than those who buy lift tickets every day. And this is likely more so for multi-resprt passes - as folks are less likely to get bored skiing the same place, and also have an interest in at least checking out many of the resorts they now have access to on the pass.

I know my girls and I are skiing more this year than ever before on account of now having Epic Local passes

But hard for me to see people skiing more as a negative impact of the passes. If the crowding ever got so bad that it wasn't fun for most skiers, both skier visits and pass purchases would decline.

 

[EPB]

However some people have continually made the argument that NSAA data supports the theory that skier visits remain relatively flat (yes you have up years and down years primarily driven by weather, but overall your trend continues to be pretty flat). I've seen some people here argue that Ikon/Epic make things more crowded AND that skier visits overall are not increasing. So my response was based more on if that argument is correct. (I personally maintain we need to see several years of data over both good and bad snow years to fully understand the impact).

My big issue however is that the people with access to the data say one thing, and others (with no access to the data) say they're wrong. I'm not saying Ikon/Epic add nothing, but I also don't believe they add what some people think they add*. When actual traditional season pass-holder visits are up too, how can you blame more crowds primarily on the "Ikon/Epic effect"?

*What people seem to keep forgetting (or ignoring) is that there are a substantial number of Ikon visits that were from people that were already visiting the resorts pre-Ikon. People have simply shifted how they obtain access to the mountain. (Instead of buying a day ticket or a quad pack or something they're now buying Ikon and still skiing roughly the same number of days at some of the partner resorts). There seem to be some people that somehow think all the Ikon people are brand new to the resort and are "additional" people on the mountain. Are there some people that fall in this category? Absolutely. But it doesn't reflect the majority of the Ikon visits from what we're told (and I have no reason/basis to dispute this claim).

We are definitely in alignment in the long run. I presume you mean Vail/Alterra disclosures vs. visitor perception when you talk about those who know/don't know.

Assuming that's the case, my one caution is that Vail/Alterra has all the incentive in the world to present the data in a way that makes the additional crowding seem minimal. Also, I alluded to this this earlier, but reaching visit levels on busy days near/over a mountain's max capacity is a key issue that certainly needs to be addressed (see parking issues in the cottonwoods and A Basin as two current/recent examples). Base cam footage at Mt Snow tells a similar story in VT, too.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

I don't think other resorts being less crowded is a necessary consequence of Epic/Ikon resorts being more crowded. There is a natural tendency for people with a ski pass to ski more than those who buy lift tickets every day. And this is likely more so for multi-resprt passes - as folks are less likely to get bored skiing the same place, and also have an interest in at least checking out many of the resorts they now have access to on the pass.

I know my girls and I are skiing more this year than ever before on account of now having Epic Local passes

But hard for me to see people skiing more as a negative impact of the passes. If the crowding ever got so bad that it wasn't fun for most skiers, both skier visits and pass purchases would decline.

I agree with much of what you're saying. However the industry keeps telling us skier visits are "flat". You can't have it both ways. Either there's a legitimate increase being seen due to multi-resort passes if even the non-multi-pass resorts aren't seeing a decrease, or if visits really are "flat", then someone, somewhere, is losing visits.

We are definitely in alignment in the long run. I presume you mean Vail/Alterra disclosures vs. visitor perception when you talk about those who know/don't know.

Assuming that's the case, my one caution is that Vail/Alterra has all the incentive in the world to present the data in a way that makes the additional crowding seem minimal. Also, I alluded to this this earlier, but reaching visit levels on busy days near/over a mountain's max capacity is a key issue that certainly needs to be addressed (see parking issues in the cottonwoods and A Basin as two current/recent examples). Base cam footage at Mt Snow tells a similar story in VT, too.

Yes. Although I would also argue that if they were actually lying about the data, at some point they will be caught and it would bite them in the ass. So there's definitely some incentive for them to be telling the truth. Many of the reports were also coming from resorts that were simply partners with Alterra and not owned by them, so there's definitely risk there as well for those resorts to be lying simply to protect Ikon/Alterra.

 

[EPB]

I agree with much of what you're saying. However the industry keeps telling us skier visits are "flat". You can't have it both ways. Either there's a legitimate increase being seen due to multi-resort passes if even the non-multi-pass resorts aren't seeing a decrease, or if visits really are "flat", then someone, somewhere, is losing visits.



Yes. Although I would also argue that if they were actually lying about the data, at some point they will be caught and it would bite them in the ass. So there's definitely some incentive for them to be telling the truth. Many of the reports were also coming from resorts that were simply partners with Alterra and not owned by them, so there's definitely risk there as well for those resorts to be lying simply to protect Ikon/Alterra.

I had a feeling what I said would come off that way. I'm not saying there lying, merely that they're emphasizing ways of looking at the data that put them in a good light and ignoring the ones that are more negative. I remember a data-based defense they made about Aspen. Everything they said could very well be true, but they might have omitted the fact that they had more people on the hill than they ever wanted on MLK weekend, for example.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

I had a feeling what I said would come off that way. I'm not saying there lying, merely that they're emphasizing ways of looking at the data that put them in a good light and ignoring the ones that are more negative. I remember a data-based defense they made about Aspen. Everything they said could very well be true, but they might have omitted the fact that they had more people on the hill than they ever wanted on MLK weekend, for example.

Well, I understood what you said and perhaps didn't elaborate my response enough to fully acknowledge that you weren't implying they were lying. I realize there are ways to present the data differently, but if a resort says "skier visits overall were up x%, season pass-holder visits were up y%, and Ikon only made up z% of overall volume", then that's the part I'm saying they'd need to avoid lying about. Sure, you can have a majority of your Ikon visits all show up on just a few select days (i.e. powder days). And that's something you'd likely leave out. I fully agree there. So of course those are the days people focus on and get "pissed" off about. Of course those are also the same days in the past that people would use up vouchers and pre-paid quad pack type tickets. Short of saying that "powder days are reserved for traditional season pass-holders only", I don't see how you can address a crowding issue on a high demand day. Not really Ikon/Epic's fault.

 

[EPB]

Well, I understood what you said and perhaps didn't elaborate my response enough to fully acknowledge that you weren't implying they were lying. I realize there are ways to present the data differently, but if a resort says "skier visits overall were up x%, season pass-holder visits were up y%, and Ikon only made up z% of overall volume", then that's the part I'm saying they'd need to avoid lying about. Sure, you can have a majority of your Ikon visits all show up on just a few select days (i.e. powder days). And that's something you'd likely leave out. I fully agree there. So of course those are the days people focus on and get "pissed" off about. Of course those are also the same days in the past that people would use up vouchers and pre-paid quad pack type tickets. Short of saying that "powder days are reserved for traditional season pass-holders only", I don't see how you can address a crowding issue on a high demand day. Not really Ikon/Epic's fault.

Totally hear you. It's tough when we're all firing of condensed thoughts on our phones.

The only difference I'd say vs. the four packs is that the super passes give holders a really wide net to cast. This likely exacerbates crowding in UT and CO where they can be more flexible than if they had four packs for a few places when resort X but not Y gets a good weather event.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[drjeff]

I think another thing to consider in this very good debate, is that while there may very well be more people on any given hill on any given day now, are there necessarily any more people who consider themselves skiers/riders in the country right now vs in the past?

That might be one way that the data is being looked at, is that is the sport "growing" in terms of total number of people who consider themselves skiers/riders verses is the sport "growing" in terms of total number of skier/rider visits at a resort and/or across the country per year.

The NSAA and various other organizations involved in the ski business have said that one of their key things that they're targeting now is to grow the total number of skiers/riders in the country.

There's just plenty of ways that one can look at data